New Orleans schools experienced drastic reforms after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. To examine teachers’ perspectives on these reforms, we surveyed 323 teachers who taught in New Orleans public schools before 2005 and in 2013–2014. Teachers directly compared the learning and work environments and student and teacher outcomes of their current schools to those of their pre-Katrina schools. Returning teachers perceived significant and generally positive changes in learning environments and student outcomes but mixed positive and negative changes in work environments. Despite improvements in school environments, the net result is that teachers became less satisfied with their jobs. These results show that intensive, sustained school reform can lead to significant changes, but these changes can have negative impacts on teachers.
AbramsL.PedullaJ.MadausG. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers’ opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 18–29.
2.
AngristJ. D.DynarskiS. M.KaneT. J.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2012). Who benefits from KIPP?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(4), 837–860.
3.
AngristJ. D.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2013). Explaining charter school effectiveness. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 1–27.
4.
Arce-TrigattiP.HarrisD. N.JabbarH.LincoveJ. A. (2015). Many options in New Orleans choice system. Education Next, 15(4).
5.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258–267.
6.
BarrettN.FullerS. C. (2015). Does the loss of tenure influence teacher attrition?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Education Finance and Policy, Washington, DC.
7.
BarrettN.HarrisD. (2015). Significant changes in the New Orleans teacher workforce. New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans, Tulane University.
8.
BerendsM. (2015). Sociology and school choice: What we know after two decades of charter schools. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 159–180.
9.
BerryB.SmylieM.FullerE. (2008). Understanding teacher working conditions: A review and look to the future (Report prepared for the Spencer Foundation). Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching Quality.
10.
BifulcoR.LaddH. F. (2006). The impacts of charter schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. Education, 1(1), 50–90.
11.
BomottiS.GinsbergR.CobbB. (1999). Teachers in charter and traditional schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7, 22.
12.
BormanG. D.SlavinR. E.CheungA. C.ChamberlainA. M.MaddenN. A.ChambersB. (2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success for All. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 701–731.
13.
BrossW.HarrisD. (2016). How (and how well) do charter authorizers choose schools? Evidence from the Recovery School District in New Orleans. New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans, Tulane University.
14.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
BuergerC.HarrisD. N. (2017). How did the New Orleans school reforms influence school spending?New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans, Tulane University.
16.
CarnoyM.LoebS. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305–331.
17.
ChiangH. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93(9), 1045–1057.
18.
ChingosM. M. (2012). The impact of a universal class-size reduction policy: Evidence from Florida’s statewide mandate. Economics of Education Review, 31(5), 543–562.
19.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2011). Teacher mobility, school segregation, and pay-based policies to level the playing field. Education Finance and Policy, 6(3), 399–438.
Cowen Institute. (2007). The state of public education in New Orleans. New Orleans, LA: Author.
22.
DeeT. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (No. w17990). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
23.
DeeT. S.JacobB. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446.
24.
FulbeckE. S. (2014). Teacher mobility and financial incentives: A descriptive analysis of Denver’s ProComp. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(1), 67–82.
25.
DiamondJ. B.HarrisD. M. (2012). Accountability policy, school organization, and classroom practice. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 151–182.
DobbieW.FryerR. G.Jr. (2011). Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement among the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone. American Economic Journal, 3(3). 158–187.
28.
DobbieW.FryerR. G.Jr. (2013). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools: Evidence from New York City. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 28–60.
29.
DragosetL.ThomasJ.HerrmannM.DekeJ.James-BurdumyS.GraczewskiC.. . . GiffinJ. (2017). School Improvement Grants: Implementation and effectiveness (NCEE 2017-4013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
30.
EdmondsR. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24.
31.
GleasonP.ClarkM.TuttleC. C.DwoyerE. (2010). The evaluation of charter school impacts: Final report (NCEE 2010-4029). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
32.
GoldringE.CravensX. (2007). Teachers’ academic focus on learning in charter and non-charter schools. Charter school outcomes. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
33.
GrossB.BookerK. T.GoldhaberD. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(2), 111–126.
34.
HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.MarshJ. A.McCombsJ. S.RobynA. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
35.
HanushekE. A.RaymondM. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327.
36.
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G. (2007). Pay, working conditions, and teacher quality. The Future of Children, 17(1), 69–86.
37.
HarrisD.LarsenM. (2016). The effect of the New Orleans post-Katrina school reforms on student outcomes. New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans, Tulane University.
38.
HeisselJ. A.LaddH. F. (2016). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis (Working Paper, 156). Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data.
39.
HessF. M. (2010). The same thing over and over. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
HessF. M.LoupC. (2008). The leadership limbo: Teacher labor agreements in America’s fifty largest school districts. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
41.
HillP.PierceL. C.GuthrieJ. W. (2009). Reinventing public education: How contracting can transform America’s schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42.
HonigM. I.HatchT. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.
43.
HoxbyC. M.MurarkaS.KangJ. (2009). How New York City’s charter schools affect achievement. Cambridge, MA: New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project.
44.
IngersollR. M.SmithT. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30–33.
45.
JabbarH. (2016). Between structure and agency: Contextualizing school leaders’ strategic responses to market pressures. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 399–431.
46.
JohnsonL. S. (2011). Targeted comprehensive induction for urban educators: An exploration of teacher motivation and retention. The New Educator, 7(2), 131–152.
47.
JohnsonS. M. (2006). The workplace matters: Teacher quality, retention and effectiveness. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
48.
JohnsonS. M.BirkelandS. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 581–617.
49.
KlineP. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.
50.
LaddH. F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions how predictive of planned and actual teacher movement?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 235–261.
51.
LaddH. F. (2017). No Child Left Behind: A deeply flawed federal policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36, 461–469.
52.
LincoveJ. A.BarrettN.StrunkK. O. (2018). Lessons from Hurricane Katrina: The employment effects of the mass dismissal of New Orleans teachers. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 191–203.
53.
LoebS.Darling-HammondL.LuczakJ. (2005). Teacher turnover: The role of working conditions and salaries in recruiting and retaining teachers. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44–70.
54.
LortieD. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55.
MalloyC. L.WohlstetterP. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools: What’s the appeal for teachers?Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 219–241.
NiY. (2012). Teacher working conditions in charter schools and traditional public schools: A comparative study. Teachers College Record, 114(3).
58.
PapayJ. (2015). The effects of school turnaround strategies in Massachusetts. Paper presented at the Conference of the Association of Public Policy and Management, Miami, FL.
59.
PayneC. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
60.
PearsonR. W.RossM.DawesR. M. (1992). Personal recall and the limits of retrospective questions in surveys. In TanurJ. M. (Ed.), Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 65–94). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
61.
PerryA.HarrisD.BuergerC.MackV. (2015). The transformation of New Orleans Public Schools: Addressing system-level problems without a system. New Orleans, LA: The Data Center.
62.
PrattC. C.McGuiganW. M.KatzevA. R. (2000). Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospective pretest methodology. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(3), 341–349.
63.
RebarberT.ZgainerA. C. (2014). Survey of America’s charter schools. Washington, DC: Center for Education Reform.
64.
RothsteinJ. (2015). Teacher quality policy when supply matters. American Economic Review, 105(1), 100–130.
65.
RouseC. E.HannawayJ.GoldhaberD.FiglioD. (2013). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), 251–281.
66.
SlavinR.MaddenN. A. (2001). One million children: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
67.
StrunkK. O.BarrettN.LincoveJ. A. (2016). When tenure ends: The short-run effects of the elimination of Louisiana’s teacher employment protections on teacher exit and retirement. New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans, Tulane University.
68.
SunM.PennerE. K.LoebS. (2017). Resource- and approach-driven multidimensional change: Three-year effects of School Improvement Grants. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 607–643.
TorresA. C. (2016). Is this work sustainable? Teacher turnover and perceptions of workload in charter management organizations. Urban Education, 51(8), 891–914.
71.
TorresA. C.OluwoleJ. (2015). Teacher satisfaction and turnover in charter schools: Examining the variations and possibilities for collective bargaining in state laws. Journal of School Choice, 9(4), 503–528.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Evaluation of the comprehensive school reform program implementation and outcomes: Fifth-year report. Washington DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.
74.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2015). Higher Education Act Title II reporting system. Washington, DC: Author.
75.
Van der KlaauwW. (2008). Breaking the link between poverty and low student achievement: An evaluation of Title I. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 731–756.
76.
WeiX.PatelD.YoungV. M. (2014). Opening the “black box”: Organizational differences between charter schools and traditional public schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(3).
77.
WilsonS. M. (2008). California dreaming: Reforming mathematics education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
78.
WongK.MeyerS. (1998). Title I schoolwide programs: A synthesis of findings from recent evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 115–136.
79.
ZimmerR.HenryG. T.KhoA. (2017). The effects of school turnaround in Tennessee’s achievement school district and innovation zones. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39, 670–696.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
