Children and Youth;Education and Literacy
Few people hail teachers' unions as leaders of education reform. Teachers' unions are routinely characterized as part of the problem, protecting the interests of members at the expense of quality instruction and exercising unchecked political power. School districts fare little better in the public eye; they are often perceived as large, ineffective bureaucracies which perpetuate under-performance among low-income and minority students. Furthermore, community involvement in public education reform, though a widespread phenomenon, is largely unrecognized in the national policy debate about the future of schools. Given this, it is difficult to imagine three less likely partners in education reform than a local teachers' union (labor), district leaders (management), and local organizations and foundations (community). Yet the work of some education and community leaders has shown that collaboration between labor, management, and community has the potential to build capacity and improve student learning.
December 1969
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts
Outlines strategies for district leaders to create a supportive environment and a collaborative working relationship with high school principals that encourage innovation and enable principals to lead effective school reform efforts.
December 1969
Geographic Focus: North America-United States
Offers ideas for spending stimulus funds strategically to align and restructure districts' use of resources to improve student performance by assessing current practices, focusing on support for quality instruction, and making transitional investments.
December 1969
Geographic Focus: North America-United States
Offers guidance on assessing student progress, meeting diverse needs, managing change processes, strengthening the mix of options, supporting schools, and identifying needed policy changes. Outlines data or knowledge base and actions needed for each step.
December 1969
Geographic Focus: North America-United States
Children and Youth;Education and Literacy
Analyzes patterns of extreme child poverty by state, county, and school district. Examines federal funding for high-poverty districts and the need for local, state, and federal policy to improve educational opportunities for the poorest children.
December 1969
Geographic Focus: North America-United States
The challenge for the Chicago Public Schools is shared by virtually every urban school district across the nation: How do we organize a school system to ensure that each and every student obtains a high-quality education that develops his or her abilities to become powerful and critical thinkers, responsible global citizens, self-confident individuals, and effective, literate communicators? To meet this challenge, we need to raise standards and elevate expectations for teaching and learning and build staff capacity to meet these standards.
While we know that there is no single solution to fixing our education system, we do know that supporting high-quality instruction needs to be at the center of our efforts.
Identifying ways for the school system to achieve high-quality education for every student in every school is the focus of this document, developed with the support of The Chicago Community Trust. We believe that our schools will benefit greatly by implementing these recommendations, which draw from the collective knowledge of local and national experts and practitioners. We are grateful for the many contributors who gave their time and expertise to develop this document.
December 1969
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Midwestern)-Illinois-Chicago Metropolitan Area
The reviewers credit the report for being straightforward and reasonable, but point out that the reforms it proposes are neither new nor unique and are very challenging to implement.
December 1969
Geographic Focus:
In the latter half of the past decade, school districts in several large cities, including New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and post-Katrina New Orleans, have implemented an urban school decentralization model generally known as "portfolio districts." Others, including those in Denver and Cleveland, are following suit in what appears to be a growing trend. The portfolio strategy has become increasingly prominent in educational policy circles, think tank and philanthropy literature, and education news reporting. As CEO of the Chicago Public Schools, Arne Duncan embraced the portfolio district model. His appointment as U.S. Secretary of Education suggests the Obama administration also supports the approach. The premise of the portfolio strategy is that if superintendents build portfolios of schools that encompass a variety of educational approaches offered by different vendors, then over time school districts will weed out under-performing approaches and vendors; as a result, more children will have more opportunities for academic success. This brief examines the available evidence for the viability of this premise and the proposals that flow from it.
The portfolio district approach merges four strategies: 1) decentralization; 2) charter school expansion; 3) reconstituting/closing "failing" schools; and 4) test-based accountability. Additionally, portfolio district restructuring often involves firing an underperforming school's staff in its entirety, whether or not the school is reconstituted as a charter school. In this model, the portfolio district is conceptualized as a circuit of "continuous improvement." Schools are assessed based on test scores; if their scores are low, they are subject to being closed and reopened as charters. The replacement charters are subsequently subject to test-based assessment and, if scores remain disappointing, to possible closure and replacement by still other contractors. The portfolio district concept implements what has been since the 1990's discussed in educational policy literature as market-based "creative destruction" or "churn."1 This perspective considers public schools to be comparable to private enterprise, with competition a key element to success. Just as businesses that cannot turn sufficient profit, schools that cannot produce test scores higher than competitors' must be "allowed" to "go out of business." The appeal of the portfolio district strategy is that it appears to offer an approach sufficiently radical to address longstanding and intractable problems in public schools.
Although the strategy is being advocated by some policy centers, implemented by some large urban districts, and promoted by the education reforms proposed as part of the Obama administrations Race to the Top initiative, no peer-reviewed studies of portfolio districts exist, meaning that no reliable empirical evidence about portfolio effects is available that supports either the implementation or rejection of the portfolio district reform model. Nor is such evidence likely to be forthcoming. Even advocates acknowledge the enormous difficulty of designing credible empirical studies to determine how the portfolio approach affects student achievement and other outcomes. There are anecdotal reports of achievement gains in one portfolio district, New Orleans. The New Orleans results, however, have been subjected to serious challenge. Extrapolation of research on the constituent elements of the model is not helpful because of the complex interactions of these elements within the portfolio model. Moreover, even when the constituent elements are considered as a way to predict the likely success of the model, no evidence is found to suggest that it will produce gains in either achievement or fiscal efficiency. Finally, the policy writing of supporters of the portfolio model suggests that the approach is expensive to implement and may have negative effects on student achievement.
In light of these considerations, it is recommended that policymakers and administrators use caution in considering the portfolio district approach. It is also highly recommended that before adopting such a strategy, decision makers ask the following questions.
- What credible evidence do we have, or can we obtain, that suggests the portfolio model offers advantages compared to other reform models? What would those advantages be, when might they be expected to materialize, and howmight they be documented?
- If constituent elements of the model (such as charter schools and test-based accountability) have not produced advantages outside of portfolio systems, whatis the rationale for expecting improved outcomes as part of a portfolio system?
- What funding will be needed for startup, and where will it come from?
- What funding will be necessary for maintenance of the model? Where will continuation funds come from if startup funds expire and are not renewed?
- How will the cost/benefit ratio of the model be determined?
- What potential political and social conflicts seem possible? How will concerns of dissenting constituents be addressed?
December 1969
Geographic Focus: North America-United States
