Blockchain Papers

Christopher Yaw Kwaah, Mikako Nishimuko

In the education decentralization processes, community participation in education governance has been argued to be essential for improving accountability to service beneficiaries. Therefore, this paper examined the perspectives of key actors on the impact of an educational decentralization policy on improving school quality education in Junior High Schools in Ghana. Participants in the study were 54 School Management Committee (SMC)/Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) members, 106 teachers, and 11 head teachers in 11 schools drawn from two districts in the Central Region of Ghana. Teachers filled out questionnaires and interviews were conducted with SMC/PTA members using a semi-structured interview guide and with 11 head teachers. The paper reveals that the education decentralization policy, with community participation at its heart, has given schools some autonomy in their decision-making process. However, the involvement of community members in school activities has been limited mainly to financing, with little emphasis on the decision-making process in school governance. The study recommends that there should be adequate support for communities to become more involved in the decision-making process, especially in implementing the School Performance Improvement Plan for Ghana to achieve Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4.

Jane Hannaway

In 2014, the Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP) held its thirty-ninth annual conference in San Antonio, Texas. The relevance of the host city for much of the research presented at the conference was not lost on most members.A little over forty years ago the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in San Antonio v. Rodriguez [411 U.S. 1 (1973)] that education is not a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. Parents had brought suit arguing that basing school financing on property wealth resulted in the unequal provision of education, presumably a fundamental right. The Supreme Court decision was a close one, at 5 to 4. If the decision had gone the other way, we would likely now have a national education system. Instead, what evolved is a complex system of education policy making, often described as a “marble cake federalism,” where different levels of government intermingle in different ways in policies and programs or as a “Rube-Goldberg-like” machine where complicated hoops and hurdles are required to produce relatively simple policy inputs.Something else has changed in the last forty years. The United States led the world throughout the twentieth century in expanding access to secondary and college education (Goldin and Katz 2000; Goldin 2001) but it is no longer the leader in access—nor for that matter doesit lead in performance. Relative to other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, U.S. performance on the latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA 2012) is middling at best, and secondary school completion is similar. And the rest of the world is fast catching up with the United States in college completion. In 1995, the United States ranked first in college graduation among OECD countries. Today, it ranks 19th out of the 28 countries studied (OECD 2014).In addition, the United States—traditionally seen as the land of opportunity—has relatively low educational mobility: The fraction of young adults in the United States with education levels lower than their parents is higher than the OECD average. Indeed, out of the 21 countries included in the analysis, the United States ranks 18th (OECD 2014). Lack of social mobility weakens social cohesion and trust in a society's institutions.Education ranking of countries is more than a simple top ten list. Education quality is a key ingredient for a country's economic growth (Nelson and Phelps 1966; Hanushek and Woessmann 2007). Major national economic policy leaders are increasingly stressing the importance of education for the country's economic well-being (e.g., Bernanke 2007). President Obama warns that “Countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow” (Obama 2011). Indeed, he has called education “the economic issue of our time” (Obama 2010).In a speech on inequality, Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellen (2014) identifies education as a key “cornerstone” of opportunity affecting intergenerational mobility. She points out that, unlike most other advanced countries, students from low income families in the United States often receive less public education support than students from more advantaged families because school financing is heavily based on subnational (state and local) taxes. The old problem associated with the Rodriguez case emerges again, but perhaps in a broader way. Most of our economic competitors have not only more equal funding but also national systems of education where both education policies, including performance standards and funding, are largely set for the country as a whole.The focus of this essay, as the title suggests, is to advocate for new and renewed efforts in analyzing the dynamics behind shifts in education governance in the United States and their effects on national policies, practices, and performance going forward.Much of the work presented at AEFP conferences evaluates education policies and practices using experimental methods, with random assignment, or rigorous quasi-experimental strategies, such as regression discontinuity designs. This work will, and should, always be a large and important part of AEFP's portfolio. It provides policy makers with valuable information about the likely productivity effects of different courses of action. The extent and ways in which policy makers and other influential parties respond to such information, however, is complicated. And the complications are also worth studying.In short, I am suggesting that it may serve us, and the field, well to broaden our horizon. In some sense, I suggest we revisit some of our earlier roots, and expend greater effort examining cross-level institutional incentives and constraints that affect federal, state, and local policy making, as well as the resources and political pressures at different levels that shape policies and foster or inhibit productive education change. This is a call for more research on the political economy of education policy making.Constitutionally, states control what is taught and who teaches. Curriculum and standards are formally within the purview of the state, as are human capital policies that set teacher and administrator certification requirements, hiring, pay, tenure, and so forth. The traditional federal role has been one of equity with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as its centerpiece. Federal funds have largely been intended to target special services to disadvantaged students without supplanting state and local funds. Accountability exercised by the federal government historically has been pretty much limited to distributional accountability. That is, ensuring that federal funds, which represent a little more than 10 percent of expenditures, are directed to disadvantaged students.The last few years, however, have been a game-changing time for federal education policy in the United States, with major implications for state and local education efforts and their direction. The federal efforts are heavily driven by a recognition of the importance of education policy for national economic objectives, as well as traditional equity objectives. For education researchers, it has been particularly heady because research has played a big role in shaping the thinking behind many of the changes, and continues to do so. The story of the game-changing is familiar to education policy observers, but a quick review of what has happened, and what is still uncertain, may help set the stage for thoughts on where additional research on education governance might be insightful.Passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001 was the first big game changer for federal education policy since the 1960s and, in many ways, it opened the door for more recent, bolder efforts.The law required states to establish academic performance standards for all students within their state, and to hold schools and school districts accountable for student progress in meeting those standards. Schools not making adequate academic progress faced sanctions. Standards and accountability, once the sole responsibility of state and local education agencies, were now required by Washington, even if many of the details were left to the states. In addition, teachers were expected to meet “high quality” standards, that is, meet state certification requirements. States could opt out of the NCLB requirements but they risked losing federal dollars. Some states balked at the law's provisions, and the increased reach of the federal government, but all eventually signed on. The legislation likely never would have passed without the strong bipartisan leadership of President George W. Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy.The expectation, specified in the law (which is still on the books at the time of this writing), is that all students would reach state-established academic proficiency levels by the 2013–14 school year. It turned out to be a humbling pipe dream.In 2011, about half of the nation's schools did not make adequate progress. Four states had school failure rates approaching 90 percent (Usher 2012). This was in spite of the fact that an easy way to meet the proficiency level was to lower standards. In fact, an analysis by the National Center for Education Statistics, using the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as the standard, found that not only did states vary in the rigor of their standards, but fifteen states had lowered their standards between 2005 and 2007 to avoid sanctions (NCES 2011). A more recent analysis by Gary Phillips (2014), using international benchmarks, found that the standards gap between states with the highest standards and those with the lowest standards represents between three to four grade levels of performance. He concludes: “50 states going in 50 different directions cannot lead to national success that is globally competitive” (p. 4).But the story doesn't end there—the game changed again. Another set of major education policy shifts emerged in the latter part of the decade and is currently underway, and then another. All are intended to raise education performance nationally. All increase the federal role, and all are designed in ways to induce state cooperation.Under the Obama Administration, teacher policies—traditionally determined by states—took center stage. Three notable teacher policy shifts mark Game Changer 2. The first shifted the focal unit of accountability from schools, as in NCLB, to teachers. The second shifted the basis of teacher quality from input (i.e., qualifications) to output (student performance). The third shifted accountability based on student academic proficiency levels to accountability based on student academic gains. These are major policy changes.The shifts were accomplished through incentive-based reform initiatives developed by the executive branch of the government under the financial challenges of the Great Recession. State and local coffers were coming up short, and education jobs were at risk. The economic stimulus funds (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) provided $100 billion for education support. The funds were critically needed but they came with strings or, at least, a strong expectation that states focus on four priority areas of reform. One key area was “increasing teacher effectiveness” partly through evaluating teachers on the basis of student achievement.1The Obama Administration also used part of the stimulus funds to spur new ways of doing things. A national competition—Race to the Top—was established with $4.35 billion to support states proposing to make dramatic progress on the reform activities. The winners would be the pacesetters of reform. The criteria used to evaluate state proposals gave heaviest weight to reforms focused on “improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance.” Weight was also given to proposals that fully developed and used individual-level longitudinal data systems to track individual student performance gains to inform instructional efforts. At the time the NCLB legislation was passed, only a small handful of states had the data capacity to assess student gains and to link students to their teachers. By 2011, it was different. Since 2005, the U.S. Department of Education has awarded more than half a billion dollars to states to develop individual level longitudinal education data systems. The number of states able to link student data with their teacher increased from four in 2005 to forty-four in 2011.Most states, hungry for financial support, competed to be bold reformers of human capital policies, an entrenched policy area that was traditionally mired in politics, complex sets of state laws, and practices heavily shaped by local collective bargaining agreements. To ensure that real reform would occur, state proposals had to be endorsed by state officials, local administrators, and unions. Eleven states and the District of Columbia were winners in the first two rounds of the competition and an additional seven states won awards in 2011.2 In all, nearly 40 percent of states competed and won, thereby accepting the human capital reform challenge.New changes emerged in 2011, again with incentives provided by the executive branch to induce state pursuit of favored policies. A divided U.S. Congress was unable to come to agreement on reauthorization of NCLB, and many schools and districts were facing serious sanctions for not achieving the performance levels specified in NCLB. The Obama Administration agreed to grant states waivers from key provisions in NCLB law but, again, there were strings attached. In exchange for relief of some of the terms of NCLB, states had to propose a plan in line with the Administration's reform agenda. Again, key among the items was evaluating teachers, in part, on the basis of students’ test scores. By August 2012, thirty-three states had been granted waivers. Many waivers expired at the end of the 2013–14 academic year, and the U.S. Department of Education granted extensions to states for another year on the basis of reform progress. Indeed, seven states that had been especially successful with developing teacher evaluation systems were eligible to apply for a fast-tracked extended renewal through 2018–19. In effect, many states are continuing to negotiate their education policies with the executive branch of the federal government.Although the financial incentives and waivers, combined with tough economic times, help explain why states were willing to take on the thorny problem of teacher effectiveness and teacher evaluation, they do not explain why the Obama Administration focused laser-like on teachers.The policy emphasis shift from schools to teachers was driven largely by research findings that began emerging in the mid-2000s—findings that are difficult to dismiss. Numerous studies by different researchers, utilizing data from different states using different tests and in different policy of this research has been by AEFP key findings are the most important school student performance. to the and by more studies that teacher quality for a of the in student performance than other school findings also that teachers have effects on and of their students and productivity among teachers is In a Hanushek that teachers the top of the performance are for about a year and a half of academic gains for their teachers the produce only about a half year in teacher effectiveness within schools is at as large as the between Again, since studies have found in teacher effectiveness within schools that are often than the between studies based on longitudinal data from states the teacher do not represent teacher quality percent of a school is for and academic and heavily in teacher and higher has but research the are not as strong as For teachers over their first years of the to to out by about year In short, the findings suggest that we have traditionally a large part of our instructional dollars on or that to have little on student performance as traditionally and findings policy If teachers are the of large in student we to teachers. are the making the most in The large in productivity among teachers an that doing much is, are not as traditional human capital policies in education to if the is as large as the between schools, basing policies on performance will much of the in by the policy initiatives described a strong emphasis on teacher performance between and 2012, more than states legislation annual of teachers, based partly on student test and the to key such as 2012). effects were In 2007 in for percent of teachers in their third year of in 2012, this to percent In the last few years, of states have changed These changes are in a large by the Education of the are also in the in brought that protected teachers from and thereby students’ state to an equal The were heavily based on research findings about teacher The found the research and ruled for the A case is making its way through the in has also about ways to develop both through programs and in this area is and often For a random of for school teachers, a target that we might would be likely to from no on teacher or student 2011). States, and began in to link effectiveness to programs for both accountability and By 2014, states teacher performance data of with their teacher is on both what as well as to for research is in the or of and associated a A recent review by National for of Education found that, there is teacher programs are important for teacher effectiveness in the more research is needed to their In the what is is that some teachers are more than and are to develop more of teacher effectiveness using of the last decade of education reform in the United States has led to agreement among policy on at two reform and academic standards. and what is taught are both The focus on teachers was we are with what in the standards (i.e., the and performance that NCLB required standards, but as by the were states. In addition, the accountability provisions in NCLB presented States were their standards and the public and the federal government a or for their Changer this problem by to establish national standards in and for State Standards that are with international are the of reform. At a they the basis for state policies and state accountability policies. they would have little President of the State Board of it we from the of state standards academic standards so do policies to student and school accountability. many other policies be and including state instructional and college teacher and other the federal government could not establish national standards for the states, but it did their by points to states that standards in the to the and by favored in for states that the National Association and the of State had led the of the standards in and control their with a to the of the standards but support from the and was large and The provided support and over in financial support to help states work on standards. The also to political support for the standards by to key institutional the political including teacher the of and the National Education the U.S. of and political on the right and and influential state the federal government did not financial support for the of national standards, it did support the of for states to 2011, states and the District of Columbia had the standards, and did so states did The however, is a target as is in at a handful of states that are to or the standards. The to teachers of the has also as well as the to to be is the federal control in is seen as an by the federal government that is likely to lead to greater federal control over instructional and the of individual student the teachers and their about for teacher a the standards in the those of most states. is a may an even in teacher effectiveness than we currently In addition, to be teacher and instructional are not fully in The of has for a on and its in has support for the such as the passed a in the in its and it as an effort by a of are for the are for the will all this are we and what we will be the for education quality and education and eventually for increased national economic and national social and economic the last two or the role of the executive branch of the federal government in education policy making increased political under the leadership of George W. George W. and have to this in ways the of national education standards and a national system for educational accountability, even the U.S. such to the states. At a the of the federal and state levels of government are currently in in and and will take in to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the Congress where many recent policies, such as annual student as an by the federal executive branch that be that affect the governance of education in the United States serious and is at AEFP could a number of research associated with the political economy of U.S. education and in ways to the and on education governance would in focus and from much of our and important work evaluating education practices and policies, but it would this It would help us the dynamics of reform in the United economy in the of a policy research and they for analysis and of come to The first three focus on what we might call the political economy of education information the education policy and policy These are especially key as education policies have shifted from education policies to policies using relatively performance The on the role of to what and in what ways, information about the of education performance affect policy findings about different to student performance (e.g., teacher policies, policies, and graduation more or less or influential in different ways, at the state, and local policy In what ways do of information and to that information states with different political or economic to what extent do standards and performance information state and local spur through competition and another there an of that, under strong information to education To what extent do political leaders to performance information in ways that might affect its to the what are the and that for education reforms at different levels of government and different what are the of different going The role of is among the most to are a major political at the national and state policy and a policies at the local level through collective are but have in important areas of education policy are the most important school input affecting student performance. are in the difficult of the of all their it is increasingly that some teachers are much more than from on an earlier were

Anisah Waite

The decentralization of school governance—often blended with market dynamics—has become a prominent strategy for lifting the performance of urban schools. This approach rests upon several assumptions, primarily that freedom from bureaucratic regulation will strengthen teacher community and result in more effective allocation of instructional resources. But do small autonomous high schools host such favorable social-organizational features? What drives collaborative relationships among teachers in decentralized schools? And do these relations help to account for between-school and between-teacher variation in teacher trust and shared responsibility for student learning? To examine these core questions I draw on social network theory as a theoretical frame and build from the literature on the social organization of efficacious schools. Survey data were collected from 392 teachers in 20 small site-managed charter and pilot high schools located in Los Angeles. First, I used p2 network modeling to determine the extent to which a teacher’s position in the school organization and personal characteristics predicted their instructional support relationships. Second, to examine the influence of these instructional support relationships on a teacher’s perceptions of normative culture in their schools, I estimated hierarchical linear models (HLM) estimating collective responsibility and relational trust as functions of teacher position in the school organization, teacher personal characteristics, and teacher- and school-level network measures of the instructional support relationships.Teachers’ choice of colleagues to whom they turn for support to improve their teaching practice reflected not only leaders’ efforts to shape teacher collaboration, but also preferences for forming ties with a colleague based on their personal characteristics. Teachers were more likely to seek advice to improve their teaching practice from colleagues who taught the same subject. However, teachers were less likely to seek advice from the more experienced teachers in the school. The likelihood of an instructional advice relationship was greater when teachers were of the same race. Teachers’ perceptions of normative culture were influenced by the distribution of these social resources in the school, in that uneven distribution of advice and support relationships was detrimental for a sense of shared responsibility for student learning but conducive to a high level of trust in the group. For individual teachers, their collaborative activity conditioned the perceptions further: those teachers most often approached for support by colleagues held weaker perceptions of the group’s overall shared responsibility. This approach advances the study of teacher professional community to incorporate the “dyad” as a focus, honing in on an essential building block of cohesive social organizations. The study also demonstrates meaningful variation among teachers within the same school in how they perceive normative culture. The findings contribute to the literature on teacher professional community and have implications for policymakers, districts and school leaders.

Poppema, M., Verger, A., Novelli, M., Altinyelken, H.K.

School-based management (SBM) has been on the educational reform agenda of International Organisations (IOs) since the 1990s and is regarded as the most radical form of educational decentralisation.Although the models might differ, the main rationale given for the implementation of SBM is that by enhancing the participation of local stakeholders, decentralisation will lead to more efficient services and boost educational achievement.Most analysis of SBM programmes (SBMPs) evaluate the functioning of the programmes and their main outcomes.In this chapter, the focus shall be placed on the specific political and economic context that gave rise to the two first SBMPs in the Global South, namely, the Autonomous Schools Programme (ASP) in Nicaragua and the EDUCO Community-Managed Schools Programme in El Salvador.They were implemented at a time when major (post) conflict transformation processes in Central America (CA) were driven through the direct intervention by the Unites States (US) and their Agency for International Development (USAID).Since then, these SBMPs have been implemented in countries where IOs have great leverage, as in (post-) conflict countries (Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, etc.) or in countries that are undergoing significant political, social and economic change.Next to USAID, the World Bank is the major promoter of SBM and has continuously expanded its support for this kind of decentralized reform.A review of World Bank's lending portfolio over the years [2000][2001][2002][2003][2004][2005][2006] shows that SBM projects amount to US$1.7 billion, representing approximately 18 per cent of total education financing (Barrera-Osorio et al. 2009).The EDUCO programme in particular has been cited as the best practice, arguing that the project was built on the experience of at least 500 community-run schools operating in conflict-affected areas in the 1980s.'When the country emerged from war, the new Ministry of Education launched Education with Community Participation (EDUCO), a programme that gave these schools official recognition and financial support.' (UNESCO 2011, p. 224).This appreciation has been highlighted in all the World Bank documents on the topic (see Jimenez et al.

Bruce D. Baker, Douglas R. Elmer

This article summarizes and evaluates two Off-the-Shelf school finance reforms that gained then waned in popularity over the past several years. The 65 percent solution claims that requiring all public school districts to allocate 65 cents of every education dollar “to the classroom” would drive substantial additional resources to children without increasing total spending, therefore improving the efficiency of public education systems. The 100 percent solution promotes a combination of decentralized school-based governance and budgeting, coupled with a district-to-school budget allocation strategy called Weighted Student Funding. We begin by evaluating the life cycles of these two reforms, concluding that the 65 percent solution has run its cycle, but that the 100 solution remains viable, mainly because it contains potentially more substantive reform elements. We point out that the research literature on productivity and efficiency of public schooling is far from decisive with respect to either shares of dollars allocated to the classroom or decentralized governance, despite bold claims of proponents of the solutions. Finally, we provide a series of empirical analysis and discussions of related research raising additional questions about the central claims of the reforms, including the claim that Weighted Student Funding is a panacea for funding inequities that persist across schools within large urban districts.

Yang Yang, Jan‐Eric Gustafsson

This study investigated the multilevel dimensionality of socioeconomic status and its relationship to reading achievement in 23 countries. Different factor structures of SES were found at different levels’ observations and in different countries. The study showed that the cultural dimension strongly related to student reading performance, while the school general capital dimension explained a large part of the between-school reading achievement differences. Most interestingly, the factor relationship between SES and reading achievement at the school level varies greatly across countries. It was argued that these variations might be due to the differences in the centralized versus decentralized educational finance, tracking mechanism and some social characteristics in different countries.

Andrew Dana Sobel

Average citizens, working-class and low-income individuals in particular, have little, if any, impact on the formulation of educational policies that affect the schools in which their children are enrolled.Yet there are instances in which these typically disenfranchised citizens become politically active and are able to effect change in the educational policy arena.This study will focus on the process of transformation of marginalized and politically disempowered parents into citizens active in the formulation of educational policy. BACKGROUNDSchools tend to be the governmental institution with which the average citizen has the most contact.Ironically, most community members have little voice in the day-to-day operations of schools and tend to have insignificant influence on educational policy at the district, state, or federal level.In Tinkering Toward Utopia, Tyack and Cuban (1995) explain that a variety of groups have entered school politics, but that this apparent pluralism is misleading.They feel the politics of education has not been conducted on a level playing field.Members of the policy elite-people who manage the economy, who have privileged access to the media and to political officials, who control foundations, and who lead our city and state education agencies and universities-have disproportionate authority over educational reform.The authors go on to say: Policy elites often claimed to be "taking the schools out of politics."They sought to do this by centralizing control of schools and delegating decisions about education, wherever possible, to "experts."In the process they did not, of course, eliminate politics, but they acquired formidable powers: to set the agenda of reform, to diagnose problems, to prescribe solutions, and often to influence what should not [italics in original] be on the agenda of reform.(p.8) Stone, Henig, Jones and Pierannunzi (2001) explain that in addition to being controled by elites, educational policy occurs in subsystems and is decentralized, taking place "out of the limelight of public opinion" (p.100).This type of decentralization (toward the elites) occurs despite vocal support for parental involvement (decentralization toward the community) from the U.S. Department of Education and many state departments of education (Epstein, 2001).In Stone et al.'s (2001) words: "urban parents are scarcely visible as active [italics in original] stakeholders in the current school improvement movement" (p.83).Not only do the elites control the policymaking environment, but they also perceive problems differently.For example, the author's research determined that, in some cities, elites are likely to say that no educational problems exist while in others they may identify poor teaching and governance as concerns while other groups cite financing and social issues as key school problems.Issues of race, class, gender, education, and political knowledge further exacerbate this lack of power (Conway, 2000;Gee, 2001).In addition, the democratic environment in which these citizens live also affects their ability to act.As Greider (1992) points out, American democracy is in much deeper trouble than most people wish to acknowledge.Behind the reassuring faade, the regular election contests and so forth, the substantive meaning of self-government has been hollowed out.What exists behind the formal shell is a systemic breakdown of the shared civic values we call democracy.(p.11)

Martin R. West, Ludger Wöβmann

No abstract is available for this record.

Penny Bender Sebring, Anthony S. Bryk

In their study of Chicago school reform, the authors discovered that the principals of productive elementary schools skillfully use a number of strategies to promote the efforts of both parents and teachers who work directly with children. EIGHT YEARS of research on Chicago school reform show that local control has facilitated significant improvements in student achievement in a large proportion of elementary schools. It is also clear that, under Chicago's decentralization plan, the quality of the principal's leadership is a critical factor in determining whether a school moves forward to improve learning opportunities for students. Evidence comes from investigations carried out by the Consortium on Chicago School Research, including surveys of teachers, principals, local leaders, and students, as well as in-depth case studies of dozens of schools.1 Previous longitudinal analyses of standardized test scores had produced an estimate of the value added to student learning by each elementary school and whether this measure had been improving.2 We have linked our data to these analyses and are now in a position to share what we have learned about successful principal leadership aimed at improving academic achievement. During the 1990s, Chicago witnessed gradual but consistent improvement in student test scores. In 1990, about a quarter of the students in grades 3 through 8 reached national norms in reading and mathematics. By 1999, this proportion had grown to 35% in reading and 43% in math. One-third of the elementary schools (most include eighth grade) raised the percentage of students reaching national norms in reading by at least 15%. Almost half of the schools showed an increase of between 5% and 14%.3 While far too many students still fail to reach national norms, this steady upward trend is encouraging. This same period saw the establishment of local control under the framework of the 1988 Chicago School Reform Act. The law created parent-dominated Local School Councils (LSCs) for each school and gave them the power to hire and fire their principals. Principals gained greater autonomy in selecting their staff, and they received new resources relative to the number of low-income students their school served. Eventually, elementary schools received an average of $500,000 a year, which could be used to finance improvements.4 In 1995, the state legislature handed control of the school system to the mayor, giving him the right to name a five-member school board and the chief executive officer of the system. With the extensive news coverage of the mayor's new team, most outsiders failed to realize that the 1995 reform left local control intact: LSCs were not affected, and neither were their formal authority or their resources.5 Key Elements of Principal Leadership in Productive Schools The underlying assumption behind the Chicago reform is that local actors, if given adequate authority and resources, will be able to solve local problems effectively. Along with granting this autonomy, the 1988 reform law dramatically reshaped the sanctions and incentives for principals. Instead of reporting to their central administration superiors, principals became locally accountable. They now work under four-year performance contracts subject to LSC review. Most important, when they successfully introduce improvements, local leaders recognize and appreciate their efforts. We found three common elements among principals of productive schools: their leadership style, their strategies, and the issues on which they focus. A central theme emerging from our research is that principals of improving Chicago elementary schools skillfully use a combination of support and pressure to promote the efforts of adults who work directly with children. Leadership Style Several features characterize the leadership style of principals of productive schools: an inclusive, facilitative orientation; an institutional focus on student learning; efficient management; and a reliance on a combination of pressure and support to motivate others. …

Yossi Yonah

In the last two decades the Israeli educational system has undergone major changes which have transformed it from a state-controlled, overly bureaucratic and almost fully state-financed system into a decentralized, partly locally controlled and increasingly privately financed system. Advocates of this transformation of the educational system appeal to the ideal of parental choice. They argue that the implementation of parental choice programs in education shows more respect to the children and their unique talents, take their self-realization seriously and promotes equal opportunities in education. The ideal of parental choice is also upheld in relation to value of cultural pluralism. Supporters of educational autonomy advocate the restructuring of schools in a way allow­ ing them to develop a unique climate and curriculum consistent with respective communities and parents' preferences. The aim of this paper is to assess critically the changes that Israeli educational system has undergone against the background of the principle of equal educational opportunities. The main claim of the paper is that these changes undermine this principle. It will be argued that these changes actually cater mainly to the educational interests of middle and upper middle classes in Israeli society.

Rodney J. Reed

School results for children of poverty ‐ those forced by that poverty to live in inner‐city neighbourhoods ‐generally indicate educational failure at a much higher rate than is seen for students nurtured by wealthier school districts. This failure in school severely limits chances of social and economic upward mobility, which translates into a waste of human capital for the nation's business‐industrial‐political complex, and dashed hopes, dreams and self‐esteem for the individual. Parents and concerned citizens from across socio‐economic strata, long aware of the general inadequacy of schools in poor communities, have demanded improvement, often seeking it through legal and political means. Important strategies among the various federal, state and local school reform efforts to make schooling a meaningful process for all students, and particularly the minority poor, are decentralization and citizen/parent empowerment, the focus of this chapter. The movement to decentralize school governance ‐ an effort to place control into the hands of the people being served ‐ has gained momentum and exists in some form in most large‐city school districts today. An extension of administrative decentralization, citizen/parent empowerment is seen as one of several factors, including teacher and administrator preparation, curriculum renewal, school financing, and school restructuring, vital in the improvement of schools. A look at the meaning and scope of decentralization, operationalized through citizen/parent empowerment, and its probable effectiveness in improving school outcomes indicates that, alone, it is insufficient to ensure positive academic and social performance in school.

Stephen D. Sugarman

Parents and teachers seem increasingly alienated from their own schools. Here are two proposals for giving individual parents and teachers power to determine how small but significant portions of the school budget will be spent. I am convinced that we need much more experi mentation with true decentralized control over the spending of educational funds; not the creation of minidistricts or the adoption of school-site budget ing, but rather decision making at the individual teacher and individual family levels. I recognize the power of the entrenched bureaucracies: school boards and administrators on the one hand, teacher organizations on the other. For some time to come they will exercise hegemony over most public education dollars. But perhaps there is an oppor tunity for innovation at the margin. This opportuni ty is limited because there are few new public dollars available for education beyond those in evitably committed to cost-of-living increases in employee salaries. Yet this makes all the more important the desirability of trying out bold alterna tives with those funds. The past few years of experience with more centralized decision making with respect to new (or extra) money ? federal Title I funds and similar pots or large increases in general state aid brought about through school finance reform ? have shown us that this route typically results in either 1) in creases in employee salaries or 2) the hiring of more personnel ? either aides or specialists (usually read ing specialists), plus bureaucrats. In a few places these expenditures are thought to be educationally quite successful. If nothing else, they may be viewed as medium-scale public employment and guaran teed-wage programs or, to the extent that school volunteers are being converted into paid workers, an inventive income transfer scheme. Yet it is not clear