The Use and efficacy of capacity-building assistance for low-performing districts: The case of California's District assistance and intervention teams

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 719-751

  Strunk, Katharine O ^a   Mceachin, Andrew ^b   Westover, Theresa N ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84902547696     PISSN: 02768739     EISSN: 15206688     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pam.21658     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. (1999). Empirical strategies in labor economics. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (pp. 1277-1366). New York, NY: New Holland.
2. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Ashenfelter, O., & Card, D. (1985). Using the longitudinal structure of earnings to estimate the effect of training programs. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 67, 648-660.
4. Ballou, D., & Springer, M. G. (2009). Achievement tradeoffs and No Child Left Behind. Unpublished manuscript, Vanderbilt University.
5. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change, Vol. VIII: Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
6. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
7. California County Superintendents Educational Services Association. (2008). Building blocks of integrated academic district support. Unpublished manuscript.
8. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
9. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145-179.
10. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11. Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. A. (2011). The impact of no Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446.
12. Elmore, R. F. (1993). The development and implementation of large-scale curriculum reforms. Background paper prepared for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Washington, DC.
13. Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1998). Continuous improvement in Community District #2, New York City. Pittsburgh, PA: High Performance Learning Communities Project, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
14. Elmore, R. F., & Fuhrman, S. H. (Eds.). (1994). The governance of curriculum. Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
15. Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Stead work: Policy, practice, and the reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
16. Firestone, W. A., Mangin, M., Martinez, M. C., & Polovsky, T. (2005). Leading coherent professional development: A comparison of three districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 413-448.
17. Gottfried, M. A., Stecher, B. M., Hoover, M., & Cross, A. B. (2011). Federal and state roles and capacity for improving schools. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
18. Hamilton, L. S., Berends, M., & Stecher, B. M. (2005). Teachers' responses to standards-based accountability. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
19. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297-327.
20. Harris, D. N. (2009). Toward policy-relevant benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes: Combining effects with costs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 3-29.
21. Hill, P. T. (1995). Reinventing public education. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
22. Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 65-87.
23. Honig, M. I., & Ikemoto, G. S. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 328-363.
24. Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 5-86.
25. Krieg, J. M. (2008). Are students left behind? The distributional effects of the No Child Left Behind Act. Education Finance and Policy, 3, 250-281.
26. Krueger, A. (2003). Economic considerations and class size. The Economic Journal, 113, F34-F63.
27. Ladd, H. F., & Lauen, D. L. (2010). Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school accountability policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 426-450.
28. Marsh, J. A., & Robyn, A. E. (2006). School and district improvement efforts in response to the No Child Left Behind Act. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
29. Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K., Ikemoto, G. S., & Darilek, H. (2006). Developing district-intermediary partnerships to promote instructional improvement: Early experiences and lessons about the institute for learning. In K. Wong & S. Rutledge (Eds.), System-wide efforts to improve student achievement (pp. 241-270). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
30. Mass Insight Education. (2010). School improvement grants: Take 2. Boston: Author. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://www.massinsight.org/publications/stg-resources/125/.
31. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
32. Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 263-283.
33. O'Day, J. A., & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. Furman (Ed.), Designing cohort educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34. Opper, V. D., Henry, G. T., & Mashburn, A. J. (2008). The district effect: Systemic responses to high stakes accountability policies in six southern states. American Journal of Education, 114, 299-332.
35. Padilla, C., Tiffany-Morales, J., Bland, J., & Anderson, L. (2009). Evaluation of California's district intervention and capacity building initiative: Findings and lessons learned. Sacramento, CA: SRI International.
36. Reback, R. (2008). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1394-1415.
37. Reback, R. (2010). Schools' mental health services and young children's emotions, behavior, and learning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 698-725.
38. Rockoff, J. E., & Turner, L. (2010). Short run impacts of accountability on school quality. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2, 119-147.
39. Rowan, B., & Miskel, C. G. (1999). Institutional theory and the study of educational organizations. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore-Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 359-384). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40. Slotnick, W. J. (2010). Levers for changes: Pathways for state-to-district assistance in underperforming school districts. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
41. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. A. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-267). New York: Falmer Press.
42. Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 185-203.
43. Stecher, B. M., Epstein, S., Hamilton, L. S., Marsh, J. A., Robyn, A. E., McCombs, J. S., Russell, J.L., & Naftel, S. (2008). Pain and gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in three states, 2004-2006. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
44. Strunk, K. O., & McEachin, A. (2012, March). Differential impacts of intensive district-level technical assistance on student achievement: A study of California's District Assistance and Intervention Teams. Paper presented at the Association for Education Finance and Policy annual meeting, Boston, MA.
45. Sunderman, G. L., & Orfield, G. (2007). Do states have the capacity to meet the NCLB mandate? The Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 137-139.
46. The No Child Left Behind Act, PL 107-110, Title I, § 1116(c) (2001).
47. United States Department of Education. (2012a). Colorado ESEA flexibility request. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved-requests/co.pdf.
48. United States Department of Education. (2012b). ESEA flexibility request. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility.
49. United States Department of Education. (2012c). Florida ESEA flexibility request. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved-requests/fl.pdf.
50. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Consumer Price Index. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 17, 2012, from http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data.
51. Weinstein, T. (2011, March). Interpreting No Child Left Behind corrective action and technical assistance programs: A review of state policy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.