New “autonomy initiatives” aim to increase schools’ decision-making authority as a strategy to leverage school improvement. These policies build on lessons of previous reforms such as site-based management in ways that bode well for their success. However, how are these policies actually faring in implementation? The authors addressed that question with a comprehensive research review. Findings reveal that these reforms are posting better results than previous efforts but, overall, results are still quite limited. The autonomy provisions of the policies generally go unimplemented. Accordingly, improved results for participating schools may stem from supports for implementation other than the promised autonomy.
AbdulkadirogluA.AngristJ.CohodesS.DynarskiS.FullertonJ.KaneT.PathakP. (2009). Informing the debate: Comparing Boston’s charter, pilot, and traditional schools. Boston, MA: The Boston Foundation.
2.
ArterburyE.HordS. (1991). Site-based decision-making: Its potential for enhancing learner outcomes. Austin, TX: Southeastern Educational Development Laboratory.
3.
BriggsK.WohlstetterP. (2003). Key elements of a successful school-based management strategy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14, 351-372.
4.
CelioM.HarveyJ. (2005). Buried treasure: Developing a management guide from mountains of school data. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
5.
Center for Collaborative Education. (2001). How Boston pilot schools use freedom over budget, staffing, and scheduling to meet student needs. Boston, MA: Author.
6.
Center for Collaborative Education. (2004). How are Boston pilot schools faring? An analysis of student demographics, engagement, and performance. Boston, MA: Author.
7.
Center for Collaborative Education. (2006a). Progress and promise: Results from the Boston pilot schools. Boston, MA: Author.
8.
Center for Collaborative Education. (2006b). The essential guide to pilot schools: Overview. Boston, MA: Author.
9.
Center for Collaborative Education. (2007). Strong results, high demand: A four-year study of Boston’s pilot high schools. Boston, MA: Author.
10.
ChambersJ.ShambaughL.LevinJ.MurakiM.PolandL. (2008). A tale of two districts: A comparative study of student-based funding and school-based decision making in San Francisco and Oakland Unified School Districts. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
11.
CluneW.WhiteP. (1988). School-based management: Institutional variation, implementation, and issues for further research. Washington, DC: Center for Policy Research in Education.
Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform. (2002). Comparing Oakland Unified School District new small autonomous schools to traditional schools. Oakland, CA: Mills College.
14.
DavidJ. (1989). Synthesis of research on school-based management. Educational Leadership, 46(8), 45-53.
15.
DurantS. (2004). Goldman II: An analysis of the Oakland Unified School District’s new small autonomous schools, a summary of school year 2002-2003. Oakland, CA: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
16.
DurantS.EngL.NaughtonS. (2003). Comparing new small autonomous schools to traditional schools in the Oakland Unified School District. Oakland, CA: Mills College.
17.
FirestoneW.ShippsD. (2005). How do educational leaders interpret the multiple accountabilities they face? In FirestoneW.RiehlC. (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 81-100). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
18.
FoleyE.KlingeA.ReisnerE. (2007). Evaluation of New Century High Schools: Profile of an initiative to create and sustain small, successful high schools. New York, NY: Policy Studies Associates.
19.
FoleyE.MishookJ.ThompsonJ.KubiakM.SupovitzJ.Rhude-FaustM. (2010). Beyond test scores: Leading indicators for education. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
20.
FuhrmanS.ElmoreR. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82-96.
21.
GoldE.SimonE.BrownC. (2002). Strong neighborhoods, strong schools: The indicators project on education organizing. Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
HamiltonL.StecherB.MarshJ.McCombsJ.RobynA.RussellJ.. . . BarneyH. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
24.
HillP.BonanJ. (1992). Decentralization and accountability in public education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
25.
HonigM. (2002). Oakland’s site-based decision-making & new small autonomous schools: An examination of schools’ progress and central office participation (2001-2002). College Park, MD: Center for Education Policy and Leadership.
26.
HonigM. (2003). The view from the edge: Oakland’s progress in the implementation of site-based decision-making and new small autonomous schools (2002-2003). College Park, MD: Center for Education Policy and Leadership.
27.
HonigM. I. (2009a). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of new small autonomous schools initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 387-422.
28.
HonigM. I. (2009b). The “autonomy” in new small autonomous schools initiatives: Promises and pitfalls for school district central office administrators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
29.
HonigM.LortonJ.CoplandM. (2009). Urban district central office transformation for teaching and learning improvement: Beyond a zero-sum game. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 108, 21-40.
30.
JohnsonS.LandmanJ. (2000). “Sometimes bureaucracy has its charms”: The working conditions of teachers in deregulated schools. Teachers College Record, 102(1), 85-124.
31.
KahneJ.SporteS.EastonJ. (2005). Creating small schools in Chicago: An early look at implementation and impact. Improving School, 8(7), 7-22.
32.
KahneJ.SporteS.de la TorreM. (with EastonJ.). (2006). Small high schools on a larger scale: The first three years of the Chicago High School redesign initiative. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
33.
LeithwoodK.MenziesT. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A review. Educational Policy, 12, 325-346.
34.
LittleJ.WingJ. (2003). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the Oakland Unified School District’s new small autonomous schools (NSAS) policy (2000-2003). Oakland, CA: NSAS Partnership.
35.
LouisK.FebeyK.SchroederR. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers’ interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 177-204.
36.
MalenB.OgawaR.KranzJ. (1990a). Site-based management: Unfulfilled promises. The School Administrator, 47(2), 30-59.
37.
MalenB.OgawaR.KranzJ. (1990b). What do we know about school-based management? A case study of the literature—A call for research. In CluneW.WitteJ. (Eds.), Choice and control in American education Volume II (pp. 289-342). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
38.
MarksH.NanceJ. (2007). Contexts of accountability under systemic reform: Implications for principal influence on instruction and supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 3-37.
39.
McLaughlinM.ScottW. R.DeschenesS.HopkinsK.NewmanA. (2009). Between movement and establishment: Organizations advocating for youth. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
40.
MedirattaK.ShahS.McAlisterS. (2008). Organized communities, stronger schools: A preview of research findings. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
41.
MurphyJ.BeckL. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Taking stock. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
42.
New Visions for Public Schools. (2007). Reforming high schools: Lessons from the New Century High Schools initiative. New York, NY: Author.
43.
OgawaR.WhiteP. (1994). School-based management: An overview. In MohrmanS. A.WohlstetterP. (Eds.), School-based management: Organizing for high performance (pp. 53-80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
44.
Oakland Unified School District. (2000). New small autonomous schools district policy. Oakland, CA: Author.
45.
PetersonD. (1991). School-based management and student performance. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
46.
Policy Studies Associates. (2006). New Century High Schools: Evaluation findings from the third year. New York, NY: Author.
47.
RaywidM.SchmerlerG.PhillipsS.SmithG. (2003). Not so easy going: The policy environments of small urban schools and schools-within-schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
48.
ReisnerE.RubensteinM.JohnsonM.FabianoL. (2003). Evaluation of the New Century High Schools initiative: Report on program implementation in the first year. New York, NY: Policy Studies Associates.
49.
RubensteinM.ReisnerE.CoonM.FabianoL. (2005). New Century High Schools: Evaluation findings from the second year. New York, NY: Policy Studies Associates.
50.
ShearL.MeansB.MitchellK.HouseA.GorgesT.JoshiA.. . . ShkolnikJ. (2008). Contrasting paths to small-school reform: Results of a five-year evaluation of The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s National High School initiative. Teachers College Record, 110, 1986-2039.
51.
SiegelD.FruchterN. (2002). Final report: Evaluation of the performance driven budgeting initiative of the New York City Board of Education (1997-2000). New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy, Steinhardt School of Education, New York University.
52.
SiegelD.ZurerE.FruchterN. (2000). Second annual report: Evaluation of the performance driven budgeting initiative. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy, Steinhardt School of Education, New York University.
53.
SmeardonB.MeansB.BuschM.Castillo-PageB.DuongN.ElleryS.. . . ZaidiA. (2003). High time for high school reform: Early findings from the evaluation of the national school district and network grants program. Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
54.
SmeardonB.MeansB.BuschM.Castillo-PageB.DuongN.ElleryS.. . . ZaidiA. (2004). The national school district and network grants program: Year two evaluation report. Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
55.
SporteS.CorreaM.KahneJ.EastonJ. (2003). Chicago High School redesign initiative: A snapshot of the first year of implementation. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
56.
SporteS.KahneJ.CorreaM. (2004). Notes from the ground: Teachers, principals, and students’ perspectives on the Chicago High School redesign initiative, Year two. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
57.
SporteS.de la TorreM. (2010). Chicago High School redesign initiative: Schools, students, outcomes. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
58.
StevensW. D. (2008). If small is not enough: The characteristics of successful small high schools in Chicago. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
59.
StevensW. D.KahneJ. (2006). Professional communities and instructional improvement practices: A study of small high schools in Chicago. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
60.
StevensW. D.SporteS.StoelingaS. R.BolzA. (2008). Lessons from high performing small high schools in Chicago. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
61.
StiefelL.SchwartzA.PortasC.KimD. (2003). School budgeting and school performance: The impact of New York City’s performance driven budgeting initiative. Journal of Education Finance, 28, 403-424.
62.
Strategic Measurement. (2007). An evaluation of the Oakland new small school initiative. Oakland, CA: Oakland Unified School District.
63.
TherriaultS. B.GandhiA. G.CasasantoJ.CarneyS. (2010). Out of the debate and into the schools: Comparing practices and strategies in traditional, pilot, and charter schools in the city of Boston. Boston, MA: The Boston Foundation.
64.
TungR.OuimetteM. (2007). Promising results and lessons from the first Boston district school converting to pilot status. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Researcher Association, Chicago, IL.
65.
United States Department of Education. (1998). Waivers: Flexibility to achieve high standards. Washington, DC: Author.
66.
VasudevaA.Darling-HammondL.NewtonS.MontgomeryK. (2009). Oakland Unified School District new small schools initiative evaluation. Stanford, CA: School Redesign Network at Stanford University.
WohlstetterP.SmyerR.MohrmanS. (1994). New boundaries for school-based management: The high involvement model. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 168-286.
