Which bets paid off? Early findings on the impact of private management and K-8 conversion reforms on the achievement of Philadelphia students

Review of Policy Research

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 1077-1093

  Mac Iver, Martha Abele ^a   Mac Iver, Douglas J ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COHORT ANALYSIS; EDUCATION REFORM; EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; STUDENT;

NORTH AMERICA; PENNSYLVANIA; PHILADELPHIA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33749458959     PISSN: 1541132X     EISSN: 15411338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00250.x     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Archbald, D. A. (1998). The reviews of state content standards in English language arts and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
2. Ascher, C. (1996). Performance contracting: A forgotten experiment in school privatization. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (9), 615-621.
3. Balfanz, R., & Herzog, L. (2006). Keeping middle grades students on track to graduation. Part A: Early identification. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
4. Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2001). How many central city high schools have a severe dropout rate? Where are they located? And who attends them? Paper presented at the Dropouts in America Conference, Harvard Civil Rights Project and Achieve, Cambridge, MA.
5. Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis. CRESPAR Report No. 70. Baltimore, MD, and Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
6. Blank, R., & Langesen, D. (1999). State indicators of science and mathematics education. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
7. Braswell, J. S., Lutkus, A. D., Grigg, W. S., Santapau, S. L., Tay-Lim, B., & M. Johnson (2001). The nation's report card: Math 2000. NCES 2003-453. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
8. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Kerbrow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton J. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
9. Bulkley, K., Mundell, L., & Riffer, M. (2004). Contracting out schools: The first year of the Philadelphia diverse provider model. Philadelphia: Research for Action.
10. Byrnes, V. (2005). Comparing K-8 and middle schools: Eighth grade mathematics and reading achievement. Unpublished paper.
11. Campbell, P. F., & Silver, E. A. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics in poor communities. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
12. Christman, J. B. (2001, December). Powerful ideas, modest gains: Five years of systemic reform in Philadelphia middle schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
13. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, DC: Brookings.
14. Corcoran, T., & Christman, J. B. (2002, November). The limits and contradictions of systemic reform: The Philadelphia story. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
15. D'Amico, L., Harwell, M., Stein, M. K., & van den Heuvel, J. (2001). Examining the implementation and effectiveness of a district-wide instructional improvement effort. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
16. Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A. M., Husbands, J. L., LaFors, J. R., & Young, V. M. (2002, April). Building instructional quality: Inside-out, bottom-up, and top-down perspectives on San Diego's school reform. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
17. Edwards, D. L. (1997). The private management of public schools: The Dade County, Florida experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
18. Effron, R. C., & Concannon, J. P. (1995). Rightsizing the right way. School Administrator, 52 (3), 40-41, 43, 45, 47.
19. Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1997). School variation and systemic instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, HPLC Project, Learning Research and Development Center.
20. Finn, C. (1991). We must take charge: Our schools and our future. New York: Free Press.
21. Flanagan, A., & Grissmer, D. (2002). The role of federal resources in closing the achievement gap. In J. E. Chubb & T. Loveless (Eds.), Bridging the achievement gap (pp. 199-225). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
22. Foley, E. (2001, August). Contradictions and control in systemic reform: The ascendancy of the central office in Philadelphia Schools. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Graduate School of Education.
23. General Accounting Office (1996). Private management of public schools: Early experiences in four school districts. Washington, DC: Author.
24. General Accounting Office. (2003). Public schools: Comparison of achievement results for students attending privately managed and traditional schools in six cities. Washington, DC: Author.
25. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
26. Harvey, J., & Housman, N. (2004). Crisis or possibility? Conversations about the American high school. Washington, DC: National High School Alliance.
27. Herlihy, C., & Kemple, J. (2003, April). Impacts of the Talent Development Middle School Model on achievement, attendance, and promotion: A third-party evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
28. Hightower, A. (2002). San Diego's big boom: District bureaucracy supports culture of learning. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
29. Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2002). School districts and instructional renewal. New York: Teachers College Press.
30. Hill, P. T. (1997). A public education system for the new metropolis. Education and Urban Society, 29 (4), 490-508.
31. Hill, P. T., & Celio, M. B. (1998). Fixing urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
32. Hill, P. T., Campbell, C., & Harvey, J. (2000). It takes a city: Getting serious about urban school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
33. Ingles, S. J., Owings, J. A., Kaufman, P., Alt, M. N., & Chen, X. (2002). Coming of age in the 1990s: The eight-grade class of 1988 12 years later. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
34. Keedy, J. L. (1994). The twin engines of school reform for the 1990s: The school site and national coalitions. The Journal of School Leadership, 4 (1), 94-111.
35. Kim, J. J., Crasco, L. M., Leavitt, D. J., & Karantonis, A. (2002). Urban school key indicators of science and mathematics education: 2001. Vol. II: Cohort 94 school districts. Norwood, MA: Systemic Research.
36. Land, D., & Legters, N. (2002). The extent and consequences of risk in U.S. education. In S. Stringfield & D. Land (Eds.), Educating at-risk students (pp. 1-28). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37. Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). A review of research concerning the implementation of site-based management. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9 (3), 233-285.
38. Mac Iver, D. J., & Balfanz, R. (2000). The school district's role in helping high-poverty schools become high performing. In B. Gaddy (Ed.), Including at-risk students in standards-based reform (pp. -35 -69). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
39. Mac Iver, M., & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central office in improving instruction and student achievement. CRESPAR Report No. 65. Baltimore, MD, and Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
40. Mac Iver, M., Farley, E., & Wayman, J. (2003). Let a thousand flowers bloom: High school reform in Baltimore. Presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April.
41. Mac Iver, M., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Privatized delivery of instructional services for urban public school students placed at risk. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22 (4), 375-382.
42. Mohrman, S. A., & Wohlstetter, P. (Eds.). (1994). School-based management: Organizing for high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
43. Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2001). Radical equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project. Boston: Beacon Press.
44. Mullis, I. V. S, Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Garden, R. A., O'Connor, K. M., Chrostowski, S. J., & Smith, T. A. (2000, December). TIMSS 1999 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA's repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at eighth grade. Boston: International Study Center, Lynch School of Education.
45. Murphy, J., & Beck, L. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Taking stock. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
46. Murphy, J., & Shiffman, C. D. (2002). Understanding and assessing the charter school movement. New York: Teachers College Press.
47. National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
48. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
49. Neild, R. C., Useem, E., Travers, E. F., & Lesnick, J. (2003). Once and for all: Placing a highly qualified teacher in every Philadelphia classroom. Philadelphia: Research for Action.
50. Odden A., & Hill, P. (1997). District role in decentralization: Creating and managing a decentralized education system. Paper prepared for the New American Schools, Arlington, VA.
51. Ornstein, A. C. (1989). Administrator/student ratios in large school districts. Phi Delta Kappan, 70 (10), 806-808.
52. O'Sullivan, C., Lauko, M., Grigg, W., Qian, J., & Zhang, J. (January 2003). The nation's report card: Science 2003. NCES 2003-453. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
53. Ouchi, W. G. (2003). Making schools work. New York: Simon & Schuster.
54. Palmaffy, T. (1998, March/April). The gold star state. Policy Review, 80, 30-38.
55. Parsley, J. F. (1991). Reshaping student learning. School Administrator, 48 (7), 9, 11, 13-14.
56. Peeler, T. H., & Parham, P. A. (1994). A public-private partnership: South Pointe elementary school of Dade County, Florida. In S. Hakim, P. Seidenstat, & G. W. Bowman (Eds.), Privatizing education and educational choice: Concepts, plans, and experiences (pp. 195-204). Westport, CT: Praeger.
57. Pelavin, S., & Kane, M. (1990). Changing the odds: Factors increasing access to college. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
58. Quinn, D. W., Stewart, M., & Nowakowski, J. (1993). An external evaluation of systemwide school reform in Chicago. International Journal of Educational Reform, 2 (1), 2-11.
59. RAND Mathematics Study Panel (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and development program in mathematics education. Report No. MR-1643-OERI. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
60. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
61. Raudenbush, S. W., Fotiu, R. P., & Cheong, Y. F. (1998). Inequality of access to educational resources: A national report card for eighth grade math. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20 (4), 253-268.
62. Resnick, L. B., & Harwell, M. (2000, June) Instructional variation and student achievement in a standards-based education district. (CSE Technical Report 522). Los Angeles: University of California, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
63. Ross, S. M. (2001). Creating critical mass for restructuring: What we can learn from Memphis. AEL policy briefs. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
64. Scambio, E. J., & Graber, J. (1991). Reform through state intervention. The School Administrator, 48 (7), 8, 10, 12, 14.
65. Seltzer, M., Choi, K., & Thum, Y. M. (2003). Examining relationships between where students start and how rapidly they progress: Using new developments in growth modeling to gain insight into the distribution of achievement within schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (3), 263-286.
66. Simon, E., Foley, E., & Passantino, C. (1998). Making sense of standards: Implementation issues and the impact on teaching practice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Graduate School of Education.
67. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002, September). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. Washington, DC: The Council of the Great City Schools.
68. Sukstorf, M., Wells, A. S., & Crain, R. (1993). A re-examination of Chubb and Moe's Politics, markets, and America's schools. In E. Rasell & R. Rothstein (Eds.), School choice: Examining the evidence (pp. -209 -218). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
69. Swanson, C. (2004). Who graduates? Who doesn't? A statistical portrait of public high school graduation, Class of 2001. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Education Policy Center.
70. Tighe, E., Wang, A., & Foley, E. (2002, February). An analysis of the effect of Children Achieving on student achievement in Philadelphia elementary schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
71. U.S. Department of Education. (1997, October). Mathematics equals opportunity. Paper prepared for the U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley. Washington, DC: Author.
72. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics Highlights 2003. Author, Washington, DC.
73. Useem, E. L., & Balfanz, R. (2002). Comprehensive district reform: Philadelphia's grand experiment. Benchmarks, 4 (1), 1-10.
74. Wald, J., & Losen, D. (Eds.) (2003). Deconstructing the school to prison pipeline. New Directions for Youth Development No. 99. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
75. Westat. (2001). Report on the final evaluation of the City-State Partnership. Presented to the New Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners and the Maryland Department of Education. Rockville, MD: Author.
76. Williams, L. C., & Leak, L. E. (1995). The UMBC evaluation of the Tesseract program in Baltimore City. Baltimore: Center for Educational Research, University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
77. Wohlstetter, P., Mohrman, S. A., & Robertson, P. J. (1997). Successful school-based management: A lesson for restructuring urban schools. In D. Ravitch & J. Viteritti (Eds.), New schools for a new century: The redesign of urban education (pp. 201-225). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
78. Wong, K., & Alkins, K. (1999). Toward systemic reform in high poverty schools: A comparative analysis of two large school districts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
79. Wong, K., & Brown, J. (1998). The implementation of two reform programs in Philadelphia: Lessons learned from Children Achieving and Title I schoolwide strategies. Publications Series No. 9. Philadelphia: Mid-Atlantic Laboratory for Student Success, National Research Center on Education in the Inner Cities.
80. Wong, K., & Sunderman, G. (2000). Implementing districtwide reform in schools with Title I schoolwide programs: The first 2 years of Children Achieving in Philadelphia. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5 (4), 355-381.