When Mayors Use School Choice As A Reform Strategy

All political scientists who study education policy start their analysis with a similar premise: "educational reform does not take place in political vacuum." Studies of the politics of school choice have focused primarily on state-level political dynamics. This line of research makes sense since the charter school market is initially created and subsequently altered by the state legislature. In this paper, however, the authors break from this trend and focus their attention on "local" government and the politics of school choice. Specifically, they examine the relationship between school choice and big city mayors. Their preliminary analysis finds that mayoral positions on school choice is influenced not only the existing legislation governing school choice in their city, but also by their city's size and racial composition. (Contains 5 tables and 65 footnotes.).

Mayoral takeovers of big city public education systems are desperation measures. After decades of decline in school quality, something must be done to make sure city children learn enough to function as adults in American society. But how can city leaders make a real difference? This book, a sequel to Fixing Urban Schools (Brookings, 1998), is a practical guide for mayors, civic leaders, school board members, and involved citizens. Based on case studies of city reform initiatives in Boston, Memphis, New York City District #2, San Antonio, San Francisco, and Seattle, the book provides practical guidance on how to formulate a plan bold enough to work and how to deal with political opposition to change. It concludes that mayors and private sector leaders must stay engaged in education reform by creating new public-private institutions to support high quality schools.

Every year, in one out of three big cities, the school superintendent leaves his or her job, sending local community leaders back to square one. Cleveland, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., are struggling to recreate their failed school systems, and many more cities are likely to follow. City leaders need more than new superintendents. They need stable reform strategies strong enough to move an entrenched system. Unfortunately, it is not clear where they can turn for help. Education experts are deeply divided about whether teacher retraining or new standards are enough to reform a struggling city system, or whether more fundamental changes, such as family choice and family-run schools, are needed. Based on new research, this book identifies the essential elements of reform strategies that can transform school performance in big cities beset by poverty, social instability, racial isolation, and labor unrest. It also suggests ways that local leaders can assemble the necessary funding and political support to make such strategies work.

In 2002 the No Child Left Behind Act rocked America's schools with new initiatives for results-based accountability. But years before NCLB was signed, a new movement was already under way by mayors to take control of city schools from school boards and integrate the management of public education with the overall governing of the city. The Education Mayor is a critical look at mayoral control of urban school districts, beginning with Boston's schools in 1992 and examining more than 100 school districts in 40 states. The authors seek to answer four central questions: * What does school governance look like under mayoral leadership? * How does mayoral control affect school and student performance? * What are the key factors for success or failure of integrated governance? * How does mayoral control effect practical changes in schools and classrooms? The results of their examination indicate that, although mayoral control of schools may not be appropriate for every district, it can successfully emphasize accountability across the education system, providing more leverage for each school district to strengthen its educational infrastructure and improve student performance. Based on extensive quantitative data as well as case studies, this analytical study provides a balanced look at America's education reform. As the first multidistrict empirical examination and most comprehensive overall evaluation of mayoral school reform, The Education Mayor is a must-read for academics, policymakers, educational administrators, and civic and political leaders concerned about public education.

Some of the nation's wealthiest philanthropies, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Broad Foundation have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in education reform. With vast wealth and a political agenda, these foundations have helped to reshape the reform landscape in urban education. In Follow the Money, Sarah Reckhow shows where and how foundation investment in education is occurring and presents in-depth analysis of the effects of these investments within the two largest urban districts in the United States: New York City and Los Angeles. In New York City, centralized political control and the use of private resources have enabled rapid implementation of reform proposals. Yet this potent combination of top-down authority and outside funding also poses serious questions about transparency, responsiveness, and democratic accountability in New York. Furthermore, the sustainability of reform policies is closely linked to the political fortunes of the current mayor and his chosen school leader. While the media has highlighted the efforts of drastic reformers and dominating leaders such as Joel Klein in New York City and Michelle Rhee in Washington, D.C., a slower, but possibly more transformative, set of reforms have been taking place in Los Angeles. These reforms were also funded and shaped by major foundations, but they work from the bottom up, through charter school operators managing networks of schools. This strategy has built grassroots political momentum and demand for reform in Los Angeles that is unmatched in New York City and other districts with mayoral control. Reckhow's study of Los Angeles's education system shows how democratically responsive urban school reform could occur-pairing foundation investment with broad grassroots involvement. Bringing a sharp analytical eye and a wealth of evidence to one of the most politicized issues of our day, Follow the Money will reshape our thinking about educational reform in America.

In 2002 the No Child Left Behind Act rocked America's schools with new initiatives for results-based accountability. But years before NCLB was signed, a new movement was already under way by mayors to take control of city schools from school boards and integrate the management of public education with the overall governing of the city. The Education Mayor is a critical look at mayoral control of urban school districts, beginning with Boston's schools in 1992 and examining more than 100 school districts in 40 states. The authors seek to answer four central questions: • What does school governance look like under mayoral leadership? • How does mayoral control affect school and student performance? • What are the key factors for success or failure of integrated governance? • How does mayoral control effect practical changes in schools and classrooms? The results of their examination indicate that, although mayoral control of schools may not be appropriate for every district, it can successfully emphasize accountability across the education system, providing more leverage for each school district to strengthen its educational infrastructure and improve student performance. Based on extensive quantitative data as well as case studies, this analytical study provides a balanced look at America's education reform. As the first multidistrict empirical examination and most comprehensive overall evaluation of mayoral school reform, The Education Mayor is a must-read for academics, policymakers, educational administrators, and civic and political leaders concerned about public education.

Desperate to jump-start the reform process in America's urban schools, politicians, scholars, and school advocates are looking increasingly to mayors for leadership. But does a stronger mayoral role represent bold institutional change with real potential to improve big-city schools, or just the latest in the copycat world of school reform du jour? Is it democratic? Why have efforts to put mayors in charge so often generated resistance along racial dividing lines? Public debate and scholarly analysis have shied away from confronting such issues head-on. Mayors in the Middle brings together, for students of education policy and urban politics as well as scholars and school advocates, the most thoughtful and original analyses of the promise and limitations of mayoral takeovers of schools. Reflecting on the experience of six cities--Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Washington, D.C.--ten of the nation's leading experts on education politics tackle the question of whether putting mayors in charge is a step in the right direction. Through the case studies and the wide-ranging essays that follow and build upon them, the contributors--Stefanie Chambers, Jeffrey R. Henig, Kenneth J. Meier, Jeffrey Mirel, Marion Orr, John Portz, Wilbur C. Rich, Dorothy Shipps, and Clarence N. Stone--begin the process of answering questions critical to the future of inner-city children, the prospects for urban revitalization, and the shape of American education in the years to come.

Large urban school systems have been the weakest link in American education, driving middle-class families into the suburbs while contributing mightily to the racial learning gap. Activist mayors in several major cities have responded by taking control of their public schools. When Mayors Take Charge is the most up-to-date assessment available on this phenomenon. It brings together the topic's leading experts to analyze the factors and people driving the trend, its achievements and shortcomings, its prospects for the future, and ways to improve it. Part One of the book assesses the results of mayoral control nationwide. The second section details the experience in three key cities: Boston and Chicago, the major prototypes for mayoral control, and Detroit, where mayoral control ended in disaster. The final section provides the first in-depth examination of New York City, where the law installing mayoral control sunsets in 2009. Viteritti's opening essay and postscript frame the analysis to shed light on the significance and limitations of governance reform. Contributors include Clara Hemphill (formerly NewYork Newsday), Jeffrey R. Henig (Columbia University), Michael Kirst (Stanford University), John Portz (Northeastern University), Diane Ravitch (NYU),Wilbur C. Rich (Wellesley College), Robert Schwartz (Harvard University), Dorothy Shipps (Baruch College), and Kenneth K.Wong (Brown University).

An Evaluation of the Public Schools of the District of Columbia is a comprehensive five-year summative evaluation report for Phase Two of an initiative to evaluate the District of Columbia's public schools. Consistent with the recommendations in the 2011 report A Plan for Evaluating the District of Columbia's Public Schools, this new report describes changes in the public schools during the period from 2009 to 2013. An Evaluation of the Public Schools of the District of Columbia examines business practices, human resources operations and human capital strategies, academic plans, and student achievement. This report identifies what is working well seven years after legislation was enacted to give control of public schools to the mayor of the District of Columbia and which areas need additional attention.

How families choose schools for their children can shape those children's social, academic, and cultural experiences. It can also shape the schools that educate and socialize our young. Increasingly, school choice is being used as an education reform strategy, with charter schools, magnet schools, private school vouchers, and open enrollment programs providing low-cost opportunities for families to select from an assortment of nearby schools. School choice advocates often invoke a type of market logic whereby loving parents who know their children intimately make careful, informed school choices, generating pressures for schools to offer appealing, high-quality programs or risk succumbing to under-enrollment. However, these "demand side" pressures can go wrong, yielding education systems that poorly serve the goals that societies have for their schools. First, families could make choices that are inconsistent with their desires. For example, if school choosers are uninformed or misinformed about their options, they might choose schools that are poorly suited to their children's needs while their aggregated choices fail to support and reward high-quality schools. Second, families' desires for their own children's schools could be inconsistent with the broader public's goals for its education systems. For example, if families choose schools that intensely focus on advancing their own children's private success, then schools might underserve more collective interests related to society's political, social, and economic wellbeing. This dissertation explores the desires and behaviors of school choosers, examining where demand side pressures might go wrong and how school choice policies and programs can be strengthened. The dissertation features three empirical articles. The first two articles use experimental and quasi-experimental methods to assess the effects of providing school choosers with information about their options. I find that school choosers' beliefs and behaviors are highly malleable but do not always respond to the provision of information about schools in predictable ways. Parents and children respond differently to the same information, and while formal government ratings can change opinions of schools, they are less influential than the types of comments that people regularly hear through their social networks. The third article examines what school choosers and the American public desire from schools, testing the hypothesis that parents would like schools to pursue their children's private wellbeing -- at the expense of our collective political, social, and economic wellbeing -- to a much greater extent than the public would like. Using randomized experiments with a large, nationally representative sample, I show that parents' and the public's desire for schools are more similar than what is commonly hypothesized. In an era when school choice is a cornerstone of many education reform efforts, improving our understanding of how people choose schools -- and how we can support them as they do -- improves our ability to construct sensible education policies and programs.