School Autonomy and District Support: How Principals Respond to a Tiered Autonomy Initiative in Philadelphia Public Schools

References

• Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J. D., Dynarski, S. M., Kane, T. J., & Pathak, P. A. (2011). Accountability and flexibility in public schools: Evidence from Boston’s charters and pilots. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(2), 699–748. doi:10.1093/qje/qjr017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., & Estrada, J. N. (2009). School violence and theoretically atypical schools: The principal’s centrality in orchestrating safe schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 423–461. doi:10.3102/0002831208329598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2009). Effective schools: Managing the recruitment, development, and retention of high-quality teachers National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, working paper no.37. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Box, R. C. (1999). Running government like a business: Implications for public administration theory and practice. American Review of Public Administration, 29(1), 19–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2012). Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case of school principals National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper no. 17803). Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w17803
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, D. J. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from U.S. high schools. Economics of Education Review, 12(4), 281–292. doi:10.1016/0272-7757(93)90062-L
   Google Scholar
• Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2001). Grounded theory. In R. E. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (2nd ed., pp. 335–352). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Cremata, E., Davis, D., Dickey, K., Lawyer, K., Negassi, Y., Raymond, M., & Woodworth, J. (2013). National charter school study. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes.
   Google Scholar
• Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fullan, M. (1993). Coordinating school and district development in restructuring. In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts (pp. 143–164). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glazer, J. L. (2009). How external interveners leverage large-scale change: The case of America’s choice, 1998–2003. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 269–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091–1123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 35–48. doi:10.1108/09578239210014306
   Google Scholar
• Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221–239. doi:10.1080/15700760500244793
   Google Scholar
• Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191. doi:10.1080/0924345980090203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A., Link, S., & Woessmann, L. (2013). Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development Economics, 104, 212–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, P. T. (2006). Put learning first: A portfolio approach to public schools. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491–523. doi:10.1086/653625
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaboolian, L. (1998). The new public management: Challenging the boundaries of the management vs. administration debate. Public Administration Review, 58(3), 189–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., Plecki, M. L., & Portin, B. S. (2006). Leading, learning, and leadership support. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Ladd, H. F. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of policy-relevant outcomes? National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, working paper no. 33. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, B. (1992). Developing expert leadership for future schools. Bristol, PA: Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27–42. doi:10.1080/13632430701800060
   Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Horng, E. L. (2010). Principal preferences and the uneven distribution of principals across schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 205–229. doi:10.3102/0162373710369833
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeb, S., & Strunk, K. (2006). Accountability and local control: Response to incentives with and without authority over resource generation and allocation. Education Finance and Policy, 2(1), 10–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397. doi:10.1177/0013161X03253412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, A. P., Donaldson, M. L., LeChasseur, K., Welton, A., & Cobb, C. D. (2013). Negotiating site-based management and expanded teacher decision making: A case study of six urban schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 695–731. doi:10.1177/0013161X13492793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, H. D. (2009). Saying what we mean and meaning what we say: Unpacking the contingencies of decentralization. American Journal of Education, 115, 457–474. doi:10.1086/597487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohrman, S. A., Wohlstetter, P., & Associates. (1994). School-based management: Organizing for high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 77–88. doi:10.1108/09578239210014333
   Google Scholar
• Nixon, P. (2012, April). The School District of Philadelphia Chief Academic Office reorganization/transitional proposal for 2012–2013. Retrieved from thenotebook.org
   Google Scholar
• Ouchi, W. G. (2006). Power to the principals: Decentralization in three large school districts. Organization Science, 17(2), 298–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollock, K., & Hauseman, C. (2015). Principals’ work in contemporary times: Final report. Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 426–452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice, J. K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of accountability: What research says. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, brief 8. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on school outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. doi:10.1177/0013161X08321509
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• School District of Philadelphia. (2012). A blueprint for transforming Philadelphia’s public schools. Retrieved from http://www.philasd.org/on
   Google Scholar
• Spillane, J., & Thompson, C. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 185–203. doi:10.3102/01623737019002185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., & Hunt, B. R. (2010). Days of their lives: A mixed-methods, descriptive analysis of the men and women at work in the principal’s office. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(3), 293–331. doi:10.1080/00220270903527623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg, M. (2014). Does greater autonomy improve school performance? Evidence from a regression discontinuity analysis in Chicago. Education Finance and Policy, 9(1), 1–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg, M., & Sartain, L. (2015). Does teacher evaluation improve school performance? Experimental evidence from Chicago’s Excellence in Teaching Project. Education Finance and Policy, 10(4),535–572.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stronge, J. H. (1993). Defining the principalship: Instructional leader or middle manager? NASSP Bulletin, 77(553), 1–7. doi:10.1177/019263659307755302
   Google Scholar
• Terry, L. D. (1998). Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public management movement. Public Administrative Review, 58(3), 194–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top program: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Van Langen, A., & Dekkers, H. (2001). Decentralisation and combating educational exclusion. Comparative Education, 37(3), 367–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Wohlstetter, P., & Buffett, T. (1992). Decentralizing dollars under school-based management: Have policies changed? Educational Policy, 6(1), 280–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wohlstetter, P., & Mohrman, S. A. (1996). Assessment of school-based management. Retrieved from www.ncrewl.org.
   Google Scholar