Centralization and Decentralization PROFESSOR MEIRA LEVINSON AND SARAH GROH.

Centralization and Decentralization

PROFESSOR MEIRA LEVINSON

AND SARAH GROH

Framing Questions How have urban districts over time tried to govern large

numbers of schools in order to achieve efficiency, effectiveness, and equity?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of controlling from the center versus distributing autonomy to schools?

How do current governance trends in urban districts — such as mayoral control, strict accountability regimes, or portfolio districts including charters and other self-governing schools — reflect, extend, or diverge from prior approaches?

Given the cyclical nature of centralization and decentralization, is there reason to think that governance structures even make a difference in achieving equity or excellence among schools?

Setting the Scene

Why does (de)centralizationmatter for urban districts?

• # of children, teachers, and schools

Studentsin 2010

NYC 995,336

Los Angeles

667,273

Chicago 405,644

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_104.asp

Why does (de)centralizationmatter for urban districts?

• # of children, teachers, and schools

Studentsin 2010

Teachers (2013)

NYC 995,336 ~75,000

Los Angeles

667,273 ~40,000

Chicago 405,644 23,290

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_104.asp; district web sites

Why does (de)centralizationmatter for urban districts?

• # of children, teachers, and schools

Studentsin 2010

Teachers (2013)

Schools (2013)

NYC 995,336 ~75,000 ~1,800

Los Angeles

667,273 ~40,000 ~1,100

Chicago 405,644 23,290 681

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_104.asp; district web sites

Why does (de)centralizationmatter for urban districts?

• # of children, teachers, and schools

• Expense

Studentsin 2010

Teachers (2013)

Schools (2013)

NYC 995,336 ~75,000 ~1,800

Los Angeles

667,273 ~40,000 ~1,100

Chicago 405,644 23,290 681

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_104.asp; district web sites

Why does (de)centralizationmatter for urban districts?

• # of children, teachers, and schools

• Expense

Studentsin 2010

Teachers (2013)

Schools (2013)

Budget (2010)

NYC 995,336 ~75,000 ~1,800 $21,023,695,000

Los Angeles

667,273 ~40,000 ~1,100 $8,436,592,000

Chicago 405,644 23,290 681 $5,103,557,000

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_104.asp; district web sites

Why does (de)centralizationmatter for urban districts?

• # of children, teachers, and schools

• Expense

• Diversity: of students, neighborhoods, interests

• Mistrust across: district actors, neighborhoods, demographic groups, multiple stakeholders

• High levels of need

• Student mobility

Centralization vs. Decentralization: Pros and Cons

Reasons to Centralize

1. Efficiency

“The division of labor in the factory, the punctuality

of the railroad, the chain of command and

coordination in modern businesses—these aroused

a sense of wonder and excitement in men and

women seeking to systematize the schools….

Efficiency, rationality, continuity, precision,

impartiality became the watchwords of the

consolidators. In short, they tried to create a more

bureaucratic system.” –David Tyack(Tyack, 1974, The One Best System, pg. 28)

Reasons to Centralize

1. Efficiency• textbook and curriculum selection• duplicable processes• negotiations with vendors, service providers• contracts• human capital management

Reasons to Centralize

1. Efficiency

2. Leverage “best practices” and “evidence-based” approaches

“Modern civilization is rapidly

tending to uniformity and unity…

The best is the best everywhere.” --John D. Philbrick, 1885

(Tyack, 1974, The One Best System, pg. 40)

Reasons to Centralize

1. Efficiency

2. Leverage “best practices” and “evidence-based” approaches

3. Equity

4. Professionalization

5. Mistrust of school-based actors

6. Consistency for mobile population

7. Democratic control and accountability

Reasons to Centralize

"We shouldn't treat school districts as sacred. But we shouldn't discard the benefit of [the] district as a vehicle for local democratic voice. That's how people in a community jointly express their wishes for their local school system, and, of course, local school systems are the heart of many communities." With state takeovers and the growth of charter-management organizations without local boards, "decisions about local schools are now being made in a nondemocratic way by people far from the community.” --Kevin G. Welner, Director, National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder

7. Democratic control and accountability

Reasons to Decentralize

1. Importance of local knowledge and site-based expertise

“That’s equivalent to saying, ‘Listen, we now have centralized your children’s feeding. We have a crew of highly researched, highly qualified nutritionists, and you no longer get to feed your child . . . but they will be so healthy”– Boston Public Schools parent Naama Goldstein responds to mayoral candidates’ support of mandatory extended learning time

Weiss, Joanna (August 18, 2013) “For a longer school day, who sacrifices?” The Boston Globe

Reasons to Decentralize

1. Importance of local knowledge and site-based expertise

2. Mistrust of central office

“The most egregious error made by superintendents and school reformers is the attempt to reform schools without simultaneously reforming the Central Office....[T]hose who work at Central have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, with authority vested in them rather than with principals or schools…Throughout my career as a teacher, and later as a principal, the Central Office was a remote, but powerful organization that hindered rather than supported the work I was engaged in to serve my students.”(Nadelstern, 2013)

Reasons to Decentralize

1. Importance of local knowledge and site-based expertise

2. Mistrust of central office

3. Democratic responsiveness to local needs

4. Bureaucracyreduction Centralized Decentralized

Reasons to Decentralize

1. Importance of local knowledge and site-based expertise

2. Mistrust of central office

3. Democratic responsiveness to local needs

4. Bureaucracy reduction

5. Accountability of school-based actors

6. Gap between policy and implementation: “street-level bureaucrats”

• Are motivations to centralize/decentralize always in direct conflict?

• Are there shared values at play that may manifest in different practices?

• To what extent are these decisions based on empirical evidence vs. normative values vs. politics vs. sheer emotion? How can and should these be balanced in ongoing debates about control over public schools in urban America?

Pause and think:

How have urban districts over time tried to govern large numbers of schools in order to achieve efficiency, effectiveness, and equity?

How do current governance trends in urban districts reflect, extend, or diverge from prior approaches?

Trends in (De)Centralization1837: 1st Superintendent position created in Buffalo, NY to centralize some district decisions

1850s-1950s: Urban districts respond to rapid population growth with centralized and bureaucratic school governance. 1900-1945: Reign of Progressive movement in education, emphasizing professionalism, governance by experts, efficiency, rationalization, replication of factory model in education

1960-1980s: Districts move toward decentralization via community control (community school boards, community schools, expansions of parent and community voice in school governance) and site-based management (school control over budget, curriculum, other practices)

1980s-2000s: States and professional groups develop content standards, standardized assessments, and common accountability mechanisms. Move back toward centralization, but this time at state rather than district level.

1990s-present: Mayoral Control experimented with in some districts, along with shift to appointed rather than elected school boards. Charters, vouchers, and other school choice mechanisms become a significant force in some states and districts.

2000s: “Portfolio districts” created (NOLA most notable current case)

2000-present: Non-geographic centralized management structures become more prevalent: CMOs, statewide turn-around district (TN); Common Core; multi-state assessments (PARCC, e.g.); federal control via carrots: Race to the Top funding, e.g.

2002: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) becomes law: asserts strong federal control over education for first time, and also pushes state standardization of assessment and accountability

1980: Federal Department of Education created (at Cabinet level)

Domains of (De)Centralization

• Curriculum• Human capital

(hiring, firing, training, evaluating)

• Budget• Assessment• Accountability

• Administration• Policy: promotion,

graduation, discipline, school calendar and hours

• Services: libraries, counselors, cafeteria, transportation

Domains of (De)Centralization

• Curriculum• Human capital

(hiring, firing, training, evaluating)

• Budget• Assessment• Accountability

• Administration• Policy: promotion,

graduation, discipline, school calendar and hours

• Services: libraries, counselors, cafeteria, transportation

All districts are hybrid systems,to at least some degree

Example of hybrid system

Example of hybrid system

Current (De)Centralization Practices and Debates

• School-based governance by multiple stakeholders: common, but often superficial

• Elected vs. appointed school boards

• Mayoral control

Current (De)Centralization Practices and Debates

• School-based governance by multiple stakeholders: common, but often superficial

• Elected vs. appointed school boards

• Mayoral control

Current (De)Centralization Practices and Debates

• School-based governance by multiple stakeholders: common, but often superficial

• Elected vs. appointed school boards

• Mayoral control

• Assessment and accountability: by and of whom? toward whom? how? with what stakes?

• Curriculum, discipline, pedagogy, outcomes

• Charters, school choice, markets

• Portfolio districts

Current (De)Centralization Practices and Debates

• School-based governance by multiple stakeholders: common, but often superficial

• Elected vs. appointed school boards

• Mayoral control

• Assessment and accountability: by and of whom? toward whom? how? with what stakes?

• Curriculum, discipline, pedagogy, outcomes

• Charters, school choice, markets

• Portfolio districts

Charters as Decentralizing Agents within Districts

http://www.publiccharters.org/data/files/Publication_docs/2013%20Market%20Share%20Report%20Report_20131210T133315.pdf

School Districts w/Highest Percentage of Charter School Students (2012-2013)

Portfolio District in Action: New Orleans

Centralized Control of Charters Across Districts:

Charter Management Organizations

Centralized Control of Charters Across Districts: CMOs

Map of KIPP Charter Management Organization: about 100 schools serving over 35,000 students

New Trends inNon-Geographic Centralization

• Charter Management Organizations (CMOs)

• Tennessee Achievement School District Bottom 5% of schools in the state Consolidated district managed by the state Supported in part by RttT funding

“The Achievement School District was created to catapult the bottom 5% of schools in Tennessee straight to the top 25% in the state.  In doing so, we dramatically expand our students’ life and career options, engage parents and community members in new and exciting ways, and ensure a bright future for the state of Tennessee.”

- Tennessee Achievement School District, 2013

• To what extent do contemporary tussles over centralization and decentralization address new challenges and opportunities? To what extent do they reenact older battles?

• What is the effect, if any, of the introduction of market-oriented language, strategies, and actors?

• What insights have you gained?

• What questions do you still have?

Pause and think: