A key lesson learned from the decentralization experiment is the need for system-wide standards and intervention to address the challenge of student achievement. The LSC (Local School Council) and its support network alone are not enough to promote educational improvement throughout the system. In fact, the decentralized reform may have widened the capacity gap between schools to improve performance. Instead, leadership is needed across the district to apply both pressure and support to schools. Such a combination of intervention strategies did not occur during the period of LSC dominance because the reformist ideology with its strong anti-bureaucratic sentiments did not allow the proper functioning of the central office. Taken together, the post-2005 sanctions and support strategies have improved the overall conditions that are conducive to better student performance throughout the system. Better test scores are seen not only in elementary schools but also in the most troubled high schools since 2004.

In contrast to the apparent escalating trend under integrated government, the charter school reform aims to significantly reduce central government regulatory control and union agreements. Although they are labeled as public schools, charter schools are distinguished in several important ways. The school charter or contract explicitly spells out the conditions and expectations for results-based performance. The authorizing agency may be the local school board, the state, or other legal entities (such as universities). Once established, schools enjoy substantial autonomy in setting curriculum, teacher salaries, and working conditions, although they are subject to state regulations on safety, health, dismissal, and civil rights. School funding accompanies students to schools, which operate on a renewable multi-year contract.

Charter schools are guided by several design principles. Its objective is:

• create a new structure of school autonomy based on the performance contract;

• limit central office control over curriculum, instruction, and staffing decisions;

• give preferences to parents regarding schooling opportunities; Y

• promote innovation and alternative assessment of student performance.

Since 1992, when the first two charter schools opened in Minnesota, the number of states with charter legislation and the number of schools in operation has grown steadily. Charter school advocates have identified two types of innovative effects: (1) the charter school can create competition, maintain a better fit with the needs of its “parent-clients,” and thus put pressure on regular public schools for them to improve in order to keep their share of students. “market”; and (2) by enjoying substantial autonomy from central office, schools can serve as laboratories for developing new educational ideas and practices, fostering and pursuing innovative ideas from which the district’s traditional public schools can learn. But are these claims supported by the knowledge base of the current literature?

Not surprisingly, the literature is divided on whether competition from charter schools pressures public schools to improve. Most research has found mild to moderate effects, more prevalent in small to medium-sized districts where the system is often more agile and the impact of some schools is more easily felt. Legislative compromise (limiting the number of schools, cushioning the financial blow to traditional district schools, or reducing school autonomy) can lessen the effects. Education reform was also influenced by past performance and the eagerness of district leaders to initiate change. While there is some evidence to suggest the district’s response to competition, starting charter schools is such a difficult job that it can take a significant amount of time before producing strong system-wide impacts on school districts. In districts where schools made an impact, districts made “bit-by-bit” changes rather than system-wide changes, and were more concerned with expanding their school day by offering new supplemental programs. In summary, given the mixed evidence on the impact of charter schools, more research is needed on what works and what doesn’t work in charter schools as a system-wide reform.

Regarding schools promoting innovative practices, researchers have asked two related questions: (1) Are schools engaging in innovation in the classroom, with new teaching methods? (2) Are district schools able and willing to integrate those classroom innovations into the general curriculum? On both issues, the empirical evidence tends to be mixed. While innovations were found, many were structural, few were independent or independently reproducible, and no evidence was found of significant sharing or diffusion of practices from schools to district schools. Some evidence suggests that changes in organizational and institutional arrangements may be more significant than any academic innovation. The literature remains unclear on whether charter school reforms actually “add value” to student learning.

recommendations

The two emerging governance models represent a continuum of institutional possibilities for urban educational reform. At one end of the continuum is integrated governance, which redefines responsibilities and enhances leadership capacity across the district. Given its strong focus on improving student performance, integrated governance reform tends to concentrate resources on and put pressure on low-performing schools and students. One challenge is recruiting leaders who have the vision to lobby and support low-performing schools.

Concerns about the potential for excessive central direction have led some reformers to support the charter school model, which represents the other end of the institutional reform process. While decentralization can facilitate innovative practices and promote more efficient use of resources, the charter school model is likely to be unevenly implemented in different settings. Given the autonomy of schools, system-wide standards may not be considered a high priority. Whether schools can recruit high-quality leaders will be a critical challenge. Equally important is the ability of charter schools to improve low-performing schools and students.

From a broader perspective, the two emerging models draw our attention to the complex challenge of reengineering low-performing schools with a particular focus on leadership and management issues. More specifically, this review of the two models raises several issues in the area of ​​educational leadership, including: the role of states and districts in designing and implementing alternative accountability systems; leadership qualities and management practices that are necessary to implement the reform models at the district and school levels; the type of technical assistance needed to facilitate organizational transition and improve effective management in settings where political leaders at the state and municipal levels have taken a more active role in education; principals’ strategies for developing a schoolwide vision and implementing strategic plans that are designed to improve student achievement; the ability of public school leadership at the school and district level to respond to an emerging competitive environment given the increase in the number of schools; and effective ways in which non-teachers can collaborate with school professionals to improve low-performing schools.