When school districts move more administrators down to school campuses, do they get better at reducing the income-based achievement gap? Data from Texas public school districts between 1994 and 2010 show that such managerial decentralization is positively associated with income-based achievement gap, explained by the tendency of elite capture in heavily decentralized systems. Furthermore, this primary relationship was moderated positively by the level of school district revenue generated locally and moderated negatively by enrollment. Generally beneficial among larger student bodies, more decentralized management, especially in districts with a greater ability to generate their own revenue, made the achievement gap worse.
BaileyS.BurbidgeL.CampbellP. B.JacksonB.MarxF.McIntoshP. (1992). The AAUW report: How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.
3.
BakerB. D.CorcoranS. P. (2012). The stealth inequities of school funding: How state and local school finance systems perpetuate inequitable student spending. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
4.
BardhanP.MookherjeeD. (2005). Decentralizing antipoverty program delivery in developing countries. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 675-704.
5.
BehrmanJ. R.KingE. M. (2001). Household schooling behaviors and decentralization. Economics of Education Review, 20, 321-341.
6.
BermanP. (1981). From compliance to learning: Implementing legally-induced reform. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, School of Education, Stanford University.
7.
BernierL.HafsiT. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 67, 488-503.
8.
BesleyT.CoateS. (2003). Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: A political economy approach. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2611-2637.
9.
BolleyerN.ThorlaksonL. (2012). Beyond decentralization—The comparative study of interdependence in federal systems. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 42, 566-591.
10.
BorinsS. (2000). Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers. Public Administration Review, 60, 498-507.
11.
BrewerD. J. (1996). Does more school district administration lower educational productivity? Some evidence on the “administrative blob” in New York public schools. Economics of Education Review, 15, 111-124.
12.
BridgesE. M. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state of the art, 1967-1980. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12-33.
13.
BrimleyV.Jr.GarfieldR. R. (2005). Education: A state function. In BrimleyV.VerstegenD. A.GarfieldR. R. (Eds.), Financing education in a climate of change (pp. 171-209). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.
14.
BrunnerE. J.SonstelieJ. (2006, April). California’s school finance reform: An experiment in fiscal federalism (Economics Working Papers: 200609). Retrieved from https://opencommons.uconn.edu/econ_wpapers/200609/
15.
BrykA. S.HessG. A.MirelJ.WongK. (1999). Policy lessons from Chicago’s experience with decentralization. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2, 67-127.
16.
CardD.PayneA. A. (2002). School finance reform, the distribution of school spending, and the distribution of student test scores. Journal of Public Economics, 83, 49-82.
17.
CaweltiG. (2001). Six districts, one goal of excellence. Journal of Staff Development, 22(4), 30-35.
18.
ColemanJ. S.CampbellE. Q.HobsonC. J.McPartlandJ.MoodA. M.WeinfeldF. D.YorkL. R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
DrukkerD. M. (2003). Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 3, 168-177.
24.
ElmoreR. F. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 96-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
EzcurraR.PascualP. (2008). Fiscal decentralization and regional disparities: Evidence from several European Union countries. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1185-1201.
27.
FaguetJ.-P. (2004). Does decentralization increase government responsiveness to local needs? Evidence from Bolivia. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 867-893.
28.
FerrisJ. M. (1992). School-based decision making: A principal-agent perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 333-346.
29.
FiskeE. B.LaddH. F. (2000). When schools compete: A cautionary tale. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
30.
FlorianJ.HangeJ.CopelandG. (2000, April). The phantom mandate: District capacity for reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
31.
GalianiS.GertlerP.SchargrodskyE. (2008). School decentralization: Helping the good get better, but leaving the poor behind. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 2106-2120.
32.
GalianiS.SchargrodskyE.HanushekE. A.TommasiM. (2002). Evaluating the impact of school decentralization on educational quality [with comments]. Economia, 2, 275-314.
33.
GardaR. A.Jr.DotyD. S. (2013). The legal impact of emerging governance models on public education and its office holders. The Urban Lawyer, 45, 21-50.
34.
GershbergA. I. (1993). Fiscal decentralization, intergovernmental relations, and education finance: Welfare and efficiency considerations in educational expenditures and outcomes in Mexico. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI9413835/
35.
Ghosh MoulickA.TaylorL. L. (2017). Fiscal slack, budget shocks, and performance in public organizations: evidence from public schools. Public Management Review, 19(7), 990-1005.
36.
GrantG. (2009). Hope and despair in the American city: Why there are no bad schools in Raleigh. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
GrissmerD.FlanaganA.WilliamsonS. (1998). Why did the Black-White score gap narrow in the 1970s and 1980s. In JencksC.PhillipsM. (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 182-228). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
38.
GrosskopfS.MoutrayC. (2001). Evaluating performance in Chicago public high schools in the wake of decentralization. Economics of Education Review, 20, 1-14.
39.
HalesC. (1999). Leading horses to water? The impact of decentralization on managerial behaviour. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 831-851.
40.
HannawayJ. (1996). Management decentralization and performance-based incentives: Theoretical consideration for schools. In Improving America’s schools: The role of incentives. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/read/5143/chapter/7
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G. (2009). Harming the best: How schools affect the Black-White achievement gap. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28, 366-393.
47.
HarrisD. (2009). Educational outcomes of disadvantaged students: From desegregation to accountability. In LaddH.FiskeE. (Eds.), AEFA handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 551-572). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48.
HayekF. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35, 519-530.
49.
HedgesL. V.NowellA. (1998). Black-White test score convergence since 1965. In JencksC.PhillipsM. (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 149-181). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
50.
JencksC. (1992). Rethinking social policy: Race, poverty, and the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
JencksC.PhillipsM. (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
52.
JeynesW. (2015). A meta-analysis on the factors that best reduce the achievement gap. Education and Urban Society, 47, 523-554.
53.
JimenezE.SawadaY. (1999). Do community-managed schools work? An evaluation of El Salvador’s EDUCO program. The World Bank Economic Review, 13, 415-441.
54.
JohnsonR.TannerS. (2018). Money and freedom: The impact of California’s school finance reform on academic achievement and the composition of district spending (Getting Down to Facts II). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
55.
KahlenbergR. D. (2003). All together now: Creating middle-class schools through public school choice. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
56.
KahlenbergR. D. (2007). Rescuing Brown v. Board of Education: Profiles of twelve school districts pursuing socioeconomic school integration: A report. New York, NY: Century Foundation.
57.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Under-standing achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
58.
LeeJ. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity?Educational Researcher, 31, 3-12.
59.
LeithwoodK. (2010). Characteristics of school districts that are exceptionally effective in closing the achievement gap. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 245-291.
LumpkinG. T.DessG. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21, 135-172.
MarshJ. A. (2000). Connecting districts to the policy dialogue: A review of literature on the relationship of districts with states, schools. Seattle, WA: Center for the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
66.
MassellD. (2000). The district role in building capacity: Four roles (CPRE Policy Brief, RB-32-September). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
67.
MatsudairaJ. D.HosekA.WalshE. (2012). An integrated assessment of the effects of title I on school behavior, resources, and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 31(3), 1-14.
68.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J. (2011). Comparing public and private management: Theoretical expectations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 3), i283-i299.
69.
MilesK. H.RozaM. (2006). Understanding student-weighted allocation as a means to greater school resource equity. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(3), 39-62.
70.
MohrL. B. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science Review, 63, 111-126.
71.
OakesJ. (1987). Improving inner-city schools: Current directions in urban district reform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
72.
OatesW. E. (1972). Fiscal federalism. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
73.
OatesW. E. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 1120-1149.
74.
O’DayJ. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 293-329.
75.
OgbuJ. (1994). Racial stratification and education in the United States: Why inequality persists. Teachers College Record, 96, 264-298.
76.
O’TooleL. J.Jr.MeierK. J. (2010). In defense of bureaucracy: Public managerial capacity, slack and the dampening of environmental shocks. Public Management Review, 12, 341-361.
77.
OuchiW. G. (2006). Power to the principals: Decentralization in three large school districts. Organization Science, 17, 298-307.
78.
OuchiW. G.SegalL. (2003). Making schools work: A revolutionary plan to get your children the education they need. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
79.
PayneC.KnowlesT. (2009). Promise and peril: Charter schools, urban school reform, and the Obama administration. Harvard Educational Review, 79, 227-239.
80.
PetersonP. E. (1995). The price of federalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
81.
PoseyL. (2012). Middle-and upper-middle-class parent action for urban public schools: Promise or paradox?Teachers College Record, 114, 1-43.
82.
Prud’hommeR. (1995). The dangers of decentralization. The World Bank Research Observer, 10, 201-220.
83.
QianY.WeingastB. R. (1997). Federalism as a commitment to preserving market incentives. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(4), 83-92.
84.
RivkinS. G.HanushekE. A.KainJ. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417-458.
85.
RorrerA. K.SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 307-357.
86.
SarasonS. B. (1995). Parental involvement and the political principle: Why the existing governance structure of schools should be abolished. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED383074
SepulvedaC. F.Martinez-VazquezJ. (2010). The consequences of fiscal decentralization on poverty and income equality. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29, 321-343.
89.
SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J. (2001). Displacing deficit thinking in school district leadership. Education and Urban Society, 33, 235-259.
90.
SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J.JohnsonJ. F.KoschoreckJ. W. (2000). Equity-driven achievement-focused school districts. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center.
91.
SmithK.PetersenJ. L. (2006). What is educational entrepreneurship. In HessF. M. (Ed.), Educational entrepreneurship: Realities, challenges, possibilities (pp. 21-44). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
SmithM. S.O’DayJ. (1991). The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the politics of education association (FuhrmanS.MalenB., Eds.). London, England: Falmer Press.
TieboutC. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.
96.
TsuiA. S.EnderleG.JiangK. (2018). Income inequality in the United States: Reflections on the role of corporations. The Academy of Management Review, 43, 156-168.
U.S. Department of Education (2007). The Condition of Education 2007 (National Center for Education Statistics 2007-064). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
99.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Digest of education statistics, 2009. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
100.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). For each and every child: A strategy for education equity and excellence. Washington, DC: Author.
101.
Van LangenA.DekkersH. (2001). Decentralisation and combating educational exclusion. Comparative Education, 37, 367-384.
102.
WalbergH. J.PaikS. J.KomukaiA.FreemanK. (2000). Decentralization: An international perspective. Educational Horizons, 78, 153-164.
103.
WallisJ. J.OatesW. E. (1988). Decentralization in the public sector: An empirical study of state and local government. In RosenH. S. (Ed.), Fiscal federalism: Quantitative studies (pp. 5-32). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
104.
WenglinskyH. (1997). When money matters: How educational expenditures improve student performance and how they don’t: A policy information perspective. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED412271
105.
WilliamsJ. (2006). Entrepreneurs within school districts. In HessF. M. (Ed.), Educational entrepreneurship: Realities, challenges, possibilities (pp. 125-144). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
