A growing number of states experimented with alternative governance structures in response to pressure to raise student achievement. Post-Katrina experimentation in New Orleans was widely regarded as a model example of new governance reforms and provided a unique opportunity to learn about the variation in student achievement and behavior within and between school sectors and school types. Our results indicated many of the sector and school type combinations that produced higher math and English Language Arts achievement also positively impacted students’ behavior, suggesting that the achievement results were not merely driven by teaching to the test. Finally, our results suggested in a low-performing district, schools may benefit from the collaborative opportunities of belonging to a local school district or network of schools.
AaronsonD.BarrowL.SanderW. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25, 95–135.
2.
AbdulkadirogluA.AngristJ. D.DynarskiS.KaneT.PathakP. A. (2011). Accountability and flexibility in public schools: Evidence from Boston’s charters and pilots. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 699–748.
3.
AbdulkadirogluA.AngristJ. D.HullP. D.PathakP. A. (2016). Charters without lotteries: Testing takeovers in New Orleans and Boston. American Economic Review, 106, 1878–1920.
4.
AngristJ. D.DynarskiS. M.KaneT. J.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2012). Who benefits from KIPP?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31, 837–860.
5.
AngristJ. D.HullP.PathakP. A.WaltersC. (2015, November). Leveraging lotteries for school value-added: Testing and estimation (NBER Working Paper No. 21748). Cambridge, MA: The National Bureau of Economic Research.
6.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
AngristJ. D.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2013). Explaining charter school effectiveness. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 1–27.
8.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
WelshR.DuqueM.McEachinA. (2016). School choice, student mobility and school quality: Evidence from post-Katrina New Orleans. Education Finance and Policy, 11, 150–176.
11.
BerendsM.WaddingtonR. J. (2014, March). Examining the portfolio of school choice in Indiana: Effects of charter, magnet, private, and traditional public schools.Paper presented at the 39th annual meeting of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, San Antonio, TX.
12.
BettsJ.TangY. (2014). The effect of charter schools on student achievement: A meta-analysis of the literature (National Charter School Research Project). Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
13.
BulkleyK. (2010). Introduction: Portfolio management models in urban school reform. In BulkleyK.HenigJ.LevinH. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 3-26). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
14.
CarlsonD.LaveryL.WitteJ. F. (2012). Charter school authorizers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 31, 254–267.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2013a). Charter school performance in Louisiana. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
17.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2013b). National charter school study: 2013. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
18.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ.RockoffJ. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. American Economic Review, 104, 2593–2632.
19.
DaviesD. H.RaymondM. E. (2012). Choices for studying choice: Assessing charter school effectiveness using two quasi-experimental methods. Economics of Education Review, 31, 225-236. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.08.012
20.
DemingD. J. (2014, January). Using school choice lotteries to test measures of school effectiveness (NBER Working Paper No. 19803). Cambridge, MA: The National Bureau of Economic Research.
21.
DobbieW.FryerR. (2011). Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement among the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(3), 158–187.
22.
EhlertM.KoedelC.ParsonsE.PodgurskyM. (2016). Selecting growth measures for use in school evaluation systems: Should proportionality matter?Educational Policy, 30, 465–500.
23.
EppleD.RomanoR.ZimmerR. (2015, June). Charter schools: A survey of research on their characteristics and effectiveness (NBER Working Paper No. 21256). Cambridge MA: The National Bureau of Economic Research.
24.
FryerR. G.DobbieW. (2013). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools: Evidence from New York City. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 28–60.
25.
GershensonS. (2016). Linking teacher quality, student attendance, and student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 11, 125–149.
26.
GleasonP.TuttleC.GillB.Nichols-BarrerI.TehB. (2014). Do KIPP schools boost student achievement?Education Finance and Policy, 9, 36–58.
27.
GuarinoC. M.ReckaseM.WooldridgeJ. M. (2015). Can value-added measures of teacher performance be trusted?Education Finance and Policy, 10, 117–156.
28.
GyurkoJ.HenigJ. (2010). Strong vision, learning by doing, or the politics of muddling through? In BulkleyK.HenigJ.LevinH. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 91–126). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
29.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. FRivkinS. G. (2004). Disruption versus Tiebout Improvement: The costs and benefits of switching schools. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1722-1746.
30.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G.BranchG. F. (2007). Charter school quality and parental decision making with school choice. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 823–848.
HarrisD.ValantJ.GrossB. (2015). The New Orleans OneApp. Education Next, 15(4), 17–22.
33.
HenigJ. R. (2010). Portfolio management models and the political economy. In BulkleyK.HenigJ.LevinH. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 27-54). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
34.
HillP. T. (2006). Put learning first: A portfolio approach to public schools. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
35.
HillP. T.CampbellC. (2011). Portfolio school districts: Strife and progress in transforming public education in big cities. Paper presented at the 37th annual conference of the Association for Education Finance and Policy. Retrieved from http://www.aefpweb.org/annualconference/papers
36.
HillP. T.CampbellC.GrossB. (2013). Strife and progress. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
37.
HillP. T.CampbellC.Menefee-LibeyD.DusseaultB.DeArmondM.GrossB. (2009). Portfolio school districts for big cities: An interim report (Portfolio School Districts Project). Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
38.
HonigM. I.DeArmondM. (2010). Where’s the management in portfolio management. In BulkleyK.HenigJ.LevinH. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 195–216). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
ImbermanS. (2011). The effect of charter schools on achievement and behavior of public school students. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 850–863.
41.
JacksonC. K. (2012, December). Non-cognitive ability, test scores, and teacher quality: Evidence from 9th grade teachers in North Carolina (NBER Working Paper No. w18624). Cambridge, MA: The National Bureau of Economic Research.
42.
KaneT. J.McCaffreyD. F.MillerT.StaigerD. O. (2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effective teaching using random assignment. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
43.
KaneT. J.StaigerD. O. (2008, December). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation (NBER Working Paper No. 14607). Cambridge, MA: The National Bureau of Economic Research.
44.
KempleJ. J. (2011). Children first and student outcomes: 2003–2010. In O’DayJ. A.BitterC. S.GomezL. M. (Eds.), Education reform in New York City: Ambitious change in the Nation’s most complex school system (pp. 255–292). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
45.
KruegerA. B. (1999). Experimental estimates of education production functions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 497–532.
46.
LaddH. F.ClotfelterC. T.HolbeinJ. B. (2015, April). The growing segmentation of the charter school sector in North Carolina (NBER Working Paper No. 21078). Cambridge, MA: The National Bureau of Economic Research.
47.
LauenD. L.FullerB.DauterL. (2015). Positioning charter schools in Los Angeles: Diversity of form and homogeneity. American Journal of Education, 121, 213–239.
48.
LevinH. M.DaschbachJ.PerryA. (2010). A diverse education provider: New Orleans. In BulkleyK.HenigJ.LevinH. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 165–194). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
McEachinA.AtteberryA. (in press). The impact of summer learning loss on measures of school performance. Education Finance and Policy.
51.
Menefee-LibeyD. (2010). Neoliberal school reform in Chicago? In BulkleyK. E.HenigJ. R.LevenH. M. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 55–90). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
52.
MihalyK.McCaffreyD. F.LockwoodJ. R.SassT. R. (2010). Centering and reference groups for estimates of fixed effects: Modifications to felsdvreg. The Stata Journal, 10, 82–103.
53.
ReardonS. (2008). Thirteen ways of looking at the Black-White test score gap (Working Paper No. 8). Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice.
StrunkK.MarshK.HashimA.BushS.WeinsteinT. (2016). The impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Education Finance and Policy. Advance online publication. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/EDFP_a_00188#.VxAqQqu0F2c
56.
ToddP. E.WolpinK. I. (2003). On the specification and estimation of the production function for cognitive achievement. The Economic Journal, 113, F3–F33.
57.
WelshR.DuqueM.McEachinA. (2016). School choice, student mobility and school quality: Evidence from post-Katrina New Orleans. Education Finance and Policy, 11(2), 150–176.
58.
WintersM. (2012). Measuring the effect of charter schools on public school student achievement in an urban environment: Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 31, 293–301.
59.
ZimmerR.BuddinR. (2006). Charter school performance in two large urban districts. Journal of Urban Economics, 60, 307–326.
60.
ZimmerR.GillB.AttridgeJ.ObenaufK. (2014). Charter school authorizers and student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 9, 59–85.
61.
ZimmerR.GillB.BookerK.LavertuS.WitteJ. F. (2012). Examining charter students achievement effects across seven states. Economics of Education Review, 31, 213–224.
