Effective School District Policies and Practices: Synthesizing Theoretical Frameworks and Empirical Findings across Disciplines

References

• *studies that are included in the formal research synthesis
   Google Scholar
• *Adams, J. P. (1987). Superintendents and effective schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California.
   Google Scholar
• *Alexander, K. L., & Griffin, L. J. (1976). School district effects on academic achievement: A reconsideration. American Sociological Review, 41(1), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, E., & Young, M. D. (2018). If they knew then what we know now, why haven’t things changed? An examination of district effectiveness research. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 3, p.87). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00087
   Google Scholar
• *Balter, D., & Duncombe, W. D. (2008). Recruiting highly qualified teachers: Do district recruitment practices matter. ?Public Finance Review, 36(1), 33–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142106293949
   Google Scholar
• *Berlau, D. C. (2011). Superintendent longevity and its relationship to student performance [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Drake University.
   Google Scholar
• Betts, J. R., Hahn, Y., & Zau, A. C. (2017). Can testing improve student learning? An evaluation of the mathematics diagnostic testing project. Journal of Urban Economics, 100, 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2017.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Bhatt, R., & Koedel, C. (2012). Large-scale evaluations of curricular effectiveness. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712440040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Bhatt, R., Koedel, C., & Lehmann, D. (2013). Is curriculum quality uniform? Evidence from Florida. Economics of Education Review, 34, 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.01.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Biasi, B. (2021). The labor market for teachers under different pay schemes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 13(3), 63–102. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20200295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Bidwell, C. E., & Kasarda, J. D. (1975). School district organization and student achievement. American Sociological Review, 40(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094447
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Blazar, D., Heller, B., Kane, T., Polikoff, M., Staiger, D., Carrell, S., Goldhaber, D., Harris, D. N., Hitch, R., Holden, K., & Kurlaender, M. (2020). Curriculum reform in the Common Core era. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 39(4), 966–1019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blazar, D., Litke, E., & Barmore, J. (2016). What does it mean to be ranked a “high” or “low” value-added teacher? American Educational Research Journal, 53(2), 324–359. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216630407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Booker, K., & Glazerman, S. (2009). Does the Missouri teacher career ladder program raise student achievement?. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Bowers, A. J. (2010). Toward addressing the issues of site selection in district effectiveness research: A two-level hierarchical linear growth model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 395–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10375271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowers, A. J., Ni, X., & Esswein, J. (2018). Using hierarchical growth modeling to promote district systematic improvement in Ohio and Texas. Leading Holistically: How Schools, Districts, and States Improve Systemically,
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). The draw of home. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Brewer, D. J. (1996). Does more school district administration lower educational productivity? Economics of Education Review, 15(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(95)00032-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryk, A. S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009100705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulkley, K., Henig, J., & Levin, H. (2010). Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform. Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Burnett, R. D. (1990). The effects of superintendents’ leadership behaviors in curriculum and instruction upon student achievement in South Carolina public school districts [Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of South Carolina.
   Google Scholar
• *Byrd, J. K. (2002). Effective superintendent leadership strategies and management techniques for improving student performance as perceived by superintendents in selected school districts in Texas [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas A&M University.
   Google Scholar
• *Carlson, D., Borman, G. D., & Robinson, M. (2011). A multistate district-level cluster randomized trial of the impact of data-driven reform on reading and mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 378–398. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711412765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Cellini, S. R., Ferreira, F., & Rothstein, J. (2010). The value of school facility investments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 215–261. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.1.215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childress, S., Doyle, D., & Thomas, D. (2009). Leading for equity. Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Chin, M., Kane, T., Kozakowski, W., Schueler, B., & Staiger, D. (2019). School district reform in Newark. ILR Review, 72(2), 323–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793918774318
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chingos, M. M., Whitehurst, G. J., & Gallaher, M. R. (2015). School districts and student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 10(3), 378–398. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Clore, W. P. (1992). The relationship of superintendent instructional leadership behavior and school district demographics to student achievement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Texas.
   Google Scholar
• Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2011). Teacher mobility, school segregation, and pay-based policies to level the playing field. Education Finance and Policy, 6(3), 399–438. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Cohen-Vogel, L., Feng, L., & Osborne-Lampkin, L. T. (2013). Seniority provisions in collective bargaining agreements and the “Teacher Quality Gap. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(3), 324–343. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713482765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2008). Learning policy. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., & Weinfeld, F. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity study. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   Google Scholar
• *Cook, P. J., MacCoun, R., Muschkin, C., & Vigdor, J. (2008). The negative impacts of starting middle school in sixth grade. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• *Cotter, M. E. (2002). Strategic leadership for student achievement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Johnson and Wales.
   Google Scholar
• DiMaggio & Powell. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Duvall, S. (2005). Superintendent evaluation and other influences on the school board and superintendent relationship [Unpublished dissertation]. Eastern Michigan University.
   Google Scholar
• *Eberts, R. W., & Stone, J. A. (1984). Unions and Public Schools: The Effect of Collective Bargaining on American Education. Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• *Eberts, R. W., & Stone, J. A. (1987). Teacher unions and the productivity of public schools. ILR Review, 40(3), 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979398704000303
   Google Scholar
• *Edwards, C. (2007). An analysis of the relationship of superintendent instructional leadership behaviors and district performance outcomes [Unpublished dissertation]. Tarleton State.
   Google Scholar
• Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.g73266758j348t33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1998). Continuous improvement in Community District #2.
   Google Scholar
• *Endeman, J. L. (1992). Visionary leadership in superintendents and its effect on organizational outcomes [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of La Verne.
   Google Scholar
• *Engel, A. (2016). Superintendent characteristics and their relationship to student achievement in Reading and mathematics [Unpublished dissertation]. University of Wisconsin.
   Google Scholar
• Faber, J. M., Luyten, H., & Visscher, A. (2017). The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation. Computers & Education, 106, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahle, E. M., & Reardon, S. F. (2018). How much do test scores vary among school districts? New estimates using population data, 2009–2015. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18759524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Figlio, D. (2002). Can public schools buy better-qualified teachers? ILR Review, 55(4), 686–699. https://doi.org/10.2307/3270629
   Google Scholar
• Firestone, W. A., Mangin, M. M., Martinez, M. C., & Polovsky, T. (2005). Leading coherent professional development. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 413–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04269605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Ford, M. (2013). The impact of school board governance on academic achievement in diverse states [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Wisconsin.
   Google Scholar
• *Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. M. (2016a). Do school board governance best practices improve district performance? International Journal of Public Administration, 39(2), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.982293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. M. (2016b). Differences in school boards with hired and elected superintendents. International Review of Public Administration, 21(4), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2016.1266181
   Google Scholar
• Fryer, R. G. Jr, (2017). The production of human capital in developed countries: Evidence from 196 randomized field experiments. In Handbook of economic field experiments (Vol. 2, pp. 95–322). North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• *Gandhi, A. G., Slama, R., Park, S. J., Russo, P., Winner, K., Bzura, R., Jones, W., & Williamson, S. (2018). Focusing on the whole student: An evaluation of Massachusetts’s wraparound zone initiative. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(2), 240–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2017.1413691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Gill, B., Zimmer, R., Christman, J., & Blanc, S. (2007). State takeover, school restructuring, private management, and student achievement in Philadelphia. RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Glazerman, S., & Max, J. (2011). Do low-income students have equal access to the highest-performing teachers? National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
   Google Scholar
• Gleason, P., Crissey, S., Chojnacki, G., Zukiewicz, M., Silva, T., Costelloe, S., & O'Reilly, F. (2019). Evaluation of support for using student data to inform teachers’ instruction. NCEE 2019-4008. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
   Google Scholar
• Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2008). The race between education and technology. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2016). Inconvenient truth? Do collective bargaining agreements help explain the mobility of teachers within school districts? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(4), 848–880. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21914
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldhaber, D., Quince, V., & Theobald, R. (2018). Has it always been this way? Tracing the evolution of teacher quality gaps in U.S. public schools. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217733445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Goodman, G. S., & Young, I. P. (2006). The value of extracurricular support in increased student achievement. Educational Research Quarterly, 30(1), 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• *Grissom, J. A. (2014). Is discord detrimental? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 289–315. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grissom, J. A., & Strunk, K. O. (2012). How should school districts shape teacher salary schedules? Educational Policy, 26(5), 663–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904811417583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hanks, J. M. (2010). The influence of the superintendent of schools on student academic performance. Texas A&M University.
   Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A. (1979). Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational production functions. The Journal of Human Resources, 14(3), 351–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/145575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A. (2003). The failure of input‐based schooling policies. The Economic Journal, 113(485), F64–F98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. The Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326–354. https://doi.org/10.2307/3559017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review, 100(2), 267–271. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.267
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Harris, D. N., & Larsen, M. F. (2016). The effects of the New Orleans post-Katrina market-based school reforms on student achievement, high school graduation, and college outcomes. Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.
   Google Scholar
• *Hart, A. W. (1983). An exploration of the effects of superintendents on the instructional performance of school districts [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Utah.
   Google Scholar
• *Hart, A. W., & Ogawa, R. T. (1987). The influence of superintendents on the academic achievement of school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 25(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009926
   Google Scholar
• *Hart, W., Rock Hill, S., Schramm-Possinger, M., & Hoyle, S. (2019). Superintendent longevity and student achievement in North Carolina Public Schools. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 15(4), 4–13.
   Google Scholar
• Hayek, F. A. (1939). The economic conditions of interstate federalism. New Commonwealth Quarterly, 5(2), 131–149.
   Google Scholar
• Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2013). Intraclass correlations and covariate outcome correlations for planning two-and three-level cluster-randomized experiments in education. Evaluation Review, 37(6), 445–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X14529126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Henderson, D. J., Simar, L., & Wang, L. (2017). The three I s of public schools: irrelevant inputs, insufficient resources and inefficiency. Applied Economics, 49(12), 1164–1184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1213363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hendricks, M. D. (2014). Does it pay to pay teachers more? Evidence from Texas. Journal of Public Economics, 109, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hendricks, M. D. (2015). Towards an optimal teacher salary schedule: Designing base salary to attract and retain effective teachers. Economics of Education Review, 47, 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henig, J. (2009). Mayors, governors, and presidents: The new education executives and the end of educational exceptionalism. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560902973449
   Google Scholar
• Henig, J. R. (2013). The end of exceptionalism in American education: The changing politics of school reform. Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hibel, J., & Penn, D. (2020). Bad apples or bad orchards? An organizational analysis of educator cheating on standardized accountability tests. Sociology of Education, 93(4), 331–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hightower, A. M. (2002). San Diego’s big boom: District bureaucracy supports culture of learning.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, H. C., Blazar, D., & Lynch, K. (2015). Resources for teaching: Examining personal and institutional predictors of high-quality instruction. AERA Open, 1(4), 233285841561770. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415617703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hinrichs, P. (2011). When the bell tolls: The effects of school starting times on academic achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 6(4), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, A. D. (2008). The problem with “proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy under No Child Left Behind. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08323842
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honig, M. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12443258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honig, M., & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807307067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honig, M., & Hatch, T. (2004). Crafting coherence. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008016
   Google Scholar
• *Hoover, G. A. (2008). Elected versus appointed school district officials: Is there a difference in student outcomes? Public Finance Review, 36(5), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142107311219
   Google Scholar
• *Houck, E. A., Rolle, R. A., & He, J. (2010). Examining school district efficiency in Georgia. Journal of Education Finance, 35(4), 331–357. https://doi.org/10.1353/jef.0.0022
   Google Scholar
• *Hough, K. L. (2014). Internal accountability and district achievement: How superintendents affect student learning. Journal of School Leadership, 24(1), 32–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461402400102
   Google Scholar
• *Hoxby, C. M. (1996). How teachers’ unions affect education production. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(3), 671–718. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hoyle, J. R., Ealy, C., Skrla, L. E., & Hogan, D. (2001). Superintendent performance evaluation and its relationship to district student performance. NCPEA Yearbook 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, C. K. (2020). Does school spending matter? The new literature on an old question. In L. Tach, R. Dunifon, & D. L. Miller (Eds.), Confronting inequality: How policies and practices shape children’s opportunities (pp. 165–186). American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, C. K., & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4), 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.1.4.85
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsen, R., & Saultz, A. (2012). The polls—Trends: Who should control education? Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(2), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jacques, C., & Brorsen, B. W. (2002). Relationship between types of school district expenditures and student performance. Applied Economics Letters, 9(15), 997–1002. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850210148161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Johnson, K. (1997). The relationship of superintendent tenure to school performance in Arkansas [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Arkansas.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. C., & Jackson, C. K. (2019). Reducing inequality through dynamic complementarity. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(4), 310–349. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20180510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, S. M., Marietta, G., Higgins, M., Mapp, K., & Grossman, A. (2015). Achieving coherence in district improvement. Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• *Kai, H., & Zimmer, R. (2016). Does investing in school capital infrastructure improve student achievement? Economics of Education Review, 53, 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.05.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, T. J., McCaffrey, D. F., Miller, T., & Staiger, D. O. (2013). Have we identified effective teachers?. MET Project. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• *Koedel, C., Li, D., Polikoff, M. S., Hardaway, T., & Wrabel, S. L. (2017). Mathematics curriculum effects on student achievement in California. AERA Open, 3(1), 233285841769051. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417690511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Koski, W. S., & Horng, E. L. (2007). Facilitating the teacher quality gap? Education Finance and Policy, 2(3), 262–300. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2007.2.3.262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konstantopoulos, S., Miller, S., van der Ploeg, A., & Li, W. (2016). Effects of interim assessments on student achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(sup1), 188–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1116031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Lacoe, J., & Steinberg, M. P. (2018). Rolling back zero tolerance: The effect of discipline policy reform on suspension usage and student outcomes. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(2), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2018.1435047
   Google Scholar
• Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024001037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Lee, M., Seashore Louis, K., & Anderson, S. (2012). Local education authorities and student learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.652125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K. (2010). A review of evidence about the characteristics of high performing school districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(3), 245–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700761003731500
   Google Scholar
• *Leithwood, K., & Azah, V. N. (2017). Characteristics of high-performing school districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16(1), 27–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1197282
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Libka, R. J. (2012). The relationship between Illinois school district superintendent longevity and high school student achievement. Western Illinois University.
   Google Scholar
• *Lin, T. C., & Quayes, S. (2006). The impact of local taxes on public school performance: the case of Pennsylvania. Applied Economics Letters, 13(7), 423–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850500397635
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Lin, T. C. (2010). Teacher salaries and student achievement: The case of Pennsylvania. Applied Economics Letters, 17(6), 547–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850802167223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Lincove, J. A., Barrett, N., & Strunk, K. O. (2018). Lessons from Hurricane Katrina: The employment effects of the mass dismissal of New Orleans teachers. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18759542
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little, J. W. (1989). District policy choices and teacher’s professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011002165
   Google Scholar
• *Lovenheim, M. F. (2009). The effect of teachers’ unions on education production. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(4), 525–587. https://doi.org/10.1086/605653
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Martorell, P., Stange, K., & McFarlin Jr, I. (2016). Investing in schools: capital spending, facility conditions, and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 140, 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *May, H., & Robinson, M. A. (2007). A randomized evaluation of Ohio’s personalized assessment reporting system (PARS). Unpublished paper.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuinn, P. (2012). The state of teacher evaluation reform: State education agency capacity and the implementation of new teacher evaluation systems. Center for American Progress.
   Google Scholar
• *Mensah, Y., Schoderbek, M., & Sahay, S. (2013). The effect of administrative pay and local property taxes on student achievement scores. Economics of Education Review, 34, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Moe, T. M. (2009). Collective bargaining and the performance of the public schools. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00363.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moe, T. (2011). Special interest: Teachers unions and America’s public schools. Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Monk, D. H. (1989). The education production function: Its evolving role in policy analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011001031
   Google Scholar
• *Morgan, G. W. (1990). School district effectiveness and the leadership of the superintendent of schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Rutgers University.
   Google Scholar
• *Muller, R. W. (1990). Instructional leadership superintendent competencies related to student achievement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Texas.
   Google Scholar
• *Murnane, R. J., & Olsen, R. J. (1990). The effects of salaries and opportunity costs on length of stay in teaching: Evidence from North Carolina. The Journal of Human Resources, 25(1), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.2307/145729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2010). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school districts. The Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1988.10885819
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Myers, S. (2011). Superintendent length of tenure and student achievement. Administrative Issues Journal, 1(2), 6. https://doi.org/10.5929/2011.1.2.4
   Google Scholar
• Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023004297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opfer, V. D., Henry, G. T., & Mashburn, A. J. (2008). The district effect: Systemic responses to high stakes accountability policies in six southern states. American Journal of Education, 114(2), 299–332. https://doi.org/10.1086/521242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.2307/258154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papay, J. P., & Kraft, M. A. (2015). Productivity returns to experience in the teacher labor market. Journal of Public Economics, 130, 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.02.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Parker-Chenaille, R. (2012). The impact of superintendent turnover on student achievement in rural districts [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
   Google Scholar
• *Partridge, M., & Sass, T. R. (2011). The productivity of elected and appointed officials: the case of school superintendents. Public Choice, 149(1-2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-011-9832-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, P. E. (2016). James S. Coleman: Education’s North Star. Education Next, 16(2), 5–6.
   Google Scholar
• *Pham, L. D., Henry, G. T., Kho, A., & Zimmer, R. (2020). Sustainability and maturation of school turnaround: A multiyear evaluation of Tennessee’s achievement school district and local innovation zones. AERA Open, 6(2), 233285842092284. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420922841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Phenix, D., Siegel, D., Zaltsman, A., & Fruchter, N. (2005). A forced march for failing schools: Lessons from the New York City Chancellor’s District. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n40.2005
   Google Scholar
• *Plotts, T. (2011). A multiple regression analysis of factors concerning superintendent longevity and continuity relative to student achievement [Unpublished dissertation]. Seton Hall.
   Google Scholar
• *Plotts, T., & Gutmore, D. (2014). The superintendent’s influence on student achievement. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 11(1), 26.
   Google Scholar
• *Podolsky, A., Darling-Hammond, L., Doss, C., & Reardon, S. (2019). California’s positive outliers: Districts beating the odds. Learning Policy Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Polikoff, M. (2018). The challenges of curriculum materials as a reform lever. Economic Studies at Brookings: Evidence Speaks Reports, 2(58), 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Randel, B., Apthorp, H., Beesley, A. D., Clark, T. F., & Wang, X. (2016). Impacts of professional development in classroom assessment on teacher and student outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(5), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.992581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reform Support Network. (n.d.). Evaluations of Teacher Effectiveness: State Requirements for Classroom Observations. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED611524.pdf
   Google Scholar
• *Register, C. A., & Grimes, P. W. (1991). Collective bargaining, teachers, and student achievement. Journal of Labor Research, 12(2), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., & Wasman, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 74–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034700
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212463813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rorrer, A. K., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08318962
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Rose, H., & Sonstelie, J. (2010). School board politics, school district size, and the bargaining power of teachers’ unions. Journal of Urban Economics, 67(3), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2010.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy, A. D. (1951). Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxford Economic Papers, 3(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Rudolph, B. R. (2016). The Role of Superintendent Longevity in Predicting 2014-2016 APR Scores for Missouri School Districts. Baker University.
   Google Scholar
• *Ruffini, K. (2022). Universal Access to Free School Meals and Student Achievement Evidence from the Community Eligibility Provision. Journal of Human Resources, 57(3), 776–820. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.57.3.0518-9509R3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Saatcioglu, A., Moore, S., Sargut, G., & Bajaj, A. (2011). The role of school board social capital in district governance. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760903511780
   Google Scholar
• *Schueler, B. E., Goodman, J. S., & Deming, D. J. (2017). Can states take over and turn around school districts? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716685824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schueler, B. E., Asher, C., Larned, K., Mehrotra, S., & Pollard, C. (2022). Improving low-performing schools: A meta-analysis of impact evaluation studies. American Educational Research Journal, 59(5), 975–1010. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211060855
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Shi, Y., & Singleton, J. D. (2019). Expertise and independence on governing boards: Evidence from school districts. IZA Discussion. Paper No. 12414.
   Google Scholar
• *Simpson, J. (2013). Superintendent Tenure and Student Achievement. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 9(4), 10–23.
   Google Scholar
• *Sims, D. P. (2008). Strategic responses to school accountability measures: It’s all in the timing. Economics of Education Review, 27(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Holmes, G., Madden, N. A., & Chamberlain, A. (2013). Effects of a data-driven district reform model on state assessment outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212466909
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Sojourner, A. J., Mykerezi, E., & West, K. L. (2014). Teacher pay reform and productivity panel data evidence from adoptions of q-comp in Minnesota. Journal of Human Resources, 49(4), 945–981. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhr.2014.0029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–179. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1802_01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Strunk, K. O. (2011). Are teachers’ unions really to blame? Education Finance and Policy, 6(3), 354–398. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Strunk, K. O., & McEachin, A. (2011). Accountability under constraint. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 871–903. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211401006
   Google Scholar
• *Strunk, K., McEachin, A., & Westover, T. (2014). The use and efficacy of capacity‐building assistance for low‐performing districts. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(3), 719–751. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Supovitz, J. A., Ebby, C. B., Remillard, J., & Nathenson, R. A. (2018). Experimental impacts of the ongoing assessment project on teachers and students. CPRE Research Report 2018–1.
   Google Scholar
• *Theobald, N. D. (1990). An examination of the influence of personal, professional, and school district characteristics on public school teacher retention. Economics of Education Review, 9(3), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(90)90005-P
   Google Scholar
• *Theobald & Gritz. (1996). The effects of school district spending priorities on the exit paths of beginning teachers leaving the district. Economics of Education Review, 15(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(95)00022-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, C. L., Sykes, G., & Skrla, L. (2008). Instructionally-focused district leadership: Toward a theoretical account. The Education Policy Center at Michigan State University. https://education.msu.edu/epc/forms/Thompson_et_al_2008_Coherent_Instructionally_Focused_District_Leadership.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1086/257839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Tran, H. (2017). Does the pay stance of South Carolina public school districts influence their math and science achievement scores? Journal of Education Finance, 43(2), 105–122.
   Google Scholar
• Trujillo, T. (2013). The reincarnation of the effective schools research: Rethinking the literature on district effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 426–452. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311325640
   Google Scholar
• van der Scheer, E. A., & Visscher, A. J. (2018). Effects of a data-based decision-making intervention for teachers on students’ mathematical achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117704170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Vaughan, N. K. (2003). The relationship between student performance and the leadership behavior of superintendents in Texas public school districts [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas A&M University.
   Google Scholar
• *Veltri, P. J. (2002). The relationship between school districts’ planning practices, student achievement and, the implementation of the Correlates of Effective Schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Idaho.
   Google Scholar
• Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89–122. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073001089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171–197. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.47.2.v870r1v16786270x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, M., Morton, B., & Herlihy, C. (2016). Achievement Network’s investing in innovation expansion: Impacts on educator practice and student achievement. Grantee Submission.
   Google Scholar
• *Wiswell, C. L. (2011). Superintendent emotional intelligence and student achievement: A quantitative study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas Technology University.
   Google Scholar
• *Wooderson-Perzan, M. K. (2001). The relationship of superintendent leadership styles to student achievement and school district financial and demographic factors in Texas [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Sam Houston State University.
   Google Scholar
• *Wong, K. K., Shen, F. X., Anagnostopoulos, D., & Rutledge, S. (2007). Evaluating the Effects of Mayoral Control. In G. W. Boychuk, K. Mossberger & M. C. Rom (Eds.), The Education Mayor: Improving America’s Schools (pp. 52–75). Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yoon, K., Duncan, T., Lee, S., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. REL. 2007-No. 033.
   Google Scholar