The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 2009 funds were established by the Obama administration to stabilize the U.S. economy and support public education. This case examines how the district leadership in one rural unified school district in California decided to allocate the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds and Title I Part A/ARRA funds provided within ARRA. The case explores how local school board politics and local bureaucracies contribute to the district leadership’s allocation of these funds.
AlsburyT. (2008a). Hitting a moving target: How politics determines the changing roles of superintendents and school boards. In CooperB.CibulkaJ.FusarelliL. (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
AlsburyT. (2008b). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7, 202-229.
3.
BriffaultR. (2005). The local school district in American law. In HowellW. G. (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 24-55). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
CallanM. F.LevinsonW. (2011). Achieving success for new and aspiring superintendents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
6.
DanzbergerJ. P.UsdanM. D. (1994). Local education governance: Perspectives on problems and strategies for change. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), Article 366.
7.
FrenchP.PeevelyG.StanleyR. (2008). Measuring perceived school board effectiveness in Tennessee: The latest survey results. International Journal of Public Administration, 31, 211-243.
8.
GoddardR. D.SalloumS. J.BerebitskyD. (2009). Trust as a mediator of the relationships between poverty, racial composition, and academic achievement: Evidence from Michigan’s public elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 292-311.
9.
GoodmanR. H.ZimmermanW. G. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for 21st century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
10.
GrossB.BookerK. T.GoldhaberD. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 111-126.
11.
HendricksS. (2013). Evaluating the superintendent: The role of the school board. Education Leadership Review, 14(3), 62-72.
12.
HessF. (2004). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
13.
HowellW. G. (2005). Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
14.
JacksonC. K.JohnsonR. C.PersicoC. (2016). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131, 157-218.
15.
Jimenez-CastellanosO.OkhremchouckI. (2013). Entitlement Funding for English Language Learners in California: An Intra-District Case Study. Educational Considerations, 40(2), 27-33.
16.
Jimenez-CastellanosO.RodriguezJ.L. (2009). Resource reallocation for low-income Latino English learners: A multiple comparative case study approach. Bilingual Research Journal, 32, 298-316. doi:10.1080/15235880903372886
17.
KirstM. W.BulkleyK. E. (2001, April). Mayoral takeover: The different directions taken in different cities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED454340.pdf
18.
KowalskiT. J. (2013). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
KrugmanP. (2009). The return of depression economics and the crisis of 2008. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
20.
LeeD. E.EadensD. W. (2014). The problem: Low-achieving districts and low-performing boards. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 9(3), 2-16. Available from www.ijepl.org
NewtonP.SackneyL. (2005). Group knowledge and group knowledge processes in school board decision-making. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 434-457.
23.
OddenA.ArchibaldS. (2001). Reallocating resources: How to boost student achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
24.
OkhremtchoukI. S. (2011). Disjointed continuity: Classification practices for language minority students and implications: a case study [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Davis.
25.
OkhremtchoukI. S. (2017). The politics of schools and money: Building awareness about channeling practices for supplemental resource allocations to serve English language learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(17). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2819.
26.
StoverD. (2009). Out of control: A school board’s self-destructive path to failure offers others some valuable lessons. American School Board Journal, 196(3), 14-18.
27.
TallericoM. (1991). School board member development: Implications for policy and practice. Planning and Changing, 22(2), 94-107.
Vasquez-HeiligJ.WardD. R.WeismanE.ColeH. (2014). Community-based school finance and accountability: A new era for local control in education policy?Urban Education, 49, 871-894.
30.
WongK.ShenF. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of city and state takeover as a school reform strategy. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 89-119.
