mayoral governance and student achievement

7/29/2019 Mayoral Governance and Student Achievement

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mayoral-governance-and-student-achievement 1/68

Mayoral Governance andStudent Achievement

How Mayor-Led Districts Are Improving Schooland Student Perormance

Kenneth K. Wong and Francis X. Shen March 2013

WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.O



Mayoral Governance andStudent AchievementHow Mayor-Led Districts Are Improving School

and Student Perormance

Kenneth K. Wong and Francis X. Shen March 2013



1 Introduction and summary

5 Mayoral governance as institutional redesign

17 Mayoral accountability improves student achievement

45 Mayoral governance and school perormance in three st

1999–2010

49 Implications or the uture o mayoral governance

53 Conclusion

55 About the authors and acknowledgements

57 Appendix

59 Endnotes

Contents



Introduction and summary | www.americanprogress.

Introduction and summary

Using mayoral governance—in which a ciy’s mayor replaces an eleced school

board wih a board ha he or she appoins—as a sraegy o raise urban school

perormance began abou wo decades ago, when hen-Mayor o Boson

Raymond Flynn (D) gained conrol over he ciy’s school disric.1 Boson was

soon ollowed by Chicago, where Mayor Richard M. Daley (D) appoined boh

he chie execuive ocer and he enire school board o he school sysem. Over

he pas 20 years, mayoral governance o schools has been eaured prominenly in

nearly 20 urban school sysems across he counry. (see able 1)

Mayoral conrol and accounabiliy is one o very ew major educaion reorms

ha aim a governance coherence in our highly ragmened urban school sysems.

A primary eaure o mayoral governance is ha i holds he oce o he mayor

accounable or school perormance. As an insiuional redesign, mayoral gover-

nance inegraes school-disric accounabiliy and he elecoral process a he sys-

emwide level. Te so-called educaion mayor is ulimaely held accounable or

he school sysem’s perormance on an academic, scal, operaional, and manage-

rial level. While school board members are eleced by ewer han 10 percen o he

eligible voers, mayoral races are oen decided by more han hal o he elecorae.

Under mayoral conrol, public educaion ges on he ciywide agenda.

Governance consiues a srucural barrier o academic and managemen

improvemen in oo many large urban disrics, where ur batles and poliical

squabbles involving school leaders and an array o sakeholders have or oo long

aken energy and ocus away rom he core mission o educaion. Many urban

disrics are exceedingly ungovernable, wih ragmened ceners o power end-

ing o look aer he ineress o heir own specic consiuencies. Consequenly,

he independenly eleced school board has limied leverage o advance colleciveprioriies, and he school superinenden lacks he insiuional capaciy o man-

age he policy consrains esablished in sae regulaions and he union conrac.

Tereore, mayoral accounabiliy aims o address he governing challenges in

urban disrics by making a single oce responsible or he perormance he ciy’s



2 Center or American Progress | Mayoral Governance and Student Achievement

public schools. Ciywide prioriies such as reducing he achievemen gap receive

more ocused atenion.

Tis repor examines he eecs o mayoral governance on wo specic areas—

resource managemen and suden achievemen. In analyzing muliple, longiu-

dinal daabases on suden achievemen and nancial managemen, his reporound ha mayoral governance has improved urban school disrics. Te ndings

will be useul o curren and uure mayors who may consider aking a greaer role

in public educaion. Te ollowing are among he repor’s key ndings:

• Mayoral-led disrics are engaged in sraegic allocaion o resources. According

o available naionwide daa over a 15-year period, mayoral-conrol disrics

were posiively associaed wih invesmen in eaching sa, more spending on

insrucion, smaller suden-eacher raios, a greaer percenage o resources

allocaed or K-12 suden suppor, a larger percenage o revenue rom sae

sources, and a smaller percenage o unding rom local sources. Te sraegicleveraging o revenues o suppor K-12 educaion suggess ha “educaion

mayors” ocus on he broader—and oen necessary—condiions ha suppor

eaching and learning. Consequenly, several mayoral-led disrics showed aca-

demic improvemen over ime.

• Over he pas decade, mayoral-conrol school disrics have generally improved

disricwide perormance relaive o average school disric perormance sae-

wide. Undersandably, his improvemen varies across disrics, and i is some-

wha uneven by grade and subjec mater.

• Tere were 11 disrics ha were governed by some degree o mayoral leader-

ship oward he end period o our daabase on sae assessmen resuls. Among

hese 11 disrics, ve made subsanial improvemen in narrowing he suden

achievemen gap wihin heir saes. Tese disrics include New York; New

Haven, Connecticut; Chicago; Philadelphia; and Balimore. Four disrics—

Harord, Connecticut; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Boson; and Providence,

Rhode Island—showed progress on some academic measures.

• Mayoral conrol in New York Ciy appears o have had signican posi-ive eecs on boh ourh- and eighh-grade suden achievemen. Arican

American and Laino sudens beneed academically rom mayoral conrol

in New York Ciy. Te improvemen rae ranged rom beween 1 percen o

3 percen annually. A 1 percen annual increase in suden prociency raes



Introduction and summary | www.americanprogress.

among New York Ciy’s ourh graders, or example, would increase achieve-

men or nearly 2,000 sudens.

• In Boson and Chicago, achievemen improvemen was srong during he iniial

period o mayoral governance, bu here has been a relaive apering o peror-

mance in recen years.

While hey are no addressed specically in his repor, our ndings sugges sev-

eral policy implicaions or broadening he posiive eecs o mayoral governance

on suden achievemen and nancial and managemen oucomes. In sudying

successul mayoral governance, we made he ollowing observaions:

• Mayoral governance is most effective when the mayor is ready to act. o urn

around a low- perorming disric, an educaion mayor is necessary, bu he mere

presence o one is no sucien. A mayor mus be ready o ac o overcome bar-

riers o school improvemen. Graning a mayor he opporuniy o be in chargeo a disric is only he beginning. Te mayor has o be an acive educaion

mayor, consisenly leveraging resources and mobilizing sakeholders sraegi-

cally o aciliae a supporive policy environmen in public educaion.

• A city must adapt, not adopt. Ciies considering mayoral governance should

adap mayoral conrol o heir unique local conex. A horough assessmen o

local challenges mus be used o guide he design o mayoral governance. Given

he variaion in local culures and poliics, ciies considering mayoral conrol

mus plan sraegically and engage collecively o make sure ha mayoral leader-

ship will conribue o a sronger sysem o accounabiliy. Educaion mayors

need o orm specic coaliions wih key sakeholders in heir communiies o

raise school perormance.

• Mayoral control may require reinvention. Once esablished, mayoral gover-

nance canno simply rely on early success. Clearly, we need o learn rom ciies

ha coninued o show academic gains over ime. Wihou reinvenion, mayoral

conrol may sall in is abiliy o generae growh in suden achievemen. Our

sudy suggess ha even i mayoral conrol is iniially successul, ha success

may be ime bound. Reinvening mayoral conrol—wheher hrough new lead-ership or new governance pracices—seems necessary o reinvigoraing suden-

achievemen gains.




• Diverse providers and charter schools should be involved. Te uure o may-

oral conrol will—and ough o—involve he auhorizaion o diverse providers

and charer schools. Because o enrenched sae poliics, i seems unlikely ha

a large number o saes will expand mayoral conrol o heir big-ciy school

disrics in he near uure. Given his likelihood, mayors may be bes served

by nding alernaive ways o enhance heir ciy’s public schools. One promis-ing approach is he use o charer schools such as he mayoral auhorizaion

o charer schools in Indianapolis.2 Te implemenaion o his ype o por-

olio managemen—whereby disrics in ciies such as New York, Chicago,

and Philadelphia conrac wih a diverse se o school providers o operae

more auonomous schools ha are subsequenly held accounable or suden

achievemen—may provide new perspecive on mayoral leadership and he use

o diverse providers.

Le’s examine in greaer deail he mayoral-governance landscape, including he

oucomes and challenges o his promising approach o school improvemen andsudens’ academic achievemen.



Mayoral governance as institutional redesign | www.americanprogress.

Mayoral governance as

institutional redesign

Speaking beore a gahering o mayors and superinendens in March 2009, U.S.

Secreary o Educaion Arne Duncan urged he ciy chie execuives assembled o

assume greaer responsibiliy or improving public educaion.3 He ook he posi-

ion ha mayors can provide seady and srong leadership o raise school peror-

mance in urban schools. Secreary Duncan’s remarks, however, have received a

cauious response rom mayors across urban America, or perhaps several reasons.

Firs, public senimen on mayoral leadership in public educaion remains mixed. According o a 2006 Gallup poll o he general voing public—which includes

parens—only 29 percen o he respondens were in avor o mayoral leadership in

schools. In 2007 ha number jumped o 39 percen, and 42 percen o parens are

now in avor o mayoral leadership in schools.4 Te increase is possibly due o media

atenion and mayoral acions promoing school reorm in large ciies such as New

York and Chicago. Despie he rise in suppor or increased mayoral involvemen,

however, a sligh majoriy o voers remain opposed o mayor-conrolled schools.

Second, disric and ciy boundaries are no coerminous in many local jurisdicions.

Building a coaliion ha involves muliple ciies and/or disrics ends o complicae

he reorm process. When ciy boundaries and disric boundaries do no overlap,

here are muliple mayors and muliple school boards ha need o be persuaded o

agree on a common governance srucure over muliple exising jurisdicions.

Tird, here are poliical risks in launching such a major insiuional redesign,

paricularly in an area where he public equaes local conrol wih indepen-

denly eleced school boards. Mayoral leadership o schools requires some

degree o cenralizaion, which is oen seen as an undermining o communiy

engagemen in local schools.

Fourh, mos urban mayors choose o work wihin he radiional school-gover-

nance srucure, depending on he eleced school board o suppor heir educa-

ion agenda. While some mayors may ocus on increased learning ime, ohers are




more concerned wih making sure ha schools are ree rom gang violence and

he derimenal eecs o neighborhood decline. Sill oher mayors are working

inormally o diversiy he pool o school providers such as charer schools. aken

as a whole, mayoral governance occurs only when a mayor is willing o ake he

exraordinary seps necessary o overcome he insiuional ineria o his or her

ciy’s school disric.

Despie barriers and disincenives o mayoral involvemen in he curren sysem o

K-12 school governance—which we discuss in deail below—here are a growing

number o mayors aking on his enormous challenge. Mayoral accounabiliy is

one o very ew major educaion reorms ha aim o bring a coheren governance

srucure o our highly ragmened urban school sysem.

A primary eaure o mayoral governance is ha i holds mayors accounable or

school perormance in all areas—academic, scal, operaional, and managerial.

Mayoral governance as an insiuional redesign pus he educaion sysem andaccounabiliy or is perormance—paricularly academic achievemen—a he

municipal level. In erms o school perormance, hereore, he buck sops wih he

educaion mayor.

For oo long and in oo many large urban school disrics, governance has consi-

ued a srucural barrier or academic and managemen improvemen. Many urban

disrics are exceedingly ungovernable, wih ragmened ceners o power ha

end o look aer he ineress o heir own specic consiuencies. Consequenly,

he independenly eleced school board has limied leverage o advance collecive

prioriies, and he school superinenden lacks he insiuional capaciy o manage

enrenched ineress ha are preserved by regulaions and union conracs. Mayoral

accounabiliy aims o address hese governing challenges in urban disrics.

Mayor-led disrics are no insulaed rom he ciy’s social, civic, and economic

secors. As is he case in hese oher secors, an educaion mayor idenies public

educaion as a core componen in improving he ciy’s qualiy o lie and long-erm

economic growh. Te educaion mayor also expands boh ormal and inormal

learning opporuniies or school children hrough muliple parnerships wih he

ciy’s culural and civic organizaions and insiuions. Aside rom hese uncional benes, mayors, like any eleced poliicians, are keenly ineresed in leaving behind

an insiuional legacy. Fixing dysuncional schools and building he disric’s

capaciy enables mayors o advance long-erm sraegic goals. In oher words, an

educaion mayor is no assuming he role o school disric leader simply as a way




o win voes and re-elecion—a way in which all eleced poliicians are expeced o

behave—bu also as an opporuniy o be an insiuion builder.

Variations of mayoral governance

Mayoral governance as a sysemwide sraegy o raise urban school perormance

began roughly wo decades ago, when hen-Mayor o Boson Raymond Flynn

(D) gained conrol over he school disric in 1992. An earlier atemp o change

school governance in Boson during he 1980s would have urned he eleced

school board ino a hybrid o eleced and appoined school board members, bu

i was no endorsed by voers. In 1990 Boson’s ciy council approved a peiion

ha requesed ha he sae gran mayoral appoinmen o school board members.

Boson was soon ollowed by Chicago, where in 1995 Illinois legislaion enabled

he mayor o appoin boh he school board and he chie execuive ocer o he

school sysem. Over he pas 20 years, mayoral governance has been eauredprominenly in almos 20 urban school sysems across he counry, as suggesed in

able 1.

TABLE 1

Mayors and urban schools: Governance designs that include some

degree o ormal mayoral control o public schools

City Start End Features o mayoral governance

Boston, MA 1992 -

Mayor appoints the seven members o school committee

rom a list o candidates recommended by a 13-member

citizens nominating panel

Chicago, IL 1995 -Mayor appoints CEO, and the seven members o the

Board o Education

Baltimore, MD 1997 -

Mayor and governor jointly appoint the nine members

o school board rom a list o qualiied individuals

submitted by the State Board o Education

Cleveland, OH 1998 -Mayor appoints the nine members o school board rom

a slate o nominees selected by a local nominating panel

Detroit, MI a 1999 2004

For our years, mayor appointed six o seven school

board members (the seventh member was the state

superintendent o public instruction)

Oakland, CA b 2000 2004

For our years, school board was expanded rom seven

to 10, with three new board members appointed by the

mayor.




City Start End Features o mayoral governance

Harrisburg, PA c 2000 2010 Mayor appointed the ve members o the school b

Washington, D.C. 2007 2012

Mayor has governance authority previously held by

Board o Education, but city council retains budget

oversight

Philadelphia, PA 2001 -Mayor appoints two o the ve members o the SchReorm Commission (Governor appoints the other

members)

Indianapolis, IN 2001 - Mayor has authority to create charter schools

New York, NY 2002 2015

Mayor appoints Schools Chancellor, and eight o 13

members o the Panel or Educational Policy (boro

presidents appoint the rest)

Hartord, CT 2005 -

Mayor appoints ve o nine Board o Education me

including president o the board (other our memb

are elected)

Los Angeles, CA 2008 2013

Memo o Understanding with Los Angeles Unied

District, or LAUSD, allows mayoral-led “Partnership

Los Angeles Schools” to directly and independently

age 10 schools in LAUSD

New Haven, CT Pre-1990 -Mayor serves on Board o Education, and appoints

seven additional members o the board

Providence, RI Pre-1990 -

Mayor appoints the nine member school board, ro

slate o candidates developed by the Providence S

Board Nominating Commission

State o Rhode Island 2008 -Mayors, acting by or through a nonproit organiz

can create “Mayoral Academy” charter schools

Trenton, NJ Pre-1990 - Mayor appoints the nine member Board o Educati

Yonkers, NY Pre-1990 - Mayor appoints the nine member Board o Educati

Notes: In addition to the districts in this table, the St. Louis Public Schools are under the oversight o a three-member Special AdministrativeBoard, with one member appointed by the mayor, one by the governor, and one by the president o the St. Louis Board o Aldermen. In

Jackson, Mississippi, the mayor appoints the ve-member board o trustees but must have the conrmation o the city council. There arealso a ew smaller districts across the country where the school board has or many years been appointed by local governing bodies such as

the county commissioner, city council, and in some cases, the mayor. a. Detroit residents voted in a 2004 reerendum to return to an electedschool board. The state superintendent was required, by law, to ser ve on the school board or ve years, and then the mayor would appointall seven members. b. The amendment to the Oakland City Charter which introduced this governance change expired in 2004. c. Harrisburg

returned to an elected school board in July 2010.




TABLE 2

Complete and mixed models o mayoral governance: selected city

examples in 2013

District Mayor appoints majority o board? Mayor appoints all o board? Mayor has ull appointive p

Complete Governance

Boston Yes Yes No – nominating process

Chicago Yes Yes Yes

Cleveland Yes Yes No – nominating process

Hartord Yes Yes Yes

New Haven Yes Yes Yes

New York Yes No Yes

Providence Yes YesNo - nominating process and

council approval

Wash. DC Full mayoral authority

Mixed Models

Baltimore Joint appointment with governor

Philadelphia Joint appointment with governor

o be sure, local conex maters. Tere are hereore variaions in mayoral gover-

nance. Several disrics have a high degree o mayoral accounabiliy. In Boson;

Chicago; Cleveland, Ohio; Harord, Connecicu; New Haven, Connecicu;

New York Ciy; Providence, Rhode Island; renon, New Jersey; and Yonkers,

New York, he mayor appoins eiher he enire school board or he majoriy o is

members. In Chicago and New York, he mayor also appoins he schools’ chie

execuive. Tis is also he case in he Disric o Columbia.

Balimore and Philadelphia are examples o shared governance, in which he sae

governor and he ciy mayor joinly appoin members o he local school board.

Meanwhile, he ciies o Los Angeles and Indianapolis illusrae ye anoher se o

arrangemens. In Los Angeles, he mayor manages 40 eeder elemenary and high

schools, ollowing an agreemen wih he Parnership or Los Angeles Schools in

Augus 2007. In Indianapolis, he mayor’s oce auhorizes and moniors he ciy’s

charer schools, which oer an alernaive o he ciy ’s radiional public schools.

Oher new arrangemens or mayoral leadership are emerging as well, such as hemayoral academies in Rhode Island. Tese are public charer schools sponsored

by mayors and overseen by a single nonpro organizaion—he Rhode Island

Mayoral Academies—ha arge he urban communiies wihin he sae. Such




a srucure o charer schools is likely o gain growing public suppor, as many

radiional urban public schools coninue o sruggle wih academic progress.

In Deroi and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he sae iniially replaced an eleced

school board wih an appoined board, only o reurn o an eleced board aer he

schools ailed o show much academic improvemen under he appoined boards.

In 2000 voers in Oakland revised he ciy charer o allow he mayor o appoin

hree o he 10 members o he school board. Fiscal crisis in Oakland, however,

promped he sae o ake over he enire disric unil jus recenly. Te school

disric has now reurned o locally eleced school board. As a ormer presiden or

he eleced school board, curren Oakland Mayor Jean Quan (D) is ully commi-

ed o public educaion.

Finally, insiuional checks and balances vary across ciies and deermine a mayor’s

infuence over schools. Te Disric o Columbia ciy council, or example, mainains

srong budgeary oversigh over is schools. Boson, Cleveland, and Providence haveinsiued a school board nominaing process, which recommends qualied candidaes

or mayoral selecion. In hese hree ciies, ciizens are eiher appoined or eleced o

serve on he nominaing commission ha in urn is asked wih he recruimen and

creaion o a qualied pool o candidaes or mayoral selecion. In Providence, he ciy

council also has he auhoriy o approve or rejec he mayor’s selecions.

Strategic management of resources

School governance redesign can enable he educaion mayor o become more srae-

gic in generaing revenues and managing resources. In he 2007 book Te Education

Mayor: Improving America’s Schools , writen by he auhors o his repor, an analysis

o school-disric nance and sang paterns rom 1992 o 2003 was conduced,

revealing ha mayor-led disrics were no spending more money when compared o

oher school disrics.5 Tese mayor-led disrics, however, were spending dierenly

over ime, reallocaing nancial resources o insrucion and insrucional suppor.

Tese disrics were able o reduce he level o spending on general adminisraion,

as well as he percenage o expendiures on general adminisraion.

In regard o managemen eciency and scal discipline, disrics under mayoral

conrol have generally improved heir school sysem’s bond raings over ime,

sreamlined cenral bureaucracy by shiing sang resources o supporing schools,

and mainained labor peace. In addiion, here was an absence o eachers’ srikes in



Mayoral governance as institutional redesign | www.americanprogress.o

mayoral-conrol sysems rom 1992 o 2003.6 Indeed, labor peace has coninued up

o he presen, wih he noable excepion o he 2012 eachers’ srike in Chicago.

Moreover, mayors are aciliaing sraegic parnerships among key sakeholders o

improve ecien managemen o school disrics. Educaion mayors seem o have he

abiliy o leverage cooperaion—and occasionally even concessions—rom schoolemployees’ unions. In Chicago, or example, he ciy’s mayoral-led school sysem has

hisorically enjoyed a uncional parnership wih he eachers’ union. Aer gaining

conrol over he school sysem in 1995, hen-Mayor Richard M. Daley played a key

role in shoring up he suppor o he Chicago eachers Union or disric reorm. 7

Trough negoiaions, Mayor Daley was able o secure a conrac, graning he union’s

requess or a 3 percen annual raise. Te conrac eecively avoided confic over he

issue o increased eacher accounabiliy and school closings.8 Despie he ramica-

ions or eachers—including layos hroughou he disric—he union avoided

criicizing he mayor.9 Tis working relaionship beween he mayor and he eachers’

union made possible several signican reorm iniiaives, including he growh o conraced schools and he closing o radiional public schools.

Likewise, in New Haven, Connecicu, Mayor John DeSeano (D) spearheaded a

school-reorm movemen in collaboraion wih he New Haven eachers Union.

Te 2009 conrac agreemen reached wih he union champions eacher evalua-

ion based on suden perormance complemened by argeed reorm eors or

ailing schools.10 In reurn or union concessions on school urnaround iniiaives,

DeSeano raised eacher salaries by as much as 10 percen.11

When Providence was aced wih an imminen budge crisis in 2011, Mayor Angel

averas (D) emporarily red all o he ciy ’s eachers and hen hired mos o

hem back beore he erminaion ook eec when he new school year sared.12

Wihin a year o he mass rings and subsequen rehirings, he ciy had revived is

hisorically srong disric-union parnership. Te working relaionship beween

he ciy and is eachers has been aciliaed by boh a highly popular mayor—he

rs Laino mayor in he hisory o Providence—and a union leadership ha is

willing o explore new pracices o improve school perormance. o underscore

he srengh o he renewed parnership, beginning in 2012 he Providence

eachers Union and he disric worked ogeher o creae a nonpro educaion-managemen organizaion, Unied Providence, or UP!, o urnaround hree ailing

ciy schools. UP! is ounded on he principle o he “reciprocal obligaions” o

labor and managemen.13 Tis underaking may give new meaning o shared gov-

ernance and join responsibiliy a he school level.




Finally, in 2012 Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson (D) compromised wih he

Cleveland eachers Union in order o pass legislaion ha would improve he

sruggling disric schools. Boh he union represenaives and Mayor Jackson

were willing o make serious concessions in order o bes serve he sudens. Te

union agreed o use eacher evaluaions as he major componen when deermin-

ing layos, raher han senioriy. In urn, he mayor changed his sance o urning

around ailing schools: Raher han dismissing all o he eachers, as was originally proposed, he disric will now collaborae wih he union o make he changes

necessary o improve schools.14 Tis new conrac negoiaion has paved he

way or reorm. In July 2012 Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) signed o on he bill o

revamp how eachers are hired, red, and paid.15 Tis hallmark sae, disric, and

union collaboraion will link suden perormance wih eacher pay.

Beore urning o he experiences o specic school disrics, i is helpul o under-

sand he mehodology we used o arrive a our ndings.

In his repor, we have updaed our analysis o nance and sang paterns in mayor-led disrics, and a discussion o hose ndings ollows. Where our 2007 analysis

ocused only on a sample o he naion’s larges 104 cenral-ciy disrics, he updaed

analysis examines all local school disrics in he Unied Saes.16 Te curren analysis

includes he more han 14,000 school disrics in he daabase and more han 160,000

“disric-year” observaions, or which we have access o quaniable measures o

ineres or specic disrics in a given year during he period o 1992 hrough 2007.

Te mos recen analysis conrols or wheher he disric served a cenral ciy; is

overall enrollmen; is percenage o special-educaion sudens and sudens eligible

or ree or reduced-priced lunch; and is percenage o black and Laino sudens.

Te nancial-oucome daa was prepared using raw les rom he U.S. Census

Bureau’s Annual Survey of Government Finances. Te Annual Survey of Government

Finances gahers daa on revenues, expendiures, and deb rom more han15,000

school disrics. In our 2007 book, Te Education Mayor , we used nancial daa

hrough he 2002-03 academic year. In our curren analysis, we use nancial daa

hrough he 2006-07 academic year.

Cauion mus be aken in inerpreing he resuls o he analysis or a leas wo

reasons. Firs, i is no enirely clear ha he daa—despie being he only avail-able daa or reliable, naional cross-disric analysis—ully capure he essence o

sang and nancial managemen sraegies under mayoral conrol. I mayors are

changing personnel qualiy bu no quaniy in a paricular caegory, or insance,

our saisical analysis would no accoun or i. I mayoral regimes are spending

he same amouns o money, bu jus spending i on beter programs, our daa




would no show his. A second concern relaes o he always-presen issue o cor-

relaion vs. causaion. Our daa sugges signican correlaions beween mayoral

conrol and cerain sang and nancial oucomes, bu we canno necessarily

conclude ha mayoral conrol was he primary cause o hese oucomes. Tese

necessary caveas aside, however, he daa provide ineresing evidence on he

relaionship beween mayoral conrol and managemen oucomes.

Our updaed saisical analysis o he 1992–2007 daa is summarized in Figure

1, and several key descripive ndings in he 2006–2007 daa are highlighed in

able 3 hrough able 5 below.

Firs, he educaion mayor is eecive in generaing curren revenues o suppor

K-12 educaion. Mayoral-led disrics raise a higher level o curren revenue in

public educaion on a per-pupil basis compared o oher disrics. As able 3

suggess, per-pupil oal revenue in 2007 in mayoral-conrol disrics averaged

$17,506. Oher urban disrics wih similar socioeconomic characerisics had

oal revenue o $10,680 per pupil—a dierence o 68 percen. Te higher oalcurren revenue in mayoral-conrol disrics was subsanially due o sae and

ederal conribuions. As a percenage, conribuions o K-12 educaion rom

local axes in mayoral-conrol disrics remained largely comparable o hose o

heir urban peers in 2007. Our analysis ound ha he percenage o revenue rom

sae sources was saisically associaed wih mayoral-conrol disrics. In 2007

hese disrics received almos 49 percen o heir oal revenue rom sae sources,

compared o abou 46 percen or he larges urban disrics. (see able 3) Tis 3

percen dierence is no small given he size o hese budges.

TABLE 3

Per-pupil revenue in 2006–2007: Mayoral control districts andcomparison district groups

Total revenue Federal revenue State revenue Local revenue

Mayoral control districts (10) $17,506 $1,870 (10.8%) $8,528 (48.7%) $7,108 (40.6%)

City districts with >30% and

<15,000 students (296)$11,510 $1,193 (10.4%) $5,820 (50.6%) $4,497 (39%)

City districts with >30% ree

and reduced-price lunch and

15,000–30,000 students (96)

$10,750 $1,120 (10.4%) $5,769 (53.7%) $3,860 (35.9%)



30,000–60,000 students (67)

$11,317 $1,271 (11.2%) $5,724 (50.6%) $4,321 (38.2%)

City districts with >30% ree and

reduced-price lunch and >60,000

students (32)

$10,680 $1,145 (10.7%) $4,878 (45.7%) $4,657 (43.6%)

Note: Mayoral control cities included Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Harrisburg, Hartord, New Haven, New York City, Providence, Trenton, and Yonkers.




Second, he educaion mayor is sraegic in managing resources o suppor he aca-

demic and social needs o he sudens in his or her ciy, a majoriy o whom come

rom predominanly disadvanaged backgrounds. Tere is a saisically signican

posiive relaionship beween mayoral-conrol disrics and spending on insrucion

per pupil. In 2007 mayoral-conrol disrics spen an average o $8,734 per pupil on

insrucion, while heir peer urban disrics spen only $5,165 per pupil. (see able4) Furhermore, he educaion mayor heavily invess in suppor services such as

counselors and learning coaches o address he needs o urban sudens. From 2006

o 2007 mayoral-conrol disrics spen $5,369 per pupil on suppor services; heir

large urban-disric peers spen only $3,237 per pupil. (see able 4)

TABLE 4

Per-pupil spending in 2006–2007: Mayoral control districts and

comparison district groups

Instruction total Suppor t ser vices Capital proje

Mayoral control districts (10) $8,734 $5,369 $2,310

City districts with >30% and <15,000

students (296)$5,842 $3,371 $1,200

City districts with >30% ree and reduced-

price lunch and 15,000–30,000 students (96)$5,523 $3,219 $1,159

City Districts with >30% ree and reduced-

price lunch and 30,000–60,000 students (67)$5,689 $3,482 $1,249

City Districts with >30% ree and reduced-

price lunch and >60,000 students (32)$5,165 $3,237 $1,366


Te educaion mayor ends o make invesmens ha suppor smaller class sizes

while mainaining sucien adminisraive capaciy in he cenral oce. As sug-

gesed in Figure 1, here is a saisically signican posiive relaionship beween

mayoral conrol and smaller suden-eacher raios.




FIGURE 1

Summary o statistically signiicant relationships between staing and

district inance indicators and mayoral control

District Signiicant Eect?

% Aides (o all sta) Yes *

% Central Ofce (o all sta) Yes **

% o Revenue rom Federal No

% o Revenue rom Local Yes ***

% o Revenue rom State Yes ***

% Teachers (o all sta) No

% Total Spending on Capital Outlay Yes **

% Total Spending on Instruction No

% Total Spending on Non-K-12 Yes *

% Total Spending on Student Services No

Federal Revenue per student Yes **

Fiscal Health No

Local Revenue per student No

Per Student Spending on Capital Outlay Yes **

Per Student Spending on Instruction Yes ***

Per Student Spending on Non-K-12 No

Per Student Spending on Student Services Yes **

State Revenue per student Yes ***

Student/Central Ofce Ratio No

Student/Teacher Ratio Yes **

Total Revenue per student Yes ***

Notes: Data sources or the analysis are various years o the Common Core o Data and the Annual Sur vey o Government Finances con-ducted by the United States Bureau o the Census.

Te invesmens in small class sizes are consisen wih he nding ha educa-

ion mayors ocus on insrucional capaciy. In 2007 he suden o eacher raio

in mayoral-conrol disrics averaged 14.9 sudens or every 1 eacher, compared

o an average raio o more han 16 sudens per eacher ound across all ypes o

urban disrics. (see able 5) Consequenly, eachers make up a larger propor-

ion o school sa in mayoral-conrolled disrics han hey do in similar urban

disrics: eachers make up 60 percen o he sa in mayoral-conrolled disrics

and 45 percen o he sa in he larges urban disrics. A he same ime, mayoral-conrolled disrics mainain an adminisraive capaciy wihou employing an

excessive cenral-oce sa. As suggesed in able 5, cenral-oce sa accouned

or less han 6 percen o he oal sa in mayoral-conrolled disrics, lower han

he 8.3 percen in he larges urban disrics.




TABLE 5

Staing patterns in 2006–2007: Mayoral control districts and comparison

district groups

Teachers as percent-

age o total sta

Student-teacher

ratio

Central oice sta

as percentage o

total sta

Mayoral control districts (10) 59.6 14.9 5.6

City districts with >30% and

<15,000 students (296)54.7 16.2 3.5



15,000–30,000 students (96)

54.1 16.6 3.5

City Districts with >30% ree


30,000–60,000 students (67)

53.0 16.3 4.3

City Districts with >30% ree


>60,000 students (32)

44.7 16.4 8.3


Finally, he educaion mayor invess in capial-improvemen projecs wihou

puting undue burden on he local ax base. In 2007, or example, mayoral-conrol

disrics spen an average o $2,310 per pupil on capial-improvemen projecs;

heir urban-disric peers, by comparison, spen on $1,366 per pupil. (see able 4)

A he same ime—as shown in able 3—local axes as a source o oal revenue in

mayoral-led disrics was lower han ha o heir larges urban-disric peers.

In shor, hese updaed ndings are largely consisen wih he sraegic pracices

in Te Education Mayor . In heir eor o mainain heir compeiive edge, mayors

are cauious abou raising local axes and expanding he disric cenral oce.

Insead, educaion mayors are keen on leveraging inergovernmenal resources o

suppor local schools. Mayors prioriize he use o resources rom all sources in

suppor o a sronger insrucional sysem. Tese sraegic acions aim a raising

suden perormance—he issue ha we urn o nex.



Mayoral accountability improves student achievement | www.americanprogress.o

Mayoral accountability improves

student achievement

When mayors govern urban disrics, do hey make a dierence in suden peror-

mance? Are mayoral-led disrics closing he achievemen gap? Do racial minori-

ies and oher subgroups improve heir academic achievemen in mayoral conrol

disrics? Tese quesions are cenral o he curren debae on mayoral conrol.

Clearly, governance change ha replaces an eleced school board wih a mayoral-

appoined board is no a silver bulle. Sudens who are no meeing he academic

sandards may ace enormous srucural challenges, including povery and educa-ional disabiliies. Te oce o he mayor is one among several key local eniies

ha mus work ogeher o raise suden perormance. In his secion, we examine

he relaionship beween mayoral conrol and suden achievemen. Along wih

presening our ndings, we discuss he research mehods ha we used o examine

his criical issue.

First wave of statistical findings on student achievement

In The Education Mayor , our research eam compleed a comprehensive empiri-

cal analysis on he eecs o mayoral conrol on suden oucomes and manage-

men perormance.17 Te sudy examined 104 big-ciy school sysems locaed

across 40 saes—including 12 ha were under mayoral conrol—and we synhe-

sized sandardized achievemen daa rom housands o schools rom beween

1999 and 2003. Te sudy examined muliple years o daa by using a mixed-meh-

ods approach, applying saisical models and conducing in-deph case sudies

ha conneced he macro-level policy condiions o he micro-level pracices in a

sample o urban classrooms.

In Te Education Mayor , we examined a key quesion: Wha are he eecs o mayor-

led sysems as a disinc ype o urnaround sraegy , relative to the independently

elected governance structure that would have been in place otherwise? Can

we generalize abou he achievemen eecs o his reorm sraegy beyond a specic




seting? In our analysis o a U.S. Deparmen o Educaion longiudinal school-

achievemen daabase o more han 100 urban disrics, we ound ha mayor-led

school sysems are posiively relaed o sandardized elemenary reading and mah

achievemen—even aer saisically conrolling or previous achievemen and a

hos o demographic background variables. Te resuls o our saisical analysis sug-

ges ha i a disric moved rom an eleced board o a board in which a majoriy o is members are appoined by he mayor, ha school disric would see a narrowing

o he sae-disric achievemen gap in core subjecs.18 While no likely o move he

disric above he sae mean in he shor run, hese improvemens are noneheless

signican. Since only a ew mayors direcly appoined he chie execuive ocer or

he school sysem, our sudy did no conduc a separae saisical analysis on his

arrangemen. Noneheless, case sudies have suggesed he eeciveness o mayoral-

appoined school chie execuive ocers in Chicago, New York Ciy, and Boson.19

A promising conribuion o mayoral accounabiliy lies in he academic improve-

men o he disric’s lowes-perorming schools—such as schools making up helowes 25h percenile schools—which oen seek o educae large numbers o poor

and minoriy pupils. Despie hese challenges, he lowes-25h-percenile schools in

mayor-conrolled disrics showed seady progress in he percenage o sudens who

esed procien on heir sae’s annual benchmarking grade assessmens beween

1999 and 2003. Te percen o sudens who scored procien or beter in hird-

grade reading among he lowes-25h-percenile schools in Balimore, or example,

improved rom 5.6 percen o 32.7 percen. In Chicago’s lowes-perorming schools,

he percen procien in h-grade mah improved rom 10.4 percen o 27.5 percen.

Bu mayoral conrol, as our 1999–2003 daa suggess, seemed ineecive in narrow-

ing he achievemen gap beween schools in he highes 25h percenile and he low-

es 25h percenile. Tis gap does no mean ha he lowes-perorming schools did

no improve—raher, he pace o heir improvemen, a he aggregae, was no rapid

enough o close he gap beween hem and he op-perorming schools. Furhermore,

an absence o checks and balances such as a school-board nominaing commission

appeared o negaively aec suden perormance beween 1999 and 2003.

District-level trends in student achievement, 1999–2010

In our updaed analysis, we examine wo ses o suden-achievemen daa. Firs,

we consider he rend daa or disrics ha were under mayoral conrol or all or

some o he years rom 1999 o 2010. We made use o boh he sae-assessmen




daa and, or some o he disrics, he Naional Assessmen o Educaional

Progress scores over ime. Second, we examine all o he schools in hree key

saes—Illinois, Massachusets, and New York—over he same period. We also

disaggregae he analysis ino grade levels, which gives us more variaion.

Mayoral accountability narrows the district-state achievement gap

Tis secion reviews he disric-level rends in suden achievemen. We analyze he

disrics ha have enaced a ormal governance change over he pas 12 years, allow-

ing he mayor direc conrol o a leas some o he schools. Tese daa—presened

in ables 6 and 7—allow us o examine boh disric rends over ime and o com-

pare disric rends o saewide rends. We are limied, o course, o hose merics

ha were measured by each sae hroughou his period. Because esing regimes

change (or example, changing which grades are esed) such ime series—assess-

mens o he same subjecs and grade levels based on he same common mericsover ime—are no as requen as we would like hem o be. In making comparisons

wih he saewide average, we ully recognize ha he largely urban mayoral-conrol

disrics mus educae sudens who ace, on average, greaer needs han heir peers

elsewhere in he sae. We explicily conrol or his variaion in suden demograph-

ics in he more robus saisical analysis ha ollows.

As disrics under mayoral conrol improved suden achievemen over he years,

hey narrowed he disric-sae achievemen gap. In he early 2000s disrics

under mayoral conrol showed a subsanial gap in boh reading and mah per-

ormance when compared o he sae average. (see able 7) Tis subsanial gap,

however, was narrowed beween he base year—eiher 1999 or early 2000—

and he end year—2010. able 7 summarizes he percenage-poin dierences

beween mayoral-led disrics and he saewide averages in he percenage o su-

dens who scored a or above he prociency level in mah and reading in various

grades a he base year and end year. O he 50 analyzed measures o achievemen

on sae sandardized assessmens, mayoral disrics narrowed he gap wih he

sae in 33 achievemen measures. Tese measures include he perormances or

each grade and subjec or he years analyzed.




TABLE 6

District Level Achievement in Mayoral Control School Districts, 1999–2010

District Subject Grade 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Boston: Percentage o students scoring proicient or better on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System

(MCAS)

Boston ELA 4th 5 6 24 24 27 30 25 26 31 25 30 30

Boston ELA 8th 34 36 42 * * * * 54 55 57 59 58

Boston ELA 10th 19 22 31 35 36 38 38 51 50 58 64 60

Boston Math 4th 14 14 14 15 16 22 21 26 27 30 27 28

Boston Math 8th 17 15 20 19 20 24 23 23 27 34 28 34

Boston Math 10th 15 22 20 24 36 42 39 53 55 59 62 60

Chicago: Percentage o stud ents that “meet or exceed” perormance goals on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test

(ISAT)

Chicago ELA 5th 37 33 34 37 39 43 43 50 53 56 58 60

Chicago ELA 8th 56 57 48 55 51 55 59 72 78 75 78 78

Chicago ELA 11th * * 36 37 36 36 41 39 35 30 34 33

Chicago Math 5th 53 28 32 36 44 51 50 58 65 66 69 72

Chicago Math 8th 18 20 25 31 31 33 32 65 71 69 73 77

Chicago Math 11th * * 26 27 27 28 28 31 29 28 27 29

Cleveland: Percentage o students at and above proicient (passing) the Ohio Achievement Assessments

Cleveland ELA 4th 23 34 33 40 59 55 59 51 60 55 54 56

Cleveland Math 4th 22 34 38 49 50 54 53 48 52 43 43 46

New York: Percentage o stud ents at or above level 3 on the New York State assessments

New York City ELA 4th 33 42 44 47 52 50 60 59 56 61 69 46

New York City ELA 8th 35 33 33 30 33 36 33 37 42 43 57 38

New York City Math 4th 50 46 52 52 67 68 77 71 74 80 85 58

New York City Math 8th 23 22 23 30 34 42 41 39 46 60 71 46

New Haven: Percentage o students that met the state goal on the Connecticut Mastery Tests

New Haven ELA 4th * 21 19 22 24 21 22 20 28 30 30 34

New Haven ELA 8th * 29 29 31 31 33 36 34 34 40 49 52

New Haven Math 4th * 31 31 39 37 34 31 33 37 35 41 42

New Haven Math 8th * 16 20 23 19 22 25 27 34 34 41 41

Hartord: Percentage o students that met the state goal on the Connecticut Mastery Tests

Hartord ELA 4th * 17 17 17 20 15 18 14 17 21 20 29

Hartord ELA 8th * 30 32 35 35 31 32 32 28 34 45 44

Hartord Math 4th * 28 29 29 27 23 22 18 24 26 28 32

Hartord Math 8th * 24 25 25 23 20 19 23 22 24 33 32




District Subject Grade 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Providence: Percentage o students scoring proicient or better on the New England Common Assessment Program

(NECAP)

Providence ELA 4th 64 54 43 47 37 45 * 31 39 37 44 46

Providence ELA 8th 30 24 25 22 19 29 * 24 34 37 45 45

Providence Math 4th 32 31 30 34 19 28 * 25 32 26 36 42

Providence Math 8th 37 25 13 18 11 13 * 20 25 25 38 26

Yonkers: Percentage at or above level 3 on t he New York State assessments

Yonkers ELA 4th 48 53 53 59 63 65 77 69 55 64 68 45

Yonkers ELA 8th 30 27 28 22 30 28 30 32 35 38 51 30

Yonkers Math 4th 54 55 57 59 75 77 87 77 63 77 80 49

Yonkers Math 8th 13 14 16 21 29 39 39 31 32 42 54 28

Harrisburg: Percentage o students proicient or better on the Pennsylvania System o School Assessment

Harrisburg ELA 5th * * 18 18 21 27 21 18 17 16 20 24



Harrisburg Math 5th * * 16 16 16 19 18 21 21 24 28 34



Philadelphia: Percentage o students proicient or better on the Pennsylvania System o School Assessment

Philadelphia ELA 5th * * 19 21 23 32 35 32 32 36 40 40



Philadelphia Math 5th * * 18 19 23 31 46 42 45 50 52 52

Philadelphia Math 8

th

* * 16 18 20 31 39 37 44 49 51 56Philadelphia Math 11th * * 24 24 22 23 23 27 31 33 32 38

Baltimore: Percentage o students scoring proicient or better on Maryland School Assessment (MSA)

Baltimore Reading 4th * * * * * 61 65 65 73 81 78 76

Baltimore Reading 8th * * * * 33 43 40 40 44 49 62 62

Baltimore Math 4th * * * * * 48 54 63 73 80 83 84

Baltimore Math 8th * * * * 12 19 20 22 24 48 39 39

Notes: Data or this table was obtained through state department o education websites. Because o changes (in 2008 and 2009) to the statewide achievement testingsystem in New Jersey, the state advises against making time-trend comparisons o current achievement to pre-2008 achievement. Thus, we do not include Trenton in

this table. See: http://www.state.nj.us/education/schools/achievement/2011/.

http://www.state.nj.us/education/schools/achievement/2011/

http://www.state.nj.us/education/schools/achievement/2011/




Tere were 11 disrics ha were governed by some degree o mayoral leadership

oward he end period o our daabase. Deroi and Oakland are no included

because hey no longer had mayoral governance in 2010. Addiionally, he Disric

o Columbia is no included in his secion since he school disric does no have

a sae wih which o compare isel.

Among he 11 disrics, ve made subsanial improvemen in narrowing heachievemen gap wih he sae. Tese ve disrics were New York, New Haven,

Chicago, Philadelphia, and Balimore.

New York:

• Achievemen rose seadily rom 2002 hrough 2009 in boh ourh-grade and

eighh- grade reading and mah.

• Only 47 percen o New York Ciy’s ourh graders were procien in reading in

2002, bu ha number rose o 69 percen in 2009. Te gains achieved in ourh-grade mah during ha same period were very impressive—rom 52 percen

procien o 85 percen procien.

• A he eighh-grade level, he mah gains were, in a word, specacular— he

percenage o sudens who scored procien or beter more han doubled, leap-

ing rom 30 percen o 71 percen. For eighh-grade reading, he percenage o

children who scored procien or beter rose rom 30 percen o 57 percen.

• Beween 1999 and 2010 New York Ciy closed he gap wih he saewide

average. I should be noed ha a signican change in he sae’s prociency

sandards in 2010 yielded much lower scores hroughou he sae ha year,

including in New York Ciy.20

New Haven:

• Schools in New Haven have experienced more signican improvemen han

schools in Harord, especially since 2007.

• In 2000 only 21 percen o sudens were procien in ourh-grade reading; his heldseady hrough 2006, when i was a 20 percen. Perormance began o improve in

2007, and 34 percen o sudens in he disric me he sae’s goals in 2010.

• Sudens in he ourh grade also posed gains in mah saring in 2007, and 42

percen o sudens me he sae’s goals in 2010.




• Tere have been similar signican gains in eighh grade. From 2007 o 2010 he

percenage o eighh graders in New Haven who me he sae’s goals jumped rom

34 percen o 52 percen in reading and rom 34 percen o 41 percen in mah.

Chicago:

•Over he pas decade, he Chicago Public Schools made remendous progress inh-grade reading and mah on he Illinois Sandards Achievemen es and he

Prairie Sae Achievemen Examinaion.

• A he sar o he period sudied, 37 percen o Chicago Public School sudens

were procien in reading and 53 percen were procien in mah. In 2010 60 per-

cen o sudens were procien in reading and 72 percen were procien in mah.

• Similarly, eighh-grade Chicago Public School sudens have demonsraed

srong gains in reading; he Chicago disric has closed he gap wih Illinois

saewide averages.

• Tere has been virually no progress, however, in 11h-grade reading and mah

on he Prairie Sae Achievemen Examinaion.

Philadelphia:

• Te governor o Pennsylvania appoins hree members o Philadelphia’s School

Reorm Commission, and he mayor o Philadelphia appoins wo members.

Te commission governs he Philadelphia school disric.

• Tere has been seady progress in he percenage o sudens who are procien

or beter across grade levels and subjecs. In 2001 only 19 percen o h grad-

ers were procien in reading. Tis proporion rose o 40 percen in 2010.

• Fih-grade mah achievemen has more han doubled since 2001, when only 18

percen o sudens in he h grade were procien. In 2010 he percenage o

h graders procien in mah improved o 52 percen. In boh h-grade read-

ing and mah, however, gains in he mos recen years have been somewha fa.

• Eighh-grade perormance has also improved. Te percenage o sudens scor-

ing a a procien level has increased rom 23 percen o 67 percen in reading

and rom 16 percen o 56 percen in mah.




• Te percenage o sudens meeing sae prociency arges has modesly

increased among sudens in he elevenh grade—rom 34 percen o 45 percen

in reading and rom 24 percen o 38 percen in mah.

• Especially among sudens in he h and eighh grades, Philadelphia has nar-

rowed he disric-sae gap in average reading and mah achievemen scores.

Baltimore:

• Balimore’s mayor and governor joinly appoin school board members.

• Perormance on he Maryland School Assessmen has seadily improved since 2004.

• In ourh-grade reading, he percenage o sudens scoring a a procien level

rose rom 61 percen in 2004 o 76 percen in 2010.

• Fourh-grade mah achievemen rose dramaically, rom 48 percen in 2004 o

84 percen in 2010.

• Sudens in he eighh grade also demonsraed gains beween 2004 and 2010—

rom 43 percen procien o 62 percen procien in reading, and rom 19

percen procien o 39 percen procien in mah.

• Across all subjecs and grade levels, Balimore has narrowed he disric-sae

perormance gap.

Four disrics—Harord, Harrisburg, Boson, and Providence—showed progress

on some o he perormance measures.

Hartford:

• Harord experienced modes improvemen over he decade we examined.

• Early in he period we sudied, 17 percen o ourh-grade sudens were procien

in reading, meeing he sae goal. Scores did no improve more han a ew per-cenage poins unil 2010, when 29 percen o sudens were procien in reading.

• Fourh-grade mah perormance improved only 4 percen over he enire 11

years, reaching 32 percen in 2010.




• Tere was slighly beter progress in eighh-grade reading. Te number o

sudens meeing sae goals improved rom 30 percen in 2000 o 44 percen

in 2010 And he proporion o eighh-grade sudens who me sae mah goals

improved rom 24 in 2000 o 32 percen in 2010.

Harrisburg:

• Perormance rose slighly over he pas decade, bu a subsanial gap wih he

sae remained.

• Te percenage o sudens in he h grade who were procien in reading rose

rom 18 percen in 2001 o 24 percen in 2010. In h-grade mah, he percen

o procien sudens increased rom 16 percen in 2001 o 34 percen in 2010.

• Te percenage o eighh-grade sudens who scored procien or above rose

rom 23 percen in 2001 o 46 percen in 2010 in reading and rom 16 percen in2001 o 34 percen in 2010 in mah.

• Te percenage o 11h-grade sudens who scored procien or above rose rom

20 percen in 2001 o 36 percen in 2010 in reading and rom 6 percen in 2001

o 34 percen in 2010 in mah.

• I should be noed ha Harrisburg’s school board changed rom a mayoral-

appoined board o an eleced board in 2010.

Boston:

• In 2000 only 6 percen o ourh graders were meeing sae sandards in English

and language ars, or ELA; oday ha number is ve imes greaer.

• Over a 10-year period he percen o ourh graders procien in mah doubled.

• Tere were also signican gains in eighh grade: Te percen o sudens

procien in English language ars jumped rom 36 percen o 58 percen, and

he percen o sudens procien in mah more han doubled, jumping rom 15percen o 34 percen.

• Tere have also been some noeworhy gains over 10 years a he high school

level, wih he percen o procien sudens nearly ripling in boh subjecs in

2010—rom 22 percen o 60 percen in boh ELA and mah.




• Boh eighh- and enh-grade reading and mah scores, however, have essen-

ially remained fa since 2008. As a resul, Boson has no quie kep up is

momenum in closing he gap wih saewide averages on he Massachusets

Comprehensive Assessmen Sysem.

Providence:

• We can only make valid comparisons or Providence schools back o 2006

due o changes ha were made o Rhode Island’s esing program ha year.

Improvemens are eviden, however.21

• Among sudens in he ourh grade, he number o sudens who are procien

in reading has risen rom 31 percen in 2006 o 46 percen in 2010. We see a

similar jump in ourh-grade mah, rom 25 percen procien in 2006 o 42

percen procien in 2010.

• In eighh-grade reading, he percen o sudens who scored procien almosdoubled beween 2006 and 2010, jumping rom 24 percen o 45 percen. Tere

are slower signs o progress in mah a he eighh-grade level, wih he percen o

procien sudens rising rom 20 percen o 26 percen rom 2006 o 2010.

Te achievemen gap widened in only wo disrics—Yonkers and Cleveland.

Yonkers:

• From 1999 o 2009 he Yonkers school disric saw persisen gains in ourh-

and eighh-grade reading and mah. A he ourh-grade level, he percen o

sudens who scored procien or above in reading improved rom 48 percen o

68 percen. In mah, i improved rom 54 percen o 80 percen. A he eighh-

grade level, he percen o sudens who scored procien or above during he

1999–2009 period increased rom 30 percen o 51 percen in reading and rom

13 percen o 54 percen in mah.

• Tese gains, however, have no kep pace wih saewide progress. Consequenly,

he disric-sae gap widened beween 1999 and 2010. During ha period he

gap in he percenage o sudens who were procien in ourh-grade readinggrew rom 0 percen o 13 percen. Te number o sudens who were procien

in eighh-grade reading grew rom 18 percen o 21 percen.

• As in New York Ciy, Yonkers’ scores in 2010 were much lower as a resul o he

new, ougher prociency sandards ha were enaced saewide.




Cleveland:

• Te disric posed persisen gains hroughou he early 2000s in ourh-grade

reading prociency, bu i has no mached ha growh in more recen years.

Consequenly, he gap wih he sae has widened.

•Beween 1999 and 2003 he numbers o sudens who scored procien orabove in ourh-grade reading and mah boh more han doubled—rom 23

percen o 59 percen and rom 22 percen o 50 percen, respecively.

• Since 2004, however, hese gures have dropped slighly—o 56 percen in read-

ing and 46 percen in mah in 2010.

TABLE 7

Mayoral Accountability Narrows the Achievement Gap with the State

District Subject Grade Base Year Gap End Year Gap Narrow Gap Widen Gap

New York 1999 2010

ELA 4 15 11 +

8 13 13 +

Math 4 17 8 +

8 15 9 +

Yonkers 1999 2010

ELA 4 0 13 -

8 18 21 -

Math 4 13 15 -

8 25 27 -

Hartord 2000 2010

ELA 4 40 34 +

8 36 31 +

Math 4 32 35 -

8 31 35 -

New Haven 2000 2010

ELA 4 36 29 +

8 37 33 +

Math 4 29 35 +

8 39 26 +

Boston 1999 2010

ELA 4 16 24 -

8 22 20 +

11 15 18 -

Math 4 22 20 +

8 9 17 -

11 9 15 -




District Subject Grade Base Year Gap End Year Gap Narrow Gap Widen G

Providence 1999 2010

ELA 4 14 31 -

8 27 26 +

Math 4 24 20 +

8 14 29 -

Chicago 2001 2010

ELA 5 25 15 +

8 18 6 +

11 22 21 +

Math 5 29 11 +

8 25 7 +

11 28 24 +

Philadelphia 2001 2010

ELA 5 37 24 +

8 37 15 +

11 24 21 +Math 5 35 22 +

8 35 19 +

11 24 21 +

Harrisburg 2001 2010

ELA 5 38 40 -

8 37 36 +

11 38 30 +

Math 5 37 40 -

8 37 42 -

11 42 25 +Cleveland 1999 2010

ELA 4 24 25 -

Math 4 20 30 -

Baltimore 2004 2010

Reading 4 14 11 +

8 21 18 +

Math 4 22 6 +

8 27 26 +

Note: Numbers in the table are the percentage point diferences between the district and the state in the percentage o students who

scored at or above the prociency level in the state assessment test.

The “base year gap” and the “end year gap” consider the state/district achievement gap. The gap numbers denote the diference in the

percentage o students meeting prociency standards between the state and the district or specic subjects and specic grade.

Using the gap numbers between the “base year” and the “end year,” we are able to determine i the district-state gap has narrowed orwidened. A narrowed gap suggests that the gap in the “end year” is smaller than the gap in the “base year.” A widened gap suggests that the

gap in the “end year” is larger than the gap in the “base year.”

Using these summative measures or the districts with mayoral governance, we ound that mayor-led districts narrowed the gap with thestate in 33 out o a total o 50 achievement measures.




Mayoral accountability improved per formance on the National

Assessment of Educational Progress

I is no possible o compare perormance on he Naional Assessmen o Educaional

Progress—also known as “Te Naion’s Repor Card”—across all mayoral-conrol

disrics and grade levels. Only several disrics under mayoral conrol paricipaed inhe Naional Assessmen o Educaional Progress’s rial Urban Disric Assessmen,

or UDA, and he assessmen does no es all sudens in he benchmarking

grades—grades 4, 8, and 12. Te rial Urban Disric Assessmen, however, provides

an imporan perspecive on suden perormance. ables 8-14 summarize he rial

Urban Disric Assessmen daa or seven urban disrics ha paricipaed in he

assessmen and were under some orm o mayoral conrol beween he base year and

2011. Tese disrics are New York Ciy, Cleveland, Boson, Chicago, Philadelphia,

Balimore, and he Disric o Columbia. Te ables also compare he 2011 peror-

mance o cenral ciy disrics o he 2011 naional average.

According o he rial Urban Disric Assessmen daa, he seven mayoral-conrol

disrics showed progress beween he base year—which varies by disric, see

able 8-14—and 2011. We summarize some o hese rends below.




In New York Ciy, overall suden achievemen in mah and reading improved in

grades our and eigh beween 2003 and 2011, as shown in able 8. Perormance

improved or various subgroups. Te percenage o black sudens who scored

procien or beter, or example, increased rom 12 percen o 19 percen in

ourh-grade mah and rom 9 percen o 12 percen in eighh-grade mah. And

he percenage o eighh-grade sudens who qualied or ree or reduced-pricelunch and scored procien or above in mah increased rom 15 percen o 21 per-

cen beween 2003 and 2011. In reading, ha number increased rom 18 percen

o 22 percen. When compared wih oher cenral-ciy disrics, New York Ciy

ouperormed is peers in nine ou o 11 measures o academic perormance in he

ourh-grade and seven ou o 14 measures in he eighh-grade. Tese measures

include he overall perormances and he subgroup perormances or each grade

and subjec or each year analyzed.




TABLE 8

New York City Math and Reading NAEP Scores: Percent o students who are profcient or above by race, eligibiliree or reduced price lunch, and English language profciency, as compared to the national average or city dist

4th Grade 2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 Di

Perorm

District Average District Average District Average District Average District Average

Overall Math 21 20 26 24 34 28 35 29 32 30 + +

Reading 22 19 22 20 25 22 29 23 29 24 + +

White Math 42 42 46 50 53 54 58 55 50 55 + -

Reading 45 39 36 40 45 44 49 47 51 47 + +

Black Math 12 8 14 11 20 13 21 14 19 16 + +

Reading 13 10 16 11 15 12 17 13 20 14 + +

Latino Math 13 13 18 17 26 21 24 21 22 23 + -

Reading 16 13 15 13 16 14 20 14 19 16 + +

Asian Math 47 47 60 49 65 57 68 58 57 52 + +

Reading 39 35 47 35 43 40 50 42 43 38 + +

ELL Math 13 7 11 10 5 12 7 11 n/a 14 n/a n/a

Reading 5 6 4 5 2 6 4 4 n/a 6 n/a n/a

Free/Reduced

Price LunchMath 32 12 22 15 18 19 n/a 20 n/a 22 n/a n/a

Reading 26 12 20 12 20 13 18 15 15 16 - -

8th Grade 2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 D

Perorm


Overall Math 22 16 20 19 20 22 21 24 24 26 + -

Reading 22 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 24 23 + +

White Math 40 36 38 39 39 44 47 46 44 48 + -

Reading 42 37 38 38 41 39 41 42 38 43 - -

Black Math 9 5 10 7 10 9 12 10 12 13 + -

Reading 13 10 10 10 11 10 12 11 16 13 + +

Latino Math 15 10 12 11 14 13 14 16 12 19 - -

Reading 17 12 14 13 13 12 13 14 17 16 + +

Asian Math 38 33 50 40 53 44 64 52 57 49 + +

Reading 35 30 42 35 37 34 40 38 46 41 + +

ELL Math 4 4 2 4 1 4 3 4 2 5 - -

Reading 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 - -

Free/Reduced

Price LunchMath 15 9 18 11 19 14 23 15 21 18 + +

Reading 18 12 18 13 17 12 18 13 22 16 + +

Notes: Clarications on the two summary indicators used on the NAEP tables or individual districts:

First, the “Change” indicator is to summarize improvement (+) or lack o improvement (-) between the rst year o available Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) data or the district and the 2001 TUDA per orthe district. For example, or New York and Cleveland, the comparison is or 2003 and 2011, while Baltimore and Philadelphia have data or 2009 and 2011.

Second, the indicator on “Above/Below City Average in 2011” considers the diference in perormance between the district and the “large central city average” in 2011. In NAEP, the “large central city average” is

the perormance o students who enroll in public schools that are located in large central cities (with population 250,000 or more) within a U.S. Census Bureau-dened Core-Based Statistical Area. It is not synowith “inner city.”




In Cleveland, overall suden achievemen improved in ourh-grade mah,

eighh-grade mah, and eighh-grade reading beween 2003 and 2011. (see able

9) Improvemen was seen in some o he subgroups as well. Te percenage o

black sudens who scored procien or beter in boh ourh- and eighh-grade

mah, or example, increased rom 5 percen o 6 percen. Te percenage o

sudens who qualied or ree or reduced-price lunch and perormed a or above

prociency rose rom 10 percen o 11 percen in ourh-grade mah and rom 6percen o 10 percen in eighh-grade mah. Te percenage o eighh-grade Laino

sudens who scored procien or beter in mah increased rom 2 percen o 11

percen. A he same ime, however, he percenage o black and Laino sudens

perorming a or above prociency in reading did no improve.




TABLE 9

Cleveland Math and Reading NAEP Scores: Percent o students who are profcient or above by race, eligibility o

ree or reduced price lunch, and English language profciency, as compared to the national average or city dist

4th Grade 2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 D

Perorm


Overall Math 10 20 13 24 10 28 8 29 11 30 + -

Reading 9 19 10 20 9 22 8 23 8 24 - -

White Math 27 42 25 50 25 54 17 55 28 55 + -

Reading 17 39 17 40 22 44 17 47 18 47 + -

Black Math 5 8 8 11 5 13 5 14 6 16 + -

Reading 7 10 7 11 5 12 5 13 5 14 - -

Latino Math 14 13 18 17 10 21 13 21 11 23 - -

Reading 14 13 14 13 8 14 11 14 9 16 - -

Asian Math n/a 47 n/a 49 n/a 57 n/a 58 n/a 52 n/a n/

Reading n/a 35 n/a 35 n/a 40 n/a 42 n/a 38 n/a n/

ELL Math n/a 7 n/a 10 6 12 n/a 11 8 14 n/a -

Reading n/a 6 n/a 5 n/a 6 n/a 4 4 6 n/a -

Free/

Reduced

Price Lunch

Math 10 12 13 15 10 19 8 20 11 22 + -

Reading 9 12 10 12 9 13 8 15 8 16 - -

8th

Grade

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 Dist

Perorma


Overall Math 6 16 6 19 7 22 8 24 10 26 + -

Reading 10 19 10 20 11 20 10 21 11 23 - -

White Math 14 36 17 39 12 44 21 46 25 48 + -

Reading 14 37 20 38 26 39 23 42 25 43 + -

Black Math 5 5 3 7 5 9 5 10 6 13 + -

Reading 8 10 8 10 7 10 7 11 7 13 - -

Latino Math 2 10 7 11 6 13 4 16 11 19 + -

Reading n/a 12 10 13 16 12 11 14 9 16 n/a -

Asian Math n/a 33 n/a 40 n/a 44 n/a 52 n/a 49 n/a n/a

Reading n/a 30 n/a 35 n/a 34 n/a 38 n/a 41 n/a n/a

ELL Math n/a 4 n/a 4 n/a 4 n/a 4 3 5 n/a -

Reading n/a 2 n/a 3 n/a 2 n/a 2 2 2 n/a +

Free/

Reduced

Price

Lunch

Math 6 9 6 11 7 14 8 15 10 18 + -

Reading 10 12 10 13 11 12 10 13 11 16 + -




Te Boson rial Urban Disric Assessmen daa indicaes ha overall suden

achievemen improved in reading and mah in boh he ourh and eighh grades

beween 2003 and 2011. (see able 10) Improvemen was seen in boh subjecs

in he wo grade levels across various subgroups. Te percenage o black ourh

graders who improved heir mah prociency, or example, increased rom 6 per-

cen o 21 percen. In reading prociency, he percenage rose rom 11 percen o17 percen o black ourh-grade sudens. Te percenage o Lainos in he ourh-

grade who improved heir reading prociency increased rom 12 percen o 23

percen, while he percenage o ourh-grade sudens eligible or ree or reduced-

price lunch who me reading-prociency arges increased rom 13 percen o 21

percen. Te percenage o eighh-grade sudens who were eligible or ree or

reduced-price lunch and scored procien or above in mah rose rom 11 percen

o 26 percen. Boson subsanially ouperormed heir ciy-disric peers across

he naion on he Naional Assessmen o Educaional Progress in 13 o he 14

academic measures or ourh grade and in 12 o he 14 measures or eighh grade.




TABLE 10

Boston Math and Reading NAEP Scores: Percent o students who are profcient or above by race, eligibility or

or reduced price lunch, and English language profciency, as compared to the national average or city districts

4th Grade 2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 D

Perorm


Overall Math 12 20 22 24 27 28 31 29 33 30 + +

Reading 16 19 16 20 20 22 24 23 26 24 + +

White Math 32 42 43 50 52 54 52 55 63 55 + +

Reading 37 39 40 40 42 44 46 47 57 47 + +

Black Math 6 8 13 11 18 13 23 14 21 16 + +

Reading 11 10 11 11 13 12 18 13 17 14 + +

Latino Math 7 13 14 17 23 21 24 21 26 23 + +

Reading 12 13 10 13 14 14 17 14 23 16 + +

Asian Math 43 47 65 49 61 57 65 58 69 52 + +

Reading 29 35 33 35 45 40 43 42 37 38 + -

ELL Math 10 7 19 10 24 12 25 11 27 14 + +

Reading 7 6 5 5 9 6 10 4 10 6 + +Free/

Reduced

Price Lunch

Math 5 12 14 15 23 19 13 20 22 22 + +

Reading 13 12 13 12 16 13 19 15 21 16 + +

8th Grade 2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011

Peror


Overall Math 17 16 23 19 27 22 31 24 34 26 +

Reading 22 19 23 20 22 20 23 21 24 23 +

White Math 48 36 54 39 58 44 67 46 61 48 +

Reading 44 37 46 38 48 39 55 42 55 43 +

Black Math 6 5 9 7 12 9 18 10 21 13 +

Reading 14 10 13 10 16 10 14 11 14 13 +

Latino Math 7 10 12 11 20 13 20 16 24 19 +

Reading 14 12 16 13 10 12 13 14 15 16 +

Asian Math 57 33 61 40 57 44 68 52 71 49 +

Reading 44 30 55 35 46 34 45 38 50 41 +

ELL Math 2 4 5 4 7 4 6 4 11 5 +

Reading 1 2 2 3 1 2 n/a 2 3 2 +

Free/Reduced

Price Lunch

Math 11 9 17 11 21 14 23 15 26 18 +

Reading 16 12 17 13 16 12 16 13 17 16 +




In Chicago, overall suden achievemen improved on he Naional Assessmen

o Educaional Progress in reading and mah in grades our and eigh beween

2003 and 2011. (see able 11) Subgroup perormance in reading and mah

in he wo grade levels also improved. Te percenage o Laino sudens who

perormed procien or above, or example, increased rom 10 percen o 17

percen in ourh-grade mah and rom 8 percen o 20 percen in eighh-grademah. Te percenage o sudens who were eligible or ree or reduced-priced

lunch and perormed procien or above in reading rose rom 11 percen o 14

percen or ourh graders and rom 13 percen o 16 percen or eighh grad-

ers. When compared wih heir urban-disric peers across he naion, Chicago

showed mixed resuls. Te Chicago disric ouperormed or equaled is peers in

seven o he 14 academic measures in he ourh grade bu in only wo o he 14

measures in he eighh grade.




TABLE 11

Chicago Math and Reading NAEP Scores: Percent o students who are profcient or above by race, eligibility or

or reduced price lunch, and English language profciency, as compared to the national average or city districts

4th Grade 2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 Dis

Perorma


Overall Math 10 20 13 24 16 28 18 29 20 30 + -

Reading 14 19 14 20 16 22 16 23 18 24 + -

White Math 31 42 43 50 47 54 44 55 52 55 + -

Reading 37 39 39 40 40 44 41 47 44 47 + -

Black Math 4 8 6 11 8 13 9 14 13 16 + -

Reading 10 10 7 11 10 12 10 13 11 14 + -

Latino Math 10 13 13 17 16 21 18 21 17 23 + -

Reading 12 13 15 13 14 14 15 14 16 16 + +

Asian Math n/a 47 n/a 49 53 57 63 58 50 52 n/a -

Reading n/a 35 n/a 35 51 40 46 42 39 38 n/a +

ELL Math 3 7 3 10 6 12 7 11 8 14 + -

Reading 4 6 2 5 5 6 4 4 4 6 + -Free/

Reduced

Price Lunch

Math 8 12 9 15 12 19 14 20 16 22 + -

Reading 11 12 9 12 12 13 13 15 14 16 + -

8th Grade 2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 Dis

Perorma


Overall Math 9 16 11 19 13 22 15 24 20 26 + -

Reading 15 19 17 20 17 20 17 21 21 23 + -

White Math 25 36 33 39 35 44 39 46 47 48 + -

Reading 30 37 41 38 38 39 40 42 41 43 + -

Black Math 4 5 3 7 6 9 7 10 10 13 + -

Reading 10 10 10 10 9 10 11 11 13 13 + +

Latino Math 8 10 11 11 12 13 18 16 20 19 + +

Reading 15 12 16 13 20 12 17 14 21 16 + +

Asian Math 36 33 38 40 n/a 44 54 52 50 49 + +

Reading 35 30 44 35 n/a 34 n/a 38 38 41 + +

ELL Math 2 4 1 4 5 4 2 4 9 5 + -

Reading 4 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 2 - +

Free/Reduced

Price Lunch

Math 7 9 8 11 10 14 13 15 16 18 + -

Reading 13 12 14 13 14 12 13 13 16 16 + +




In Philadelphia—a relaively new paricipan in he rial Urban Disric

Assessmen—overall suden achievemen improved in mah and reading in

boh he ourh and eighh grades beween 2009 and 2011, as shown in able

12. I improved in mos subgroups as well. Te percenage o black ourh grad-

ers who perormed a or above he procien level in mah, or example, rose

rom 10 percen o 12 percen; i rose rom 8 percen o 13 percen or black eighh-grade sudens. Te percenage o Laino sudens who perormed a

or above he procien level in reading increased rom 5 percen o 10 percen

among ourh graders and rom 9 percen o 13 percen among eighh grad-

ers. Bu he percenage o ourh-grade sudens who were eligible or ree or

reduced-priced lunch and perormed a or above procien in mah declined

rom 17 percen o 13 percen; i declined rom 11 o 9 percen in reading.

Ineresingly, he percenage o eighh-grade sudens who qualiy or ree or

reduced-price lunch who perormed a or above procien in mah increased

rom 13 percen o 15 percen; in reading, he number increased rom 11

percen o 13 percen. When compared wih heir peers across he naion,Philadelphia sudens did no perorm as well in 13 o he 14 academic measures

in he ourh grade and in 12 o he 14 measures in he eighh grade.




TABLE 12

Philadelphia Math and Reading NAEP Scores: Percent o students who are profcient

or above by race, eligibility or ree or reduced price lunch, and English languageprofciency, as compared to the national average or city districts

4th Grade 2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 District

Perormance

District Average District Average

Overall Math 16 29 20 30 + -

Reading 11 23 13 24 + -

White Math 37 55 43 55 + -

Reading 28 47 27 47 - -

Black Math 10 14 12 16 + -

Reading 8 13 9 14 + -

Latino Math 15 21 16 23 + -

Reading 5 14 10 16 + -

Asian Math 40 58 58 52 + +

Reading 25 42 28 38 + -

ELL Math 8 11 10 14 + -

Reading 3 4 2 6 - -

Free/Reduced Price Lunch Math 17 20 13 22 - -

Reading 11 15 9 16 + -

8th Grade 2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 District

Perormance


Overall Math 17 24 18 26 + -Reading 15 21 16 23 + -

White Math 35 46 32 48 - -

Reading 33 42 37 43 + -

Black Math 8 10 13 13 + +

Reading 5 11 5 13 + -

Latino Math 12 16 10 19 - -

Reading 9 14 13 16 + -

Asian Math 46 52 47 49 + -

Reading 39 38 28 41 - -

ELL Math 13 4 4 5 - -

Reading n/a 2 5 2 n/a +

Free/Reduced Price Lunch Math 13 15 15 18 + -

Reading 11 13 13 16 + -




Like Philadelphia, Balimore is a relaively new paricipan in he rial Urban

Disric Assessmen. Te Balimore disric’s overall suden achievemen

improved in boh ourh- and eighh-grade mah and in eighh-grade reading. (see

able 13) Among ourh-grade black sudens, he percenage o sudens who

perormed a or above procien in mah increased rom 10 percen o 14 percen.

Among sudens eligible or ree or reduced-price lunch, he percenage o hoseperorming a or above procien in ourh-grade mah increased rom 9 percen

o 14 percen. Ta wasn’ he case or eighh-grade sudens eligible or ree or

reduced-price lunch—hey ailed o make progress in mah and reading beween

2009 and 2011. When compared o heir peers in oher urban ciies, Balimore

sudens did no perorm as well in all o he eigh academic measures or which

achievemen daa was available or boh he ourh and eighh grades.




TABLE 13

Baltimore Math and Reading NAEP Scores: Percent o students who are profcient

or above by race, eligibility or ree or reduced price lunch, and English languageprofciency, as compared to the national average or city districts

4th Grade 2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 District

Perormance


Overall Math 13 29 17 30 + -

Reading 12 23 11 24 - -

White Math 34 55 44 55 + -

Reading 32 47 34 47 + -

Black Math 10 14 14 16 + -

Reading 10 13 9 14 - -

Latino Math n/a 21 n/a 23 n/a n/a

Reading n/a 14 n/a 16 n/a n/a

Asian Math n/a 58 n/a 52 n/a n/a


ELL Math n/a 11 n/a 14 n/a n/a


Free/Reduced Price Lunch Math 9 20 14 22 - -

Reading 9 15 8 16 - -

8th Grade 2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 District

Perormance


Overall Math 10 24 13 26 + -

Reading 10 21 12 23 + -

White Math n/a 46 31 48 n/a -

Reading n/a 42 34 43 n/a -

Black Math n/a 10 10 13 n/a -

Reading 9 11 8 13 - -

Latino Math n/a 16 n/a 19 n/a n/a


Asian Math n/a 52 n/a 49 n/a n/a


ELL Math n/a 4 n/a 5 n/a n/a


Free/Reduced Price Lunch Math 8 15 9 18 + -

Reading 8 13 9 16 + -




Te Disric o Columbia demonsraed progress in mah and reading in boh

he ourh and eighh grades beween 2003 and 2011. (see able 14) Te

percenage o sudens who perormed a or above procien in mah increased

rom 7 percen o 23 percen among ourh graders and rom 6 percen o 15

percen among eighh graders. Improvemen was seen across various subgroups.

Te percenage o ourh-grade Laino sudens who perormed a or aboveprocien in reading, or example, increased rom 8 percen o 21 percen, while

he percenage o ourh-grade black sudens increased rom 7 percen o 11

percen. Among eighh-grade black sudens, he percenage o sudens who

perormed a or above procien in mah increased rom 3 percen o 9 percen

during his same period. Likewise, he percenage o eighh-grade sudens

who were eligible or ree or reduced-price lunch and perormed a or above

procien in reading increased rom 6 percen o 8 percen. When compared o

is peers, he Disric o Columbia school disric has a grea deal o room or

improvemen. Te disric ouperormed is urban disric peers in only hree o

12 academic measures in he ourh grade and in only wo o 12 measures in heeighh grade.




TABLE 14

Washington, D.C. Math and Reading NAEP Scores: Percent o students who are profcient or above by race, eligibi

or ree or reduced price lunch, and English language profciency, as compared to the national average or city dis

4th Grade 2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 D

Perorm


Overall Math 7 20 10 24 14 28 19 29 23 30 + -

Reading 10 19 11 20 14 22 18 23 20 24 + -

White Math 71 42 78 50 73 54 81 55 85 55 + +

Reading 70 39 70 40 74 44 75 47 73 47 + +

Black Math 4 8 5 11 8 13 9 14 12 16 + -

Reading 7 10 8 11 9 12 11 13 11 14 + -

Latino Math 7 13 11 17 19 21 25 21 22 23 + -

Reading 8 13 12 13 15 14 17 14 21 16 + +



ELL Math 3 7 7 10 9 12 15 11 12 14 + -

Reading 3 6 4 5 9 6 7 4 5 6 + -

Free/Reduced

Price Lunch

Math 3 12 5 15 7 19 8 20 11 22 + -

Reading 6 12 6 12 6 13 9 15 9 16 + -

8th Grade 2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Change

2003-2011

2011 Dis

Perorm


Overall Math 6 16 7 19 8 22 12 24 15 26 + -

Reading 10 19 12 20 12 20 14 21 15 23 + -

White Math n/a 36 69 39 n/a 44 n/a 46 78 48 + +

Reading n/a 37 74 38 n/a 39 n/a 42 63 43 n/a +

Black Math 3 5 4 7 6 9 6 10 9 13 + -

Reading 8 10 9 10 9 10 9 11 10 13 + -

Latino Math 3 10 9 11 9 13 17 16 12 19 + -

Reading 11 12 18 13 19 12 22 14 14 16 + -



ELL Math 3 4 n/a 4 2 4 n/a 4 4 5 + -

Reading 6 2 n/a 3 n/a 2 n/a 2 1 2 - -

Free/

ReducedPrice Lunch

Math 2 9 4 11 4 14 6 15 6 18 + -

Reading 6 12 8 13 7 12 8 13 8 16 + -




aken as a whole, he composie picure o mayoral conrol across hese disrics

suggess improvemen. New York, Boson, and—o some exen—Chicago,

improved heir Naional Assessmen o Educaional Progress perormance.

Sudens in hese disrics ouperormed heir peers across various subgroups and

subjecs in boh he ourh and eighh grades. On sae assessmens, mayor-led

disrics improved over ime—or a leas narrowed he disric-sae achievemengap across many academic measures and subgroups. Tere are, o be sure, areas

ha improvemen, especially in he upper grade levels.

Te disricwide summary rends discussed in his secion provide a useul sar-

ing poin or urher discussion. Bu simply examining perormance over ime

ails o accoun or he many acors ha aec suden-prociency levels. Te

analysis hus ar is quie helpul in oriening us o a general picure o mayoral

conrol and academic perormance, bu we need more comprehensive saisical

analysis o beter undersand wheher mayoral governance is conribuing o—or

hindering—suden achievemen. o guide our undersanding, we urn now o amore in-deph analysis o school perormance in hree seleced saes—New York,

Illinois, and Massachusets.




TABLE 15

Number o school-year observations in the dataset

State Grade Years Number o observations

Illinois 8 1999–2009 10,337

11 2001–2009 4,171

Massachusetts 4 1998–2010 4,033

8 1998–2010 1,665

New York 4 1999–2010 9,352

8 1999–2010 4,958

Total 34,516

Mayoral governance raises student achievement

We believe ha he expansive daases we have developed allow or rigorous analy-sis and meaningul policy inerences.24 We discuss our resuls in his secion. For

he purposes o his discussion, we ocus on he suden achievemen o a school

residing wihin a mayoral- conrol disric, conrolling or he socioeconomic

characerisics o he sudens and he enrollmen o he schools.

Te school-level analysis, summarized in Figures 2 and 3, suggess ha beween

1999 and 2010 he benes o mayoral conrol have been sronges in he sae

o New York—where boh New York Ciy and Yonkers have mayoral-appoined

school boards. In he sae o New York, here is a signican posiive relaionship

beween a school in a mayoral-conrolled disric and suden achievemen growh

in boh eighh-grade mah and reading and in ourh-grade mah. New York Ciy’s

Naional Assessmen o Educaional Progress perormance since 2003 mirrors

hese rends, as discussed earlier. (see able 8)

In Chicago here is a signican posiive relaionship beween mayoral conrol

and suden achievemen growh in eighh-grade mah and reading. Achievemen

growh is greaer among schools in Chicago compared o schools wih similar

racial, ehnic, and income characerisics elsewhere in Illinois. As discussed earlier,

eighh-grade suden-achievemen perormance was consisen wih he improve-men in he Naional Assessmen o Educaional Progress. Tis is no he case,

however, a he 11h-grade level, where Chicago schools did no ouperorm oher

schools wih similar characerisics in he sae.



Mayoral governance and school perormance in three states, 1999–2010 | www.americanprogress.o

In Boson, we nd ha mayoral conrol has a signican posiive eec on ourh-

grade mah perormance. Tis is he only signican posiive relaionship ha

emerges. Tis posiive nding is consisen wih he rend in he disric’s Naional

Assessmen o Educaional Progress achievemen perormance. As able 10 sug-

gess, Boson ouperormed is urban disric peers in mah and reading in grades

our and eigh in 2011.

Overall, he magniude o he eecs o mayoral conrol on suden achievemen

in hese disrics ranges rom 1 percen o 3 percen. (see Figure 2) Tis suggess

ha in hese paricular disrics, subjecs, and grades, mayoral conrol increases

he percenage o sudens in a school who are procien on sae academic san-

dards by 1 percen o 3 percen annually. While 1 percen may iniially seem o be

a small number, hese are average eecs across all schools in a disric. In erms o

he raw numbers, a 1 percen increase in prociency raes among New York Ciy’s

ourh graders, or example, would increase achievemen or nearly 2,000 sudens.

In wo saes—New York and Illinois—available school-level daa allow us

o examine he eec o mayoral conrol on suden subpopulaions. Because

subgroup scores are no recorded in schools when he number o sudens in a

subgroup is very small, we are no able o include as many schools in our sub-

group analysis. Neverheless, he analysis allows us o deermine how mayoral

conrol aecs some suden subgroups. We nd ha in New York Ciy mayoral

conrol is signicanly relaed o achievemen growh in suden subgroups. In

his case, mayoral conrol has a posiive eec on he achievemen o ourh-grade

Laino and black sudens. Tese posiive resuls mirror he disric’s Naional

Assessmen o Educaional Progress achievemen or hese subgroups. (see able

8) Bu we do no nd ha mayoral conrol has a signican eec on achievemen

in oher grades and subjecs in New York Ciy, and we see no relaionship beween

achievemen among subgroups and mayoral conrol in Illinois.

Te resuls o his school-level analysis sugges ha he relaionship beween

mayoral conrol and suden achievemen is complex. While mayoral conrol may

no lead o achievemen growh across he board, here are clear indicaions ha i

has signican posiive eecs on some subjec areas a cerain grade levels and or

various subgroups o sudens. In summary, our sudy on disric-level rends andschool-level analysis yields several ndings.

Disricwide rends sugges ha mayoral conrol has improved suden achieve-

men in urban disrics and ha in several cases, perormance in hese disrics is




approaching he sae aver-

age—hough hey remain

shor o he average sae

perormance level).

•More robus saisicalanalysis a he school level

suggess ha here is variaion

in he long-run eeciveness

o mayoral conrol in improv-

ing suden achievemen

growh a he school level. In

New York Ciy schools, or

example, achievemen among

Arican American and Laino

sudens improved signi-canly in ourh-grade mah. In

Chicago mayoral governance

conribued o academic gains

in eighh-grade mah and

reading achievemen. Tese

improvemens ranged rom 1

percen o 3 percen annual growh in he percenage o sudens meeing he

prociency sandards. Consequenly, housands o sudens in hese large urban

disrics succeeded academically as hey moved rom one grade o he nex. In

his regard, he eecs o mayoral conrol are more appropriaely assessed a he

school level, raher han a he aggregae disric level.

• Our resuls sugges ha, in some disrics, mayoral conrol has is greaes eec

in is iniial period o roughly seven o eigh years. As disrics under mayoral

governance consolidae heir iniial academic gains, hey, like heir beter-per-

orming peers, ace new challenges in elevaing heir disrics o a higher level o

academic perormance.

FIGURE 2

Magnitude o Statistically Signiicant Average Eects o MayoralControl on Annual Growth in Student Achievement, by District, Grade,

and Subject

Notes: Figure 2 presents the statistically signicant average efects o mayoral control on school-level growth in student achievement.Efects are derived rom the statistical models, and these are efects that hold the other control variables constant at their means.Statistical signicance is denoted as ollows: * p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01.

-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

**

**

**

***

***

***

**

**

**

District Group Grade Subject

Boston

Chicago

New York

All

All

All

Black

Latino

Poor

4th

8th

4th

8th

4th

4th

4th

Math

Math

Read

Math

Math

Read

Math

Math

Read

Average effect of mayoral control on school performance



Implications or the uture o mayoral governance | www.americanprogress.o

Implications for the future of

mayoral governance

Evaluaing he eecs o mayoral conrol is a challenging ask because no wo

insances o his governance approach are idenical.25 Unlike an evaluaion o a

well-dened inervenion—such as a reading-improvemen sraegy in cerain

grades, which may be implemened in a similar way across many disrics—each

school disric under mayoral conrol uses a unique orm o he governance model

ha is embedded in he ciy ’s disinc poliical environmen. Tus, in drawing

implicaions or heir own disrics, policymakers should no assume ha mayoral-

conrol experience in heir disric will unold in a way ha mirrors he experi-ences o he disrics sudied here. Raher, policymakers should consider his as

he necessary background wih which hey should become amiliar in order o

make inormed eors on decisions abou how mayoral conrol would be designed

and implemened in heir paricular ciy and se o local circumsances.

Our sudy on he eecs o mayoral conrol provides a useul empirical base or

mayors who are acively engaged in educaion reorm. Tese ndings will also

be useul o curren and uure mayors who may consider aking a greaer role in

public educaion. In his regard, we revisi some o our key ndings.

• Mayoral-led disrics are engaged in sraegic allocaion o resources. Using daa

spanning over a 15-year period, we nd ha compared o disrics ha are no

mayor-led, mayoral-conrolled disrics are more likely o inves in eachers, spend

more on insrucion, have smaller suden-eacher raios, allocae a greaer percen-

age o resources oward K-12 suden-suppor services, and have a larger percen-

age o revenue rom sae sources and conversely, a smaller percenage o revenue

rom local sources. Tis sraegic use o revenues o suppor K-12 educaion sug-

gess ha mayoral-conrolled disrics ocus on he broader—and oen he neces-

sary—condiions ha suppor eecive eaching and learning. Consequenly,several mayoral-led disrics showed academic improvemen over ime.

• Over he pas decade, mayoral-conrolled school disrics have gener-

ally improved disricwide academic perormance relaive o he sae.




Undersandably, his improvemen varies across disrics and is somewha

uneven by grade and subjec mater.

• Tere were 11 disrics ha were governed by some degree o mayoral leader-

ship oward he end period (2010) o our daabase on sae-assessmen resuls.

Among hese 11 disrics, ve made subsanial improvemen in narrowing heachievemen gap wih he sae. Tese disrics were New York, New Haven,

Chicago, Philadelphia, and Balimore. Four disrics—Harord, Harrisburg,

Boson, and Providence—showed progress on some academic measures.

• Mayoral conrol in New York Ciy appears o have signican posiive eecs on

boh ourh- and eighh-grade suden achievemen. Arican American and Laino

sudens have beneed academically rom mayoral conrol in New York Ciy.

• In Boson and Chicago, achievemen improvemen was srong during he iniial

period o mayoral governance. In recen years, however, he eecs o mayoralgovernance show a relaive apering o perormance. Recognizing he need o

connec schools o oher social and civic insiuions, he educaion mayors in

hese and oher ciies have acively promoed sronger collaboraion across di-

eren secors o improve he overall qualiy o lie in urban neighborhoods.

While no addressed specically in his repor, in sudying successul mayoral

governance we made he ollowing observaions:

• Mayoral governance is most effective when the mayor is ready to act. o urn

around a low-perorming disric, an educaion mayor is necessary bu no

sucien. A mayor mus be ready o ac o overcome barriers o school improve-

men. Graning a mayor he opporuniy o be in charge o he disric is only

he beginning. Te mayor has o be an acive educaion mayor, consisenly

leveraging resources and mobilizing sakeholders sraegically o aciliae a sup-

porive policy environmen in public educaion.

• A city must adapt not adopt. Ciies considering mayoral governance should

adap mayoral conrol o heir unique local conex. A horough assessmen o

local challenges mus be used o guide he design o mayoral governance. Givenhe variaions in local culures and poliics, ciies considering mayoral conrol

mus plan sraegically and engage collecively o make sure ha mayoral leader-

ship conribues o a sronger sysem o accounabiliy. Educaion mayors need



Implications or the uture o mayoral governance | www.americanprogress.o

o orm specic coaliions wih key sakeholders in heir communiy o raise

school perormance.

• Mayoral control may require reinvention. Mayoral governance, once esab-

lished, canno simply rely on early successes. Clearly, we need o learn rom

ciies ha coninued o show academic gains over ime. Wihou reinvenion,mayoral conrol may sall in is abiliy o generae growh in suden achieve-

men. Our sudy suggess ha even i mayoral conrol is iniially successul, ha

success may be ime bound. Reinvening mayoral conrol—wheher hrough

new leadership or new governance pracices—seems necessary in reinvigoraing

suden-achievemen gains.

• Involve diverse providers and charter schools. Te uure o mayoral conrol

will—and ough o—involve diverse providers and charer-school auhoriza-

ions. Because o enrenched sae poliics, i seems unlikely ha a large number

o saes will expand mayoral conrol o heir big ciy school disrics in he nearuure. Given his likelihood, mayors may be bes served by nding alerna-

ive ways o enhance heir ciy’s public schools. One promising approach is

hrough charer schools, such as he mayoral auhorizaion o charer schools in

Indianapolis.26 Implemenaion o porolio managemen wih diverse providers

under conracual arrangemen—as is now he case in New York, Chicago, and

Philadelphia—may provide new perspecive on mayoral leadership.



Conclusion | www.americanprogress.o

Conclusion

Several ciies in his repor have recenly ransiioned o new mayoral leadership,

including:

• The District of Columbia. Former Mayor Adrian Feny’s primary deea by Ciy

Council Chairman Vincen Gray in he Sepember 2010 democraic mayoral

primary ushered in a leadership change in he ciy ’s public schools, wih Council

Chairman Gray going on o win he mayoral elecion. Te school disric’s

ormer chancellor, Michelle Rhee, sepped down in Ocober 2010 and wasreplaced by her ormer depuy Kaya Henderson.27

• Chicago. In Sepember 2011 ormer Mayor Richard M. Daley (D) announced

ha he would no seek a sevenh erm.28 Daley’s successor, Mayor Rahm

Emmanuel (D), is clearly commited o public-educaion reorm. During his rs

year in oce, he had o manage he rs eachers’ srike in Chicago in 25 years.

• New York. Schools’ Chancellor Joel Klein announced his resignaion in

November 2010. Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) seleced businesswoman

Cahie Black o succeed Klein, seting o a vigorous debae abou her qualica-

ions o be chancellor.29 Wih he subsequen appoinmen o Dennis Wolcot as

he school chancellor, New York Ciy schools avoided a leadership crisis.

• Providence. In 2011 voers eleced he ciy’s rs Laino mayor, Angel averas

(D), who has irelessly pushed orward wih his school-reorm agenda.

• Cleveland. Mayor Frank Jackson (D) is pushing o replace senioriy wih meri-

based promoion and assignmen or eachers, wih new legislaion coming rom

he governor and he sae lawmakers in June 2012.

Each insance o leadership succession in mayoral-led disrics—or conroversy

surrounding mayors’ oce-driven educaion iniiaives—pus a spoligh on he

ecacy o mayoral conrol o schools. I especially highlighs is eecs on suden




and nancial oucomes and wha happens under new, less experienced mayoral

leadership.30 Cerainly, gaining conrol o a school disric oers a mayor an

opporuniy o make a dierence. Te real work begins, however, upon assuming

ha responsibiliy. In his sudy, we ound ha mayors in several disrics have suc-

cessully shouldered ha responsibiliy, implemening policies ha have conrib-

ued o narrowing he suden-achievemen gap. Ongoing school improvemen will cerainly bene rom a srong sysem o accounabiliy. Our ndings clearly

sugges ha urban disrics can make signican progress when a mayor is willing

o lead and ready o ac.



About the authors and ack nowledgements | www.americanprogress.o

About the authors

Kenneth K. Wong is he Waler and Leonore Annenberg proessor and chair o he

deparmen o educaion a Brown Universiy. He also direcs he urban educaion

policy program a Brown. He coauhored Te Education Mayor (2007), and he has

published several books on educaion poliics, reorm, and nance.

Francis X. Shen is an associae proessor a he Universiy o Minnesoa Law

School. Shen is a graduae o he Harvard Law School and previously augh a

he ulane Universiy Law School and he Vanderbil Universiy Law School. He

coauhored Te Education Mayor , and he has published aricles on charer schools

and educaion reorm.

Acknowledgements

Te auhors would like o acknowledge suppor rom he Smih Richardson

Foundaion, a privae oundaion supporing research in he areas o oreign and

domesic public policy. In addiion, he auhors wish o recognize he research

assisance provided by Michael Harney, Cadence Wilse, and Megan Boben.

Te Cener or American Progress hanks he Eli and Edyhe Broad Foundaion

or heir sponsorship o his publicaion and heir ongoing suppor o our educa-

ion programs. We also hank he Tomas B. Fordham Insiue or heir review

and commens.



Appendix | www.americanprogress.o

Appendix

Methodology on statistical analysis

Mayoral conrol is a disricwide reorm ha aecs all schools in he disric, bu mayoral conrol is no he only acor aecing school perormance. Suden

demographics, school size, and school ype are among he oher acors ha we

know are likely relaed o suden oucomes. We consider some o hese acors in

our saisical analysis o help us undersand wheher mayoral conrol has an eec

on suden achievemen—over and above oher conounding acors. Because we

are concerned primarily wih he value ha mayoral conrol conribues o suden

achievemen, we ocus on annual growth in suden achievemen. Te key ea-

ures o our saisical model are as ollows:

Unit of analysis: We employ wha is called a “ime-series, cross-secional,” or“panel,” daase in which we measure perormance o schools in each sae over

ime. We run separae models or each unique grade and subjec combinaion. I

we have daa in a sae or ourh- and eighh-grade reading and mah, or example,

his allows or our separae models.

Dependent variable: We analyze he eec o mayoral conrol on he percenage

change o sudens who are procien or exceed prociency on a sae’s sandard-

ized es over one year.

Explanatory variable of interest: Our key explanaory variable is a dichoomous

variable called MAYOR , which akes a value “1” i he school is in a disric where

he mayor appoins all or he majoriy o he school board—and “0” i his is no

he case—in a given year.

Control variables: Our model includes addiional acors ha could aec suden

achievemen. Separae variables are included o conrol or wheher he school is

a charer school, a magne school, or is receiving ederal ile I dollars. We conrol

or suden-eacher raios and school enrollmen. We also conrol or he percen-

age o black and Laino sudens enrolled, as well as he number o sudens whoare eligible or ree or reduced-price school lunches. Finally, we conrol or “ime”

in order o capure he eecs o addiional, unmeasured variables ha are corre-

laed wih ime—or example, he mauraion o a new curricular sraegy.



The Center or American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute

dedicated to promoting a strong, just and ree America that ensures opportunity

or all. We believe that Americans are bound together by a common commitment to

these values and we aspire to ensure that our national policies relect these values.

We work to ind progressive and pragmatic solutions to signiicant domestic and

international problems and develop policy proposals that oster a government that

is “o the people, by the people, and or the people.”

mayoral governance and student achievement

Documents