Click for next page ( 90


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 89
6 School Quality and Operations Under PERAA: First Impressions A thorough and useful effort to ask how well DC schools—or the schools in any district—are faring needs to begin with a comprehensive picture of the district’s responsibilities to students, families, and the com- munity. School districts have many functions: some, such as procurement and management, are like those of any large organization. Others, such as the intellectual guidance of teaching and administrative staff and the responsibility for students’ intellectual development, call for other capaci- ties. To guide our examination of first impressions of the District’s schools under the Public Education Reform Amendment Act (PERAA)—and also the comprehensive evaluation plan we describe in Chapter 7—we identi- fied five broad categories to capture the broad range of responsibilities for which any school district is responsible: 1. quality of personnel (teachers, principals, and others), 2. quality of classroom teaching and learning, 3. serving vulnerable children and youth, 4. promoting family and community engagement, and 5. quality and equity of operations, management, and facilities. Each of these categories encompasses many specific responsibilities and thus entails many possible evaluation questions. Our purpose in using these categories is to ensure that even first impressions about DC schools under PERAA are not driven by the data that happen to be most accessible, but by the questions that it is important to ask. A range of measures is needed to produce a picture of how well a district is functioning in these areas. In 89

OCR for page 89
90 EVALUATING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS this chapter we discuss the general issues and research on each topic and then offer our impressions of the District’s activities to date. The five categories are convenient, if somewhat arbitrary, and there is overlap among them. For example, professional development for staff is important in thinking about the district’s responsibility to attract and retain an effective workforce, and an equally critical aspect of its responsi- bility to ensure that students receive high-quality instruction. Our purpose is not to provide a definitive taxonomy of what districts do, but rather to impose a structure on the seemingly boundless number of important ques- tions about DC schools’ performance and progress under PERAA. Before discussing the available information about school quality and operation in the categories, we discuss two topics related to data—the sources of data for our first impressions and the DC effective schools framework—which is the city’s broad plan for improving education in the District. DATA—LOOKING BEYOND TEST SCORES Sources for This Chapter For the purposes of developing our first impressions, we had three categories of data: materials published before PERAA, materials published after PERAA, and unpublished materials made available by the District of Columbia. Included in the first category are 1989 and 1995 reports by the Committee on Public Education (summarized in Parthenon Group, 2006); reports from the Council on the Great City Schools (CGCS) (2004, 2005, and 2007); a study by the Parthenon Group (2006), which was an important factual resource for the developers of the PERAA; studies focus- ing on special education issues by the DC Appleseed Center (2003) and the American Institutes for Research (Parrish et al., 2007); and studies on charter schools and vouchers by the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute (Stewart et al., 2007; Sullivan et al., 2008) and the U.S. Govern- ment Accountability Office (2005a, 2005b) and Ashby and Franzel (2007). Resources published after PERAA include two reports published by the U.S Government Accountability Office (GAO) (Ashby, 2008; U.S. Govern- ment Accountability Office, 2009); a study by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (2010); and two studies commissioned by DC educational agencies: one for the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, by the 21st Century School Fund, Brookings Institution, and Urban Institute (2008), and one for the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education by the Development Services Group (2008). These studies were done for different purposes and used different meth- ods. Some were very broad (e.g., the Council on the Great City Schools

OCR for page 89
91 SCHOOL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS UNDER PERAA and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee reports), while others were much narrower (e.g., the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute and Development Services Group reports); some presented new analyses of primary data (e.g., the 21st Century School Fund and Georgetown Uni- versity reports), while others provided synthesis of existing secondary data (e.g., those of the GAO). In addition to these published reports, the committee obtained infor- mation directly from city agencies and officials, which included publicly available documents and information on websites, as well as information given to the committee by agency and city leaders. City agency informa- tion included strategic plans, annual reports, and analytical documents from DC Public Schools (DCPS), the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE), the Office of the Deputy Mayor of Education (DME), and the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization (OPEFM). In May 2010 the committee held a day-long public forum at which community representatives described their experiences with DC pub- lic schools and their perspectives on priorities for this evaluation (see Appendix A). Participants included principals and school administra- tors; teachers; charter school representatives; special education providers; education providers for children and youth; representatives of colleges, universities, and job training programs; students; and parents. The com- mittee also reviewed stories in the local press, including the Washington Post, which has published numerous articles on the District’s schools and their governance.1 In discussing the impressions we have drawn from these sources, we distinguish between information reported by city officials and agencies and independent assessments of circumstances in DC schools or of actions taken by DC officials. The committee was able to amass a considerable body of information, and we believe it provides a useful preliminary picture of what the District is attempting to do and how it is faring. However, the informa- tion available was inconsistent; both the published reports and the data and other information available from the city provided much more information about some issues than others. The District’s Data Collection Efforts This chapter does not offer a systematic evaluation of either what the District has done or how it is measuring itself, but we did find that the Dis- 1 We note that although several provisions in PERAA cover charter schools, traditional public schools have been the primary focus of studies calling for reforms. Time and resource constraints limited the committee’s ability to focus on charter schools, but it will be important to include them in the independent evaluation.

OCR for page 89
92 EVALUATING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS trict collects a significant amount of data to monitor its own progress.2 DCPS staff provided the committee with a list of the databases that are relevant to public education, which is included in Appendix C. Because of limitations in time, resources, and access, we were not able to review these databases in order to assess their quality and utility, though this will be a high and early priority once the evaluation begins. We do have several observations, how- ever, on the basis of the materials we have reviewed. In a study commissioned by the committee, Turnbull and Arcaira (2009) documented the data gathered by DC and three similar districts (Atlanta, Boston, and Chicago) in six broad areas and found that all four were roughly comparable in their coverage. (Appendix B provides more detail about the study’s findings.) For all four districts, there are a number of areas in which data are collected but not made public, however. The study also found that in some areas “the . . . indicators were idiosyncratic, and most of the indicators reported served to highlight positive achieve- ments of the district” (p. 19). For example, DCPS (and other districts) report on outreach efforts as a gauge of community engagement (e.g., the number of school partnership programs that have been established or the number of business volunteers spending time with students), but they do not report on the outcomes of those efforts. This analysis highlights the fact that districts have many options when it comes to measuring their own progress. Table 6-1 shows some of the outcomes a district might measure (in the left-hand column) and some of the means by which they can be measured (in the right-hand column). This list, while far from comprehensive, suggests the range of what an evaluation should address (looking beyond test scores), as well as the importance of a detailed documentation and analysis of the District’s current data collec- tion efforts. A few points from the literature on performance management will be useful in the analysis of the District’s data collection efforts because such systems vary widely by intended purpose. For example, as Childress et al. (2011) found in a study of the performance management system within New York City’s Department of Education, such systems can be perceived as punitive or they can be used to build an organizational culture in which excellence is valued and teachers and others feel accountable in a positive way for their efforts. Professional guidelines for performance management are somewhat general, but several summary discussions that have focused on measurement are worth noting. In a summary of the literature, Behn (2003, p. 588) con- cluded that public agencies “use performance measurement to (1) evaluate, 2 Inconsidering the District’s efforts we include those of DCPS and the other offices con- cerned with education, including the office of the mayor.

OCR for page 89
93 SCHOOL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS UNDER PERAA TABLE 6-1 Sample Outcomes and Measures to Evaluate School Systems Outcomes Sample Measures Student Learning and State test scores of cohorts (e.g., average scores for grade 4 in Achievement Gaps 2007 and 2009) State tests and NAEP average scale scores Test scores over time (e.g., comparing the growth of students from grade 3 to grade 4 and also comparing students who enter grade 3 from year to year) Other assessment scores, e.g., AP, SAT, PSAT Course enrollment and completion Grade attainment in coursework Data sources: State or districts, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Educational Student and teacher attendance rates by grade from the district or Engagement NAEP background surveys Students’ self-reports of engagement, including whether schools are safe and supportive places Teachers’ self-reports of engagement, including whether schools are safe and supportive places Data sources: Districts, NCES Elementary Grade Grade progression in elementary grades and credit accumulation, Progression and including passing core subjects, for secondary grades On-Track High Data source: Districts School Credits Graduation Rates Graduation rate, longitudinal and cohort annual data Data sources: Districts, NCES Participation in Percentage of students entering postsecondary institutions, Postsecondary persistence, and completion postgraduation (by survey) Education and Data sources: District survey, or district or state program data College Readiness (e.g., DC scholarships) Job/Career Readiness Percentage of graduates employed, follow-up survey data on (maturity, civic employment status and occupation, social participation, voting engagement, rates, use of public welfare, marital status organizational skills, Source: District survey of students, survey of employers responsibility, access to and qualifications for labor market opportunities) continued

OCR for page 89
94 EVALUATING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS TABLE 6-1 Continued Outcomes Sample Measures Physical and Mental Rates of alcohol and drug use, obesity, smoking, unplanned Health pregnancy Mental health or illness, satisfaction/happiness Exercise, leisure activities Work-related disability Sources: Local and state agencies Contact with Rates of victimization and of arrests, incarcerations, and juvenile Criminal Justice justice placements Sources: Local and state agencies Parent Involvement Parent involvement and participation (in school activities and in and Participation organizations such as the PTA; frequency of parent appearances in school, parent involvement in school decision making Source: District Parent Satisfaction Parent self-reported satisfaction (by survey) Enrollment response Source: District Community Counts of avenues of accessibility for parents and other residents, (increased community and use of data participation, buy-in Number of parent requests and to whom they are directed (e.g., and commitment to chancellor, Board of Education, or DC Council) education institutions and strategies) Public accountability and transparency Source: District Integrated Data Parent/community accessibility to, understanding of, and use of Collection data (public modes of Independent ratings of data systems and transparency access and use, role of the board Parent and community ratings of access and transparency versus council, Use rates for data (via web tracking) and other resources public accountability and transparency) Review of documented responsibilities, inquiries and responses of government bodies Sources: District documents, district web services, surveys

OCR for page 89
95 SCHOOL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS UNDER PERAA (2) control, (3) budget, (4) motivate, (5) promote, (6) celebrate, (7) learn, and (8) improve.” Others (e.g., Hatry, 2007) would add that an important purpose of performance measures is to promote trust in public agencies by transparently tracking results, efficiency, and equity. Given the numerous potential purposes, Behn (2003, p. 600) cautions that “a public agency should not go looking for their one magic perfor- mance measure,” but develop an array of measures aligned to the users and purposes. The Office of Management and Budget (2003) generally advises that priorities for performance measures include a focus on quality over quantity, relevance to budget decisions, clarity to the public, feasibility, and collaboration. The trend in the private sector has been away from treating the financial bottom line as the primary performance measure—a trend that could be seen as analogous to the trend in education away from treating test scores as the primary performance measure. The National Performance Review (1997) study of best practices in performance measurement recommended that any performance measure- ment initiative have these elements (pp. 2-3): • strong leadership: clear, consistent, and visible involvement; • a conceptual framework: clear and cohesive performance measure- ment framework; • effective communications: effective communication with employees, process owners, customers, and stakeholders; • accountability: clearly assigned and well-understood; • intelligence for decision makers: actionable data; • rewards: linked compensation, rewards, and recognition; • no punishments: learning systems with tools, no “gotcha”; and • transparency: openly shared performance with employees, cus- tomers, and stakeholders. Likierman (2009), in contrast, pointed to a number of “traps” in performance management. Among the common mistakes were making comparisons only against prior performance within an organization, focus- ing on the past, focusing on the existence of data and not its quality, and “gaming” or otherwise distorting measures. Gaming refers to such practices as selecting measures that may make performance appear better than it is. For example, if school safety is one of the areas the district seeks to address, student reports of their perception of school safety may be a better measure than parents’ perceptions. Pursuing this example, we note that the District’s key measure on this point in Schoolstat is parents’ perceptions.3 Across all schools for which 3 Datafrom CapStat, see http://capstat.oca.dc.gov/PerformanceIndicators.aspx [accessed July 2009]. SchoolStat and CapStat are discussed later in this chapter.

OCR for page 89
96 EVALUATING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS the district had data, 77 percent of parents in 2008-2009 reported that they were satisfied with safety inside the school. However, 69 percent of students reported feeling safe, a difference of 8 percentage points.4 In some schools the difference is significantly larger: in Johnson Middle School, for example, 60 percent of students reported that they feel safe but almost 90 percent of parents reported that they are satisfied with safety—a differ- ence of nearly 30 points. The parent report data are also incomplete: for example, Ballou and Anacostia—two high schools that are located in high- crime neighborhoods—had too few parents who responded for researchers to include their data. On this issue, as an alternative, the District might use the number of students who report that their school is “orderly and in control;” for Johnson that number was 31 percent of students. Decisions about which data to report might also influence the extent to which an indicator is seen as improving. For example, another annual measure used in the District is the number of students whom DCPS referred to nonpublic schools (that is, private schools that specialize in special edu- cation). Because of the high cost of nonpublic placements, tracking the rate at which such placements are made seems logical. However, if the goal is to gauge progress toward improving special education for students who need it, other measures would also be needed. For example, random independent assessments of services and updates on the status of individualized educa- tion plans (IEPs) at individual schools would provide more information about the services actually being provided. We cite these examples not as an evaluation of the District’s data col- lection efforts, but as suggestions of the sorts of questions that are likely to be asked in a full-scale evaluation. THE DCPS EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS FRAMEWORK DCPS’s responses to PERAA are part of a broader plan for improving the schools that was articulated in a six-element “effective schools frame- work” (District of Columbia Public Schools, 2009a). The framework is relevant to all of the areas of responsibility we discuss in this chapter. It has six elements (District of Columbia Public Schools, 2009a, p. 2). Element 1: Teaching and Learning All teachers engage in a strategic in- structional planning process and deliver high-quality, rigorous, standards- based instruction to ensure continuous growth and high levels of student achievement. 4Information downloaded from http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/ABOUT%20DCPS/ Surveys-08-09/DCPS-Stakeholder-Surveys-District-level-2009.pdf [accessed October 2010].

OCR for page 89
97 SCHOOL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS UNDER PERAA Element 2: Leadership All school leaders fully understand their role as high-impact instructional leaders and create a coherent organizational structure to support teaching and learning. Element 3: Job-Embedded Professional Development High-quality profes- sional development is job-embedded, aligned to district and local school goals, data-driven, and differentiated. It supports in-depth development of teachers and leadership and is directly linked to the District’s Effective Schools Framework. Element 4: Resources Resources (funding, staff, materials, and time) are allocated with a specific focus on instructional improvement and increasing student achievement. Element 5: Safe and Effective Learning Environment Policies, procedures, and practices are in place to support a safe environment characterized by high expectations, mutual respect, and a focus on teaching and learning. Element 6: Family and Community Engagement Schools make families and community members aware of their important roles in creating effec- tive learners and schools, and invest families and community members in that work. At the center of this overarching framework is the teaching and learn- ing framework, which describes the specific instructional practices the dis- trict has identified as most likely to promote student learning. This second framework is designed to articulate clear expectations for teachers that can be aligned with professional development activities and provide a “com- mon language” for discussion of instructional practice. It provides both objectives (e.g., “effective teachers adopt a classroom behavior management system”) and examples of what that behavior looks like (e.g., “successful classroom behavior management systems include norms and rules that are clear, age-appropriate, positively worded, and few in number”) (District of Columbia Public Schools, 2009a, pp. 8-9). Thus, the framework is designed both to be useful in providing support to struggling teachers and as an important basis for evaluation.5 5 Both the effective schools framework and the teacher and learning framework draw heavily from the work and thinking of Michael Moody, who was special adviser to the chancellor on academics (under Chancellor Michelle Rhee), and his California-based consulting firm, Insight Education Group.

OCR for page 89
98 EVALUATING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS AREAS OF DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITY Quality of Personnel The knowledge and skills of teachers, principals, and administrators influence student learning and, as in any organization, the performance of all staff members is important both to outcomes and to the culture and the nature of the working environment. Attracting and retaining high-quality staff for every role—from top leadership to support staff—and supporting them in doing their jobs effectively is a critical school district responsibility. Teachers Of all the factors that a school district can influence, the quality of its teachers has perhaps the greatest effect on outcomes for its students (see, e.g., Clotfelter et al., 2007; Kane et al., 2006; Rivikin et al., 2005; Rockoff, 2004; Wenglinsky, 2002). In light of this clear finding, it is noteworthy that districts have persistent difficulty in making sure that students in the highest poverty schools have experienced teachers with preparation in the subject they teach (Lankford et al., 2002; Peske and Haycock, 2006). Defining teacher effectiveness and identifying the factors that contribute to it have been continuing challenges for researchers, but it is clear that dif- ferences among teachers can account for a significant degree of the variation in student outcomes, even within a school. The challenge lies in identifying teacher characteristics that are easy to use as markers for new teachers who are likely to be effective. For example, teacher credentials—such as scores on licensure tests or academic degrees—have not been useful in predicting which teachers will be more effective with students; in contrast, a teacher’s years of experience do appear to have some predictive power (Buddin and Zamarro, 2009; Kane et al., 2007). Other factors that may account for differences among teachers have also been studied. Knowledge of the subject they teach—that is, a body of conceptual and factual knowledge in a particular field—has been identified as a necessary, but not sufficient, foundation for teachers. To foster learn- ing, teachers also draw on understanding of how knowledge develops in a particular field, which means understanding the sorts of difficulties students typically have as their learning progresses and how to build on students’ gradually accumulating knowledge and understanding (for summaries of this research, see National Research Council, 2000, 2005a, 2010b). Other knowledge and skills, such as classroom management and the capacity to plan effective lessons, also play a role. Teachers in any district are also likely to be responsible for students with varying degrees of fluency in English and a range of cognitive and physical disabilities: in 2000, 20 percent of all

OCR for page 89
99 SCHOOL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS UNDER PERAA children under 18 in the United States had parents who were recent immi- grants (Capps et al., 2005), and 9 percent of the population aged 3 to 21 received special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Principals and District Leaders School and district leadership also affect student learning. A review of qualitative and quantitative research on school leadership found that princi- pals’ influence is nearly as important as that of teachers (Louis et al., 2010). The study identified several practices that make school leaders effective: setting goals and direction for teachers; providing intellectual influence, individualized support, and models of best practices for their teachers; and developing and fostering organizational structures and practices (e.g., fostering collaboration) that support teachers in working effectively. A meta-analysis of quantitative research on the characteristics of effective schools, teachers, and leaders found that principals have a measurable effect on student achievement and identified a focus on specific practices aimed at boosting student achievement as one of the factors likely to explain the correlations (Marzano et al., 2005). Others have also studied the impor- tance of principals’ leadership in cultivating a culture of shared responsibil- ity for meeting rigorous academic goals (e.g., Bryk et al., 1999; Porter et al., 2008; see also Horng et al., 2009). Recruiting, developing, and retaining high-quality teachers is another way in which effective principals benefit their schools (Béteille et al., 2009; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000). The capacity of central office staff is also important. Much of the research on districts’ influence on student learning has focused on policy and strategy and on districts’ capacity to implement reforms (Duffy et al., 2010; Spillane and Thompson, 1997, 1998). For example, a number of studies have pointed to the importance of such factors as sustained focus on student achievement, clear articulation of goals, informed use of student achievement data and other data to guide planning and instruction, and coordination among staff responsible for curriculum development, assess- ment, professional development, and other aspects of the system (see, e.g., Louis et al., 2010; Massell, 2000; Shannon and Bylsma, 2004; Waters and Marzano, 2007). Other factors that are often considered include such skills as the capacity to interpret and use student data to guide planning and instruction (Data Quality Campaign, 2009; Massell, 2000). What Districts Can Do There are a number of ways districts can influence the quality of their personnel (see, e.g., Chait, 2009; Loeb and Reininger, 2004; Moon, 2007;

OCR for page 89
118 EVALUATING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS program. The office focused on improving classrooms in elementary and middles schools (e.g., lighting, air quality, technology improvements, and furniture) in the first phase; then on other core spaces, such as cafeterias, gymnasiums, and school grounds; and finally on systems components, such as mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and security systems. For high schools, the plan calls for addressing all of these elements at the same time, with a preference for rehabilitating existing structures over new construction. According to the Washington Lawyers Committee report (2010), by the summer of 2009, the first phase had been completed at four schools and full modernization had been completed at five schools. Another five schools were in the process of being fully modernized, and still others schools are in the design or construction phases. Some observers have suggested that capital investments have been dis- proportionately distributed—that they reflect the basic geographic and racial inequities in the city. For example, the 21st Century School Fund (2010), an independent advocacy organization focused on the infrastructure of DC schools, has argued that Wards 2 and 3, the most affluent sections of the city, have received the most funding for school improvements. However, DCPS (2010e) reports that its modernization efforts are focused on the most at- risk areas of the city, including Ward 8, where it has spent $133 million, the second largest amount spent in a single ward. A Washington Post analysis of spending patterns concluded that the mayor did not “favor particular wards” (Stewart, 2010). The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil and Urban Affairs report (2010, p. 37) agrees with that finding: comparisons of short-term capital expenditures by ward in an effort to demonstrate a failure to serve neediest students are, at best, misleading. They ignore longer term expenditures, do not take into account factors such as overcrowding in some schools and over-capacity at others, and ignore the fact that some schools are attended by numerous students living outside the ward in which the school is located. OPEFM tracks a number of performance measures related to school construction, maintenance, and operations, such as the number of mod- ernization projects under way that are on time and on budget, the number square feet that have been modernized, the number of open work orders, and the average number of days it takes to complete a new work order (Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization, 2010). The District uses its citywide performance measurement system, CapStat, to track performance in many areas.16 Under this system, each 16 For information on CapStat, see http://capstat.oca.dc.gov/performanceindicators.aspx [accessed December 2010].

OCR for page 89
119 SCHOOL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS UNDER PERAA agency, including OSSE and DCPS, has developed performance measures that it tracks and reports on regularly. In addition to using these in their annual performance plans and reports, agency heads must report on their progress and outline steps for improvement at regular meetings. Some of these performance measures are reported publicly and others are not. DCPS has a wide range of measures that it is currently using or considering track- ing for management purposes (personal communication, Office of the State Superintendent of Education, July 2010): • share of data systems improving data quality annually until 96 percent accuracy is achieved; • share of data systems hitting data usage rate targets; • share of customers satisfied with central office services; • number of monthly financial reports that are timely and accurate; • share of invoices paid within 30 days; • dollar reduction in central office expenditures; • share of teachers that report having the necessary textbook and instructional materials; • share of faculty and staff satisfied with school facilities; and • share of central office staff that feels aligned to the DCPS mission. CONCLUSION We emphasize again that both this chapter and Chapter 5 report first impressions, based on the information available to the committee. It would be premature to draw general conclusions about the effectiveness of DC public school reform under PERAA from these impressions. The city and DCPS have implemented many changes. Evaluating whether the new and altered systems are operating as intended and whether the city’s implemen- tation of reforms is yielding desired outcomes will also require much more than a review of a limited number of published reports or testimony from officials, teachers, parents, and students. Moreover, reforms of this mag- nitude can not be expected to take full effect in just a few years. Thus, it will be important to continue monitoring the system through an ongoing formal evaluation. With that caveat, a few points are nevertheless evident now: • The city and DCPS have made a good-faith effort to implement PERAA. • Publicly available, aggregate data suggest that there has been modest improvement in student test scores, but they do not support any conclusions about the effectiveness of PERAA in improving student learning. To draw any conclusions about this will require

OCR for page 89
120 EVALUATING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS a longer period of observation and access to longitudinal test score data for individual students, population groups, and schools. • The city has developed strategies for pursuing improvement in the basic areas of district responsibility, but more complete informa- tion will be need to evaluate them. Ongoing data collection and analysis are needed to assess whether these strategies were well chosen, as well as how they are functioning and what their effects have been. The city has some tools in place for measuring its own progress, but not enough information is publicly available to support firm conclusions about the system’s progress under PERAA. REFERENCES Allensworth, A., and Easton, J.Q. (2007). What Matters for Staying On­Track and Graduating in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Available: http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php?pub_id=116 [accessed April 2011]. Allensworth, E., Nomi, T., Montgomery, N., and Lee, V.E. (2009). College preparatory cur- riculum for all: Academic consequences of requiring algebra and English I for ninth graders in Chicago. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 367-391. Ashby, C.M. (2008). District of Columbia Public Schools: While Early Reform Efforts Tackle Critical Management Issues, a District­Wide Strategic Education Plan Would Help Guide Long­Term Efforts. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Govern- ment Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. GAO-08-549T. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office. Ashby, C.M., and Franzel, J.M. (2007). District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Pro­ gram: Additional Policies and Procedures Would Improve Internal Controls and Program Operations. Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO-08-9. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office. Battistich, V., and Horn, A. (1997). The relationship between students’ sense of their school as a community and their involvement in problem behaviors. Journal of Public Health 87(12), 1997-2001. Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., and Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as commu- nities, poverty levels of student populations, and students’ attitudes, motives, and per- formance: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 627-358. Behn, R.D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586-606. Béteille, T., Kalogrides, D., and Loeb, S. (2009). Effective Schools: Managing the Recruitment, Development, and Retention of High­Quality Teachers. Working Paper #37. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Birman, B.F., Boyle, A., Le Floch, K.C., Elledge, A., Holtzman, D., Song, M., et al. (2009). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Volume VII—Teacher Quality under NCLB: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Blum, R.W. (2005). School Connectedness: Improving the Lives of Students. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

OCR for page 89
121 SCHOOL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS UNDER PERAA Bryk, A.S., and Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. A Volume in the American Sociological Association’s Rose Series in Sociology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bryk, A., Camburn, E., and Louis, K.S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administra­ tion Quarterly, 35(5), 751-781. Buckley, J., and Schneider, M. (2007). Charter Schools: Hope or Hype? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Buddin, R., and Zamarro, G. (2009). Teacher Qualifications and Student Achievement in Urban Elementary Schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Bulkley, K.E., Christman, J.B., Goertz, M.E., and Lawrence, N.R. (2010). Building with bench- marks: The role of the District in Philadelphia’s benchmark assessment system. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 186-204. Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J.S., and Herwantoro, S. (2005). The New Demography of America’s Schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Chait, R. (2009). Ensuring Effective Teachers for All Students: Six State Strategies for Attracting and Retaining Effective Teachers in High­Poverty and High­Minority Schools. Washington DC: Center for American Progress. Childress, S., Higgins, M., Ishimaru, A., and Takahashi, S. (2011). Managing for Results at the New York City Department of Education. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., and Vigdor, J.L. (2007). How and Why Do Teacher Credentials Matter for Student Achievement? Working Paper #2, revised. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Council of the Great City Schools. (2004). Restoring Excellence to the District of Columbia Public Schools. Report of the Strategic Support Team of the Council of the Great City Schools. Washington, DC: Author. Council of the Great City Schools. (2005). Financing Excellence in the District of Columbia Public Schools. Washington, DC: Author. Council of the Great City Schools. (2007). Restoring Excellence in the District of Columbia Public Schools Redux. Washington, DC: Author. Council of the Great City Schools. (2009). Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools: A Report of the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project. Wash- ington, DC: Author. Data Quality Campaign. (2009). The Next Step: Using Longitudinal Data Systems to Improve Student Success. Washington, DC: Author. DC Appleseed Center and Piper Rudnick. (2003). A Time for Action: The Need to Repair the System for Resolving Special Education Disputes in the District of Columbia. Available: http://www.dcappleseed.org/library/Special_Ed_Rprt.pdf [accessed March 2011]. DC Committee on Public Education. (1989). Our Children, Our Future. Revitalizing the District of Columbia Public Schools. Washington, DC: Author. DC Committee on Public Education. (1995). Our Children Are Still Waiting: A Report to the Citizens of Washington, DC. Washington, DC: Author. Development Services Group. (2008). FY 2008 Annual Evaluation Report: To the Interagency Collaboration and Services Integration Commission. Washington, DC: Author. District of Columbia Public Charter School Board. (2010). FY 2011 Performance Plan. Avail- able: http://capstat.oca.dc.gov/Pdf.aspx?pdf=http://capstat.oca.dc.gov/docs/fy11/PCSB. pdf [accessed December 2010].

OCR for page 89
122 EVALUATING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS District of Columbia Public Schools. (2006a). All Students Succeeding: A Master Education Plan for a System of Great Schools: Executive Summary. Available: http://www.dc.gov/ downloads/ABOUT%20DCPS/Strategic%20Documents/MEP/MEP_Exec_Sum_English. pdf [accessed December 2010]. District of Columbia Public Schools. (2006b). Business Plan for Strategic Reform—Board Summary. Available: http://www.dcwatch.com/schools/ps010723.htm [accessed Novem- ber 2010]. District of Columbia Public Schools. (2009a). DCPS Effective Schools Frame­ work . Available: http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Strategic+Documents/ Effective+Schools+Framework [accessed March 2011]. District of Columbia Public Schools. (2009b). Working Draft: Making Student Achievement the Focus: A Five­Year Action Plan for District of Columbia Public Schools. Avail- able: http://dc.gov/downloads/SCHOOLS/Strategic%20Documents/Five%20Year%20 Plan/DCPS-TMO-STRATEGIC%20DOCUMENTS-FIVE%20YEAR%20ACTION%20 PLAN-APR-2009.pdf [accessed March 2011]. District of Columbia Public Schools. (2010a). Chancellor’s Notes: The Power of a Teacher— Groundbreaking New Contract Takes Effect. Available: http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/ About+DCPS/Chancellor%E2%80%99s+Corner/Chancellor%E2%80%99s+Notes/ Chancellor%E2%80%99s+Notes:+The+Power+of+a+Teacher+-+Groundbreaking+New +Contract+Takes+Effect+-+July+9,+2010 [accessed December 2010]. District of Columbia Public Schools. (2010b). DCPS Enrollment Up for the First Time in 39 Years. Available: http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Press+Releases+and+Announce ments/Press+Releases/DCPS+Enrollment+Up+for+the+First+Time+in+39+Years [accessed December 2010]. District of Columbia Public Schools. (2010c). DCPS website wins best­in­nation award: Center for Digital Education and Converge Online names DCPS as winner in the K­12 district education website category. Press release, September 8. Available: http:// dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Press+Releases+and+Announcements/Press+Releases/ DCPS+Website+Wins+Best-in-Nation+Award [accessed December 2010]. District of Columbia Public Schools. (2010d). FY2011 Performance Plan. Washington, DC: Government of the District of Columbia. Available: http://capstat.oca.dc.gov/Pdf. aspx?pdf=http://capstat.oca.dc.gov/docs/fy11/DCPS.pdf [accessed March 2011]. District of Columbia Public Schools. (2010e). How Students Are Supported. Available: http:// dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/In+the+Classroom/How+Students+Are+Supported [accessed Decem- ber 2010]. District of Columbia Public Schools. (2010f). IMPACT Guidebooks. Available: http://dcps. dc.gov/DCPS/In+the+Classroom/Ensuring+Teacher+Success/IMPACT+%28Performance+ Assessment%29/IMPACT+Guidebooks/IMPACT+Guidebooks [accessed December 2010]. District of Columbia Public Schools. (2010g). Satisfaction Stakeholder Surveys. Available: http:// dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Satisfaction+Stakeholder+Surveys [accessed December 2010]. District of Columbia Public Schools. (2010h). Special education progress and commitment to continue: 2009­2010 school year. Press release, July 21. Available: http://dcps.dc.gov/ DCPS/About+DCPS/Press+Releases+and+Announcements/General+Announcements/ Special+Education+Progress+and+Commitment+to+Continue [accessed December 2010]. Dryfoos, J., and Maguire, S. (2002). Inside Full­Service Community Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Duffy, H., Brown, J., O’Day, J., and Hannan, S. (2010). Building Capacity for Accelerated Reform: The Fresno­Long Beach Learning Partnership as a Leadership Strategy. Wash- ington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

OCR for page 89
123 SCHOOL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS UNDER PERAA Dynarski, M., James-Burdumy, S., Moore, M., Rosenburg, L., Deke, J., and Mansfield, W. (2004). When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program, New Findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- ment of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Elmore, R.F. (2004). School Reform from Inside Out: Policy, Practice and Performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Epstein, J.L., and Dauber, S.L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 289-305. Gamoran, A.E. (2007). Standards­Based Reform and the Poverty Gap: Lessons for No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Goertz, M.E. (2000). Local Accountability: The Role of the District and School in Monitor­ ing Policy, Practice and Achievement. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Goertz, M., and Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and account- ability programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 4-11. Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K., Wandner, L., Wessel, J., et al. (2009). Disparities in Early Learning and Development: Lessons from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Birth Cohort (ECLS­B). Washington, DC: Child Trends. Hamilton, L.S., Stecher, B.M., and Yuan, K. (2008). Standards­Based Reform in the United States: History, Research, and Future Directions. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Hatry, H.P. (2007). Performance Measurement: Getting Results, Second Edition. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Henig, J.R., Gold, E., Orr, M., Silander, M., and Simon, E. (2011). Parent and Community Engagement in New York City and the Sustainability Challenge for Urban Education Reform. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Horng, E.L., Klasik, D., and Loeb, S. (2009). Principal Time­Use and School Effectiveness. Working Paper #34. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Jeynes, W.H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority chil- dren’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202-218. Jeynes, W.H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82-110. Kane, T.J., Rockoff, J.E., and Staiger, D.O. (2006). What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Kane, T.J., Rockoff, J.E., and Staiger, D.O. (2007). Photo finish: Certification doesn’t guaran- tee a winner. Education Next, 7(1), 60-67. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62. Lee, J.-S., and Bowen, N.K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193-218. Leithwood, K., and Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organiza- tional conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Admin­ istration, 38(2), 112-126. Likierman, A. (2009). The five traps of performance measurement. Harvard Business Review, 87(10), 96-101. Loeb, S., and Reininger, M. (2004). Public Policy and Teacher Labor Markets. What We Know and Why It Matters. East Lansing, MI: Education Policy Center.

OCR for page 89
124 EVALUATING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS Louis, K.S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K.L., and Anderson, S.E. (2010). Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning, Final Report of Re­ search to the Wallace Foundation. New York: Wallace Foundation. Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., and McNulty, B.A. (2005). School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Massell, D. (2000). The District Role in Building Capacity: Four Strategies. CPRE Policy Briefs. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. McCartney, R. (2009). Schools pay when Rhee snubs donors. Washington Post, Octo- ber 14. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/14/ AR2009101403564.html [accessed October 2010]. McLaughlin, M.W., and Talbert, J.E. (2006). Building School­Based Teacher Learning Com­ munities: Professional Strategies to Improve Student Achievement (Series on School Reform). New York: Teachers College Press. Moon, B. (2007). Research Analysis: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers: A Global Overview of Current Policies and Practices. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Murnane, R.J., and Steele, J.L. (2007). What is the problem? The challenge of providing ef- fective teachers for all children. Future of Children, 17(1), 15-43. National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Total Students, Revenues, Current Expen­ ditures, and Current Expenditures per Pupil for the 100 Largest Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts in the United States, by School District: Fiscal Year 2008. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/revexpdist08/tables/table_07.asp [accessed December 2010]. National Performance Review. (1997). Serving the American Public: Best Practices in Perfor­ mance Measures: Benchmarking Study Report. Washington, DC: Author. National Research Council. (2000). Testing English­Language Learners in U.S. Schools: Re­ port and Workshop Summary. Committee on Educational Excellence and Testing Equity. K. Hakuta and A. Beatty (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2002). Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. Com- mittee on Minority Representation in Special Education. M.S. Donovan and C.T. Cross (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2004). Keeping Score for All: The Effects of Inclusion and Ac­ commodation Policies on Large­Scale Educational Assessment. J.A. Koenig and L.F. Bachman (Eds.). Committee on Participation of English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities in NAEP and Other Large-Scale Assessments. Board on Testing and Assessment. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2005a). How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted Report for Teachers. M.S. Donovan and J.D. Bransford (Eds.). Center for Studies on Behavior and Develop- ment. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2005b). Systems for State Science Assessment. M.R. Wilson and M.W. Bertenthal (Eds.). Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. Board on Testing and Assessment. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

OCR for page 89
125 SCHOOL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS UNDER PERAA National Research Council. (2008). Common Standards for K­12 Education?: Considering the Evidence: Summary of a Workshop Series. A. Beatty (Ed.). Committee on State Stan- dards in Education: A Workshop Series. Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2010a). Getting Value Out of Value­Added: Report of a Work­ shop. H. Braun, N. Chudowsky, and J. Koenig (Eds.). Committee on Value-Added Meth- odology for Instructional Improvement, Program Evaluation, and Accountability. Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2010b). Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy. Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States. Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2010c). State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. A. Beatty (Ed.). Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards. Board on Testing and Assessment. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (1998). Educating Language­Minority Children. Committee on Developing a Research Agenda on the Education of Limited English-Proficient and Bilingual Students. D. August and K. Hakuta (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2001). Early Childhood Development and Learning: New Knowledge for Policy. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. J.P. Shonkoff and D.A. Phillips (Eds.). Board on Children, Youth, and Families. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Wash- ington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2003). Engaging Schools: Fostering High School Students’ Motivation to Learn. Committee on Increasing High School Students’ Engagement and Motivation to Learn. Board on Children, Youth and Fami- lies. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2007). Challenges in Adolescent Health Care: Workshop Report. Committee on Adolescent Health Care Services and Models of Care for Treatment, Prevention, and Healthy Development. Board on Children, Youth and Families. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Office of Management and Budget. (2003). Performance Measurement Challenges and Strate­ gies. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ omb/performance/challenges_strategies.html [accessed April 2011]. Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization. (2010). FY 2011 Performance Plan. Avail- able: http://capstat.oca.dc.gov/Pdf.aspx?pdf=http://capstat.oca.dc.gov/docs/fy11/OPEFM. pdf [accessed December 2010]. Office of the State Superintendent of Education. (2010, June 1). DC’s Application for Race to the Top. Available: http://osse.dc.gov/seo/frames.asp?doc=/seo/lib/seo/cos/race_to_the_ top/dc_rttt_section_vi_application.pdf [accessed October 2010]. Parrish, T., Harr, J.J., Poirier, J.M., Madsen, S., and Yonker, S. (2007). Special Education Financing Study for the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. The Parthenon Group. (2006). Fact­Base for DCPS Reform. Boston: Author.

OCR for page 89
126 EVALUATING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS Peske, H.G., and Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching Inequality, How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality: A Report and Recommendations by the Education Trust. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Porter, A., Goldring, E., Elliott, S., Murphy, J., Polikoff, M., and Cravens, X. (2008). Setting Performance Standards for the VAL­ED: Assessment of Principal Leadership. Available: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED505799.pdf [accessed March 2011]. Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Rivikin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., and Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achieve- ment. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458. Rockoff, J.E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252. Schneider, M. (2002). Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Schutz, A. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school-based com- munity engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 691-743. Shannon, G.S., and Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of Improved School Districts: Themes from Research. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Simmons, D. (2010). Special education atop DC’s to-do list: City must curb costs, fulfill needs. Washington Times, October 18. Available: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/ oct/18/special-education-atop-dc-to-do-list/print/ [accessed October 2010]. Spillane, J.P., and Thompson, C.L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evalu­ ation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185-203. Spillane, J.P., and Thompson, C.L. (1998). Looking at local districts’ capacity for ambitious reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education Policy Bulletin. Available: http:// www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/pb-05.pdf [accessed April 2011]. Stecher, B.M., and Vernez, G. (2010). What Can We Learn from the Implementation of No Child Left Behind? Research Brief. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Steele, J.L., Hamilton, L., and Stecher, B. (2010). Incorporating Student Performance Measures into Teacher Evaluation Systems. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Stewart, N. (2010). Spreading D.C’s money around: Recent data on projects indicate Fenty doesn’t favor particular wards. Washington Post, June 6. Stewart, T., Wolf, P.J., Cornman, S.Q., and McKenzie-Thompson, K. (2007). Satisfied, Optimistic, Yet Concerned: Parent Voices on the Third Year of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. School Choice Demonstration Project Report 0702. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas. Stotko, E.M., Ingram, R., and Beaty-O’Ferrall, M.E. (2007). Promising strategies for attracting and retaining successful urban teachers. Urban Education, 42(1), 30-51. Sullivan, M.D., Campbell, D.B., and Kisida, B. (2008). The Muzzled Dog That Didn’t Bark: Charters and the Behavioral Response of D.C. Public Schools. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas. Swanson, C.B., and Stevenson, D.L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 1-27. Tozer, S., Violas, P.C., and Senese, G. (2001). School & Society: Historical & Contemporary Perspectives: Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill. Turnbull, B., and Arcaira, E. (2009). Education Indicators for Urban School Districts. Wash- ington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

OCR for page 89
127 SCHOOL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS UNDER PERAA Turque, B. (2009). Education reform long troubled in District: Personalities, politics thorny, new tumult reflected in pace of Rhee’s changes. Washington Post, Octo- ber 31. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/31/ AR2009103102357.html [accessed November 2010]. 21st Century School Fund. (2010). 21CSF Data Shop: Financials. Available: http://www.21csf. org/csf-home/datashop.asp [accessed October 2010]. 21st Century School Fund, Brookings Institution, and Urban Institute. (2008). Quality Schools, Healthy Neighborhoods, and the Future of DC: Policy Report. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/publications/QualitySchoolsResearchReport/ QualitySchoolsPolicyReport9-18-08.pdf [accessed March 2011]. 21st Century School Fund, Urban Institute, and Brookings Institution. (2010). DC Pub­ lic Schools Enrollment Projections 2010­2011. Washington, DC: Author. Available: h ttp://www.dccouncil.us/media/2010%20Budget/Attachment%20m.%202010%20 Enrollment%20Projections.pdf [accessed March 2011]. U.S. Government Accounting Office. (1995). School Facilities: America’s Schools Not Designed or Equipped for 21st Century. Report to Congressional Requesters. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Government Accounting Office. (1996). School Facilities: America’s Schools Report Dif­ fering Conditions. Report to Congressional Requesters. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005a). Charter Schools: Oversight Practices in the District of Columbia: Report to Congressional Committees. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005b). D.C. Charter Schools: Strengthening Moni­ toring and Process When Schools Close Could Improve Accountability and Ease Student Transitions Report to Congressional Committees. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). District of Columbia Public Schools: Impor­ tant Steps Taken to Continue Reform Efforts, but Enhanced Planning Could Improve Implementation and Sustainability. Washington, DC: Author. Warren, M.R. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133-173. Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. (2005). Separate and Unequal: The State of the District of Columbia Public Schools Fifty Years After Brown and Bolling. Washington, DC: Author. Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. (2010). The State of the District of Columbia Public Schools 2010: A Five­Year Update. Available: http://www. washlaw.org/pdf/DC%20Public%20Schools-5%20Year%20Update%20-%20Final.pdf [accessed March 2011]. Waters, J.T., and Marzano, R.J. (2007). School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. ERS Spectrum, 25(2), 1-12. Available: http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/leadershiporganizationdevelopment/4005RR_Superintendent_ leadership.pdf [accessed March 2011]. Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How Teaching Matters: Bringing the Classroom Back into Discussions of Teacher Quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12), 1-30. Available: http://epaa. asu.edu/ojs/article/view/291/417 [accessed March 2011]. Wingert, P. (2010). Breaking the teachers’ union monopoly. Newsweek, June 4. Available: http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/04/breaking-the-teacher-unions- monopoly-as-new-details-emerge-dc-school-contract-huge-win-for-reformers.html [ac - cessed October 2010].

OCR for page 89
128 EVALUATING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS Wooden, R. (2010). Using Opinion Research and Engagement to Advance Educational Im­ provement. PowerPoint presentation to the Committee on the Independent Evaluation of DC Public Schools, March 8, National Research Council, Keck Center, Washington, DC.