Search Results

This chapter explains the differences in the geographic size of school districts by region of the country, especially why the South's school districts are so much larger in area. Race has a lot to do with it, but not always in ways that one would expect. The chapter examines the metropolitan structure of school districts to examine the parameters of “Tiebout competition,” in which households choose among different school districts to buy their homes. There is a lot of competition, but, more surprisingly, the variation in the competitive structure of urban districts is largely the product of previous rural conditions. Finally, the chapter presents the evidence that, despite their differing functions, legal status, and governance, school districts and municipal governments are not strangers to one another. The chapter has made a case for thinking about school districts in a national rather than a state-by-state context. The generalizations about school districts presented in the chapter are based primarily on political and population patterns that vary by region rather than by state.

This chapter explores the Advanced Placement (AP) program in suburban school districts. Even as urban centers like Fort Worth and New York typify today's livelier venues for AP expansion, the program has deep roots in the prosperous suburbs that abut them. Along with elite private schools, upscale suburban high schools were among the program's earliest adopters, and they remain natural habitats for a nationally benchmarked, high-status venture that gives strong students a head start on the college education that they are almost certainly going to get and perhaps an extra advantage in gaining admission to the universities they aspire to. Yet they are also ripe for attention as they struggle with equity and growth issues of their own. The chapter then reviews two well-known yet very different suburban districts: Dublin City Schools in Ohio and Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland. Both are celebrated as education successes in their states and both boast long and impressive AP track records. Both, however, face distinctive challenges as they seek to serve today's constituents. Their stories illustrate how AP is functioning in places that know it well yet continue to evolve with it.

This chapter focuses on the socioeconomic school integration plans. It begins with a brief historical overview examining why a number of school districts began placing an emphasis on socioeconomic integration, particularly over the past decade. It then provides a survey of more than 80 districts using socioeconomic status as a factor in student assignment, describing the major ways in which the plans differ. The chapter also draws lessons about how well the existing programs are working and makes recommendations about what could be done to improve outcomes further.

This chapter the effects socioeconomic school integration policies on racial school desegregation. It begins by presenting a brief historical overview of socioeconomic status-based student assignment (SBSA) plans. It then discusses it prevalence of SBSA plans in school districts. Before discussing the effects of SBSA plans on segregation patterns, it considers how different features of SBSA plans may affect patterns of socioeconomic segregation and racial segregation. The chapter ends by examining the estimated effect of SBSA plans on segregation levels for school districts.

This chapter discusses the Center City Schools Initiative (CCSI), from its origins with the Center City District (CCD) to its promotion into a partnership with the School District of Philadelphia, to its reception within Philadelphia’s political field. It describes the strategies the CCSI used to draw middle- and upper-middle-class families from Philadelphia’s revitalized downtown into the schools. The chapter shows how the partnership between the CCD and School District of Philadelphia elevated market principles and altered institutional policies and practices in both subtle and obvious ways.

This chapter uses land-value concerns and economic and technical change to explain the dramatic decline in the number of school districts between 1910 and 1970. Almost all the decline in district numbers to 1970 can be accounted for by the consolidation of rural, one-room school districts into larger districts that had multiroom buildings in which children were put on an age-graded track that led to high school. The twentieth-century decline in rural population, better roads and motor vehicles, and the demand for high school education contributed to the transformation of American education norms. As education moved toward age grading, it became important to coordinate the school experience from one place to another. This coordination came without much central direction. The political success of the age-graded model was because of the recognition by rural voters that their property values would be lowered if they did not get with the age-graded program. One-room, rural schools by 1900 attempted to adopt an age-graded system. This system did not work well in the one-room setting. One-room schools thus became obsolete. Attendance began to shrink because of declining rural population and because parents of ambitious students moved to age-graded districts. It accounted for almost all the decline in school district numbers from 1910 to 1970.

This chapter looks at whether school districts are still relevant in American life. The chapter presents some broad empirical evidence in support of the social capital theory of public schools: states with smaller school districts appear to have more social capital; demographic data show that the long-term trends in social capital are closely tracked by the average number of school-age children per family; and contemporary surveys show that parents with more children seem to have more social capital. The chapter also touches on two contemporary trends that could undermine the relevance of school districts. The school-finance litigation movement has had considerable success in reallocating fiscal authority, but it has, contrary to expectations, done little to undermine public attachment to their local school districts. Charter schools have been most popular with voters and parents in the problematic, oversize school districts of large central cities. These schools offer central-city residents the benefits of participation in their schools and their governance. The chapter suggests that a robust system of locally governed school districts may be essential for the future of education.

This chapter reviews what is known from earlier efforts at integration and contemplates how such policies might fare in the aftermath of the complex legal decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (PICS 20070 case. The chapter also examines the relative strengths of various approaches intended to achieve or maintain racial diversity in K-12 public schools.

This chapter examines how actors outside Philadelphia have reshaped the city's educational landscape by changing the school governance structure, fostering school choice, and shifting responsibility to independent schools. In particular, it assesses the land-use impacts of shifting to a market model of urban schooling in Philadelphia. It shows how nonprofit organizations and for-profit companies are reshaping publicly funded schools in greater Philadelphia, mainly through funding. The chapter first considers the decision of the state of Pennsylvania to take over the Philadelphia schools in 2001 before turning to the proliferation of charter schools in the city. It then discusses the Great Schools Compact, a portfolio model adopted by Philadelphia in late 2011 to achieve continuous improvement in operating urban school districts. It also explores the role played by foundations in Philadelphia's school reform.

This chapter carefully describes how school district boundaries help structure segregation in our highly urbanized country. Drawing upon evidence from education, sociology, political science and law, it argues that politicized, invisible walls give shape to segregation in schools and communities and makes the case for why that still matters. The ongoing link between racial and economic segregation and unequal opportunity is contrasted with the current educational policy paradigm that largely ignores the fundamental importance of such issues. The chapter contends that today’s regionalism addresses problems related to metropolitan fragmentation, but often does so to the exclusion of critical conversations about educational opportunity.

This chapter considers the long-term impact of the Center City Schools Initiative (CCSI). In 2008, the partnership between the Center City District and the School District of Philadelphia ended, and Center City families no longer received priority in admissions. However, this change did not end the initiative’s impact, either locally or nationally. The racial balance at the schools targeted by the marketing campaign continued to evolve, as more Center City families enrolled their children and the proportion of white students grew.

This chapter links the differing city-suburban school district configurations and desegregation histories of Richmond, Charlotte, Louisville and Chattanooga to contemporary patterns of school and housing segregation. U.S. Census and federal school enrollment data is used to analyze key trends in housing and schools. Maps constructed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and the visual presentation of different measures of segregation dramatically illustrates the current landscape of school and housing segregation. Most significantly, the chapter shows that metropolitan school desegregation strategies are associated with dramatic declines in both school and housing segregation between 1990 and 2010. The increasingly multiracial nature of school enrollments in the four metros is emphasized, and key policy changes (e.g., the abandonment of school desegregation policies) are linked to increases in levels of school and housing segregation.

This chapter examines hearing officer decisions in California involving parents who challenge individualized education programs (IEP) on behalf of their children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It begins by telling the story of an eight-year-old boy, Pedro, whose grandmother failed in her request that the school district provide transportation from their house to his special educational program. It then considers other cases that reflect a hearing officer structure that is heavily biased in favor of school districts, even when the district bears the burden of proof. These cases also show that children whose parents require an interpreter to participate in the hearings have a particularly slim chance of winning.

This chapter outlines the history of rural school consolidation, which began in the 1890s but remained contested seventy-five years later, long enough for suburban newcomers to clash and then cooperate on the issue with their rural neighbors. The legal and political success of consolidation campaigns enabled states to assert a new role in education, one that was in no way confined to rural areas. Bureaucratic supervision, judicial arbitration, and rising expectations for school funding and administration would become central to later debates about educational opportunity in cities and suburbs. Indeed, the successful consolidation of rural school districts implied that states had both the right and the responsibility to mitigate inequalities between other districts.

This chapter examines how state support for education expanded greatly but not steadily over the course of the twentieth century. In fits and starts, legislatures increased subsidies to local school districts, trying to modernize public education with new buildings and textbooks, better teachers, and wider course offerings. Complicating the process, however, were underlying questions about the purpose and structure of state aid. In school finance, minimums were first codified in statutory tax rates during the nineteenth century, which established a floor for local support but proved unequal to the task of modernizing and equalizing school facilities. By the mid-twentieth century, most states had implemented foundational aid to supplement local revenues, but again limited their support to insufficient levels of adequacy.

Using primary and secondary sources like newspaper articles, school board minutes, policy reports, interviews and books, this chapter outlines key school desegregation characteristics of Richmond, Louisville, Charlotte and Chattanooga. The differing school district boundary line arrangements are emphasized alongside a discussion of how those configurations developed. The chapter also explores how similar early school desegregation histories in each of the metros gave way to very different approaches in later years. Major policy shifts are highlighted, and an overview of limited efforts in two of the metros to address housing segregation in conjunction with school segregation is provided.

This chapter focuses on the School District of Philadelphia, a system wracked by ongoing crises and rescued (intermittently) by dramatic reforms. It shows that a combination of academic failure, fiscal shortfalls, and market-oriented reforms initiated by state and local leaders made the district fertile ground for a partnership with a local business organization to market public schools to professional families. However, the effort to attract Center City families to the public schools faced many challenges, including low student achievement scores, years of bad publicity for the school district, a state takeover, and nasty battles between local and state leaders.

This chapter describes the story of Amy Rowley and her family to show how the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) has affected the lives of children with disabilities. It examines three themes that emerge from the Supreme Court case involving Amy, who is deaf. First, Amy's story reveals the enormous toll on the family as her parents persevered for years to help her obtain an interpreter in the classroom. Second, her story demonstrates that victories can often be shallow because of the ability of a school district to resist a court order. Third, her story exemplifies that justice delayed is justice denied, because a child can never truly recover lost education. The chapter also highlights the continued shortcomings of the EAHCA, which later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), that are apparent throughout Amy's story.