University of Calgary

PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2020-01-08

Has the State takeover of the Newark Public Schools

reformed, repaired or impaired the district and

influenced graduation rates?

Amparbin, Kenneth A.

Amparbin, K. A. (2020). Has the State takeover of the Newark Public Schools reformed, repaired

or impaired the district and influenced graduation rates? (Unpublished doctoral thesis).

University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.

http://hdl.handle.net/1880/111525

doctoral thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their

thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through

licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under

copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.

Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Has the State takeover of the Newark Public Schools reformed, repaired or impaired the district and influenced

graduation rates?

by

Kenneth A. Amparbin

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

CALGARY, ALBERTA

JANUARY, 2020

© Kenneth A. Amparbin 2020

ii

Abstract

For more than two decades from 1995 until 2017, the Newark Public Schools (NPS) district has been

controlled by the State of New Jersey Department of Education (NJ DOE). It is the largest and one of the oldest

school districts in New Jersey. Approximately 2,700 teachers educate 37,000 students in the district’s 64

traditional public schools. The student population is composed of three subgroups that include: General

Education, Disabled and Limited English Proficient. The student grade level enrolment consists of 6 % Pre-

Kindergarten, 68 % Kindergarten to Eighth, and 36 % Ninth to Twelfth. Each classroom reflects a multi-ethnic

population that is predominantly Hispanic, Black, White and the remainder drawn from a combination of Asian,

Pacific Islanders and Native-Americans.

The district is currently led and managed by an appointed superintendent and a locally elected, Type-2,

school board. The superintendent’s efforts are supported by a cabinet that aid with the daily function and

operation of the district. The cabinet is composed of the School Business Administrator, Deputy-

Superintendent, five Assistant-Superintendents, Chief Strategy Officer, Chief Talent Officer and General

Council.

This single case study centres on the efforts of the state takeover in reforming the district’s operations

and its influence on student achievement from 2011 to 2017. The data analysis focuses on archival data and

documents from the state, municipality, district and high schools relating to the New Jersey Quality Single

Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) District Performance Review Process and the Newark Public Schools

(NPS) high school graduation rates. The analysis of the accumulated qualitative and quantitative data from this

seven-year period was done by disaggregating, coding and comparing the data from each and across these

sources.

iii

Through the lens of the open-systems theory conceptual framework, the results of the analysis yielded

explanations. The explanations are an insight to the causes and effects of the processes during the state

takeover that influenced the district’s operations and high school graduation rates. The outcomes subsequently

led to the conditional restoration of the Newark Public School’s (NPS) control to the local board of education in

2018.

iv

Preface

This thesis is original, unpublished, independent work by the author Kenneth A. Amparbin. The archival data

collected and analysed in Chapters 5-6 were covered by Ethics Certificate number REB17-1627, issued by the

University of Calgary Conjoint Health Ethics Board for the project “Has the State control reformed, repaired, or

impaired student achievement in the Newark Public Schools?” on February 09, 2018.

v

Acknowledgements

In this journey, I have learned that success and achievement is not accomplished alone. It was done with the

assistance, coaching and support of the people who have touched an aspect of my life. In some shape form or

fashion these people used their individual voice to share constructive feedback, shine a light on a path, offer

motivating and encouraging words and remind me of my mission and purpose. Each gesture served a catalyst

in my ongoing personal and professional growth. For those and countless reasons, “I am forever grateful for

what was shared with me…”.

At home, Michelle (my wife) was that person. While at work, various members of the Newark Public Schools

were influential as well without even knowing it. Most of all, Mrs. Esther Lewars (Educator,

Community/Cultural Activist and Proctor). Last, but not least, members of the University of Calgary’s

Graduate School of Educational Research faculty and staff. These individuals are Ms. Sylvia Parks (Program

Administrator), Dr. Ian Winchester (Supervisor), Dr. Amy Adams (Supervisory Committee), and Dr. Veronika

Bohac (Supervisory Committee).

vi

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………. ii-iii

Preface……………………………………………………………………………………………………iv

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………. v

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….1-10

1.01 Public education, school reform, state takeovers, and the return to local control………....1-5

1.02 Systems Theory Conceptual Framework………………………………………………….5-6

1.03 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………….6-8

1.04 Findings in the Newark Public Schools 20011 to 2017 District Performance Review

Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………8-9

1.05 Analysis and synthesis of the single case study associated with the takeover and return

to local control of the Newark Public Schools…………………………………………………...10

1.06 Takeover, Reform, and Return to Local Control of the Newark Public Schools…………...10

Chapter 2: Literature Review of Public Education, School Reform, State Takeovers, and

the Return to Local Control ……….……………………………....................................................11-54

2.01 Public Education’s Evolution in the United States……………………………………...11-20

2.02 Historical Context of School Reform.………………………………………………….20-23

2.03 From Takeover to Turnaround Schools and Districts Throughout the Nation………….23-29

A. Table 2.1, Three Types of Takeover Districts in the United States………………….26

B. Table 2.2, Five Approaches to Takeover and Turnaround a School or District……...28

2.03 New Jersey Constitutional Mandate to Provide a Thorough and Efficient Education to

All School Age Children…………………………...................................................................30-31

2.04 Conditions that Exhorted the State Takeover of the Newark Public School…................32-34

vii

2.05 Restoring local control and the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability

Continuum …………................................................................................................................35-45

A. Table 2.3, District Performance Review (DPR) Scoring……………………………...45

2.06 Journey from State Takeover to Local Control………………………………………….46-51

A. Michigan’s Education Achievement Authority…........................................................48

B. Louisiana’s Recovery School District…………………………………………….48-49

C. Oakland, CA………………………………………………………………………….49

D. New York, NY………………………………………………….................................50

E. Newark, NJ………………………………………………………...........................50-51

2.07 Reagents of change in the turnaround process from takeover to local control………….51-53

2.08 Persistent Urban District Challenges that Follow the Return to Local Control…………53-54

Chapter 3: Conceptual Framework……………………………………………..............................55-60

3.01 Systems Theory……………………………………………………………….................55-59

A. Figure 3.01, Basic Systems Framework……………………………………………...56

3.02 Open System…………………………………………………………………………….59-60

Chapter 4: Methodology…………………………………………………………………………….61-71

4.01 Research Question ...……………………………………………..........................................61

4.02 Case Study Research Methodology ...………………………………..............................61-63

A. Figure 4.01, Single Case Study with multiple embedded units of analysis………....64

4.03 District and School Level Participant Selection Procedure…………..............................65-66

4.04 Data Collection Method….….…………………..............................................................66-67

4.05 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………....................67-69

4.06 Limitations and delimitations……………………………………………………………69-70

viii

4.07 Relationship Between the Researcher and the Newark Public Schools…………………70-71

Chapter 5: Findings in the Newark Public Schools 20011 to 2017 District Performance Review

Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………….72-100

5.01 Figure 5.01, 2011 – 17 Newark Public Schools District Performance Review…………....74

5.02 Operations………………………………………………………………………………….75

5.03 Fiscal Management……………………………………………………………………...75-76

5.04 Personnel………………………………………………………………………………...76-77

5.05 Instruction and Programs…………………………………………..................................77-92

A. Graduation Standards in New Jersey……………………………...............................79

B. Graduation Data Through the Lens of the District, State and Nation……………….80

1. Figure 5.02, 2011-2017 District, State and National

Graduation Rates…………………………………………………………………81

C. Graduation Data Through the Lens of Student Subgroups,

State and District……………………………………………………………...82-85

1. Figure 5.03, Comparison of Economically Disadvantaged,

Limited English Proficient and Student with Disabilities……………………….83

2. Figure 5.04, Graduation Rates Based on Ethnicity………………………….85

D. Graduation Data Through the Lens of Comprehensive and

Magnet High Schools, District and State…………………………………….86-92

1. Figure 5.05, State, District, Magnet and Comprehensive High School

Comparison………………………………………………………………………87

2. Addressing Common and Unique Subgroup Challenges……………………...90

ix

3. Table 5.06, 2017 NJ School Performance Report Summary for Selected

Comprehensive High Schools…………………………………………………….91

4. Table 5.07, 2017 NJ School Performance Report Summary for Selected

Magnet High Schools…………………………………………………………….92

5.06 Governance………………………………………………………….....................................93

A. Legislation and Litigation…………………………………….....................................94

B. Political Environment……………………………………………………………95-100

Chapter 6: Analysis and synthesis of the single case study associated with the takeover and

return to local control of the Newark Public Schools ………………………………………….101-107

6.01 Factors Contributing to the Reform and Repair of the Newark Public Schools……...101-102

6.02 Reform and Repair of the Newark Public Schools through lens of the

Open-Systems Framework…………………………………………………………………102-103

A. Figure 6.01, Open-Systems Framework in an Educational Organization………….104

6.03 The Process of Change in the Context of Reform and the Return to Local Control…105-107

Chapter 7: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………108-109

7.01 Takeover, Reform and Repair of the Newark Public School……………………………...108

7.02 After the Return to Local Control…………………………………………………….108-109

References…………………………………………………………………....................................110-135

Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………………….65-69

1

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Public education, school reform, state takeovers, and the return to local control

In the United States, public schools were established and developed to provide educational

opportunities for each of its citizens. However, education was initially mentioned in the United States

Constitution 15 years after the country was founded following the ratification of the Tenth Amendment in

1791. It delegated this responsibility to each state who subsequently established authority over public school

education at the municipal level. The parameters of this authority are outlined by each state’s adopted

constitution. This authority also empowers each state to make progressive changes in the operation,

management and development of the public-school system that serves its residence.

The ongoing effort to effect progressive changes in public education evolved into the school reform

movement. The school reform movement began during the era of court ordered school desegregation in states

and municipalities throughout the nation. Educational policies were unequivocally connected to the

promotion of equity and reconciling the imbalances between the African American community and the

dominant economic, educational, political, and social segregation in the southern United States. This early

school reform movement was framed in a historical and national context that focused on interventions at the

centralized state and local school district levels.

The responsibility to apply interventions that adapt, modify or reform public education has been

assigned to each state by statutes. However, the administration of this responsibility is delegated by each state

to the local school boards where the students reside. To meet this charge, the local school boards continually

evaluate the factors that influence the quality of the outcomes that are associated with their efforts to educate

the students of the community. These factors include the quality of the education, curriculum, financial

management, governance, human resources, and standard operating procedures.

2

When the local school and/or school board demonstrates a pattern of failing to meet this responsibility, the

state government intervenes. The first example of direct state school intervention in the United States

occurred when the New Jersey Department of Education took over the Jersey City Public Schools in 1989.

Although the State of New Jersey Department of Education delegates the operating authority of public

schools to local municipalities, the state has the final responsibility of “providing a thorough and efficient

education to all school age children between the ages of five and eighteen years (The New Jersey

Constitution. 1875, p. 14).” Statutes and regulations such as Title 18A and 6A along with court decisions at

both the State and Federal level outline how this authority should be applied in each school district.

New Jersey statutes, regulations and court decisions also outline the remedy when the operational

practices in a district demonstrates a pattern of failure. As early as 1968, Governor Richard Hughes,

presented a proposal to the state legislature to take over the Newark Public Schools. However, the proposal

was not implemented by the state until 17 years later based evidence of persistent conditions that existed in

the Newark Public Schools.

The state exercised its direct authority in the failing district to ensure “each school age child” can be

educated. In the spring of 1993, the New Jersey Department of Education authorized a Comprehensive

Compliance Investigation of the Newark Public Schools district. This investigation subsequently identified

multiple ongoing patterns of dysfunction and mismanagement relating to educational programs, fiscal

practices, governance, and management throughout the district within the past decade preceding the

investigation. Following the recommendation of the Comprehensive Compliance Investigation, in 1995, the

New Jersey State Board of Education exercised its authority by removing the superintendent and board of

education, established a state-operated school district, and appointed a State District Superintendent.

3

In 2002, more than a decade after the first state takeover of a school district in the country, the

Institute on Education Law and Policy published a report, Developing a Plan for Reestablishing Local

Control in the State-operated Districts. Trachtenberg, Holzer, Miller, Sadovnik & Liss (2002) study

analyzed the impact of the state takeover of the Jersey City in 1989, Newark in 1995 and Paterson in 1991

school districts and outlined the legal and policy considerations to reestablish local control. This report led

to the 2005 New Jersey Quality through Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) legislation (N.J.S.A.

18A:7A-10).

New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) is the New Jersey Department of

Education biannual monitoring and evaluation system for each public school district in the state except

Education Services Commissions and Charter Schools. New Jersey Quality Single Accountability

Continuum (NJ QSAC) is based on a performance continuum that includes periodical monitoring of

progress, improvement, and interventions. It replaced the seven year cycle certification of the Quality

Assurance Annual Review.

New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) evolved out of the need to develop

a simplified monitoring system based on uniform standards that are relevant to all districts in the state. This

single comprehensive accountability system consolidates and incorporates the current codes and statues,

Abbott mandates, State Takeover law and the 2002 Federal No Child Left Behind Legislation. The system

shifts the monitoring and evaluation focus from compliance to assistance, capacity-building and

improvement. The New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) requires an evaluation

of each district’s capacity and effectiveness in: Instruction and Program, Fiscal Management, Governance,

Personnel, and Operations.

4

The New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) is intended to promote

efficient use of district resources, family and community involvement and establish expectations for student

achievement. Via the District Performance Review, it allows progressive districts to continue their forward

movement without any impediment from the State of New Jersey Department of Education (NJ DOE). The

New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) was also developed to establish an

objective and uniform criterion to determine when a State takeover district could be returned to local control.

The New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) requires a biannual evaluation of

each districts capacity and effectiveness based on the District Performance Review.

The takeover of schools and districts often creates on going conflict between the collective bargaining

units, educational leaders and politicians within those communities. The opposition of state takeovers have

argued that there is a national agenda to privatize public schools, and predominant African American and

Hispanic communities’ participation in the democratic process that is associated with public education is

reduced under the guise of school reform. The two common responses to the state takeover policy occur in

the form of litigation or community-led opposition. Organized labour, politicians, and special interest groups

have unsuccessfully with litigations. However, community-led opposition have successfully challenged the

legitimacy of state takeovers on the basis that they disproportionately target and harm communities of colour.

The three types of takeovers throughout the United States are: school takeovers, district takeovers,

and both school and district takeovers. Michigan, Louisiana (school), California (school and district

takeovers), New York (school and district takeovers) and New Jersey (district takeovers) represent one of the

three types of takeover districts throughout the United States. The common motivating factors that

compelled state and municipal officials to takeover and engage in the turnaround process where patterns of

student underachievement and financial mismanagement.

5

An analysis of the Detroit, New Orleans, Oakland, New York City and Newark school district reveal

a combination of reoccurring reagents that had a direct influence on the efforts and outcomes that are

associated with the turnaround process in each type of takeover. The four commonly reoccurring reagents

were: (1) charter schools, (2) funding, (3) organized labor and (4) political ideologies.

There are multiple dimensions to the challenges that are associated with urban public schools and

districts that have led to change, subsequent takeover, reform or turnaround. In many of these urban public-

school districts there are enduring problems that are prevalent with the students including: poor attendance,

under scholastic achievement, low performance on standardized tests and high drop-out rates. Although

district educators and educational leaders appear to be bogged down in a political bureaucracy with an

endless cycle of reform, the ongoing challenge is to lead, establish and sustain school improvement(s) that

impact the students in the communities they serve.

Systems Theory Conceptual Framework

The systems theory conceptual framework facilitates a clear understanding of the outcomes associated

with the takeover and the reform of the Newark Public Schools (NPS). It provides an inductive and deductive

prospective of the whole organization in terms of the interrelation of its six functioning subsystems to

accomplish specific goals and objectives. The six interrelated subsystems include the: environment,

organization, input, transformation process, outputs, and feedback. In this system, the organization is

influence by economic, legal, political and social forces that compose the surrounding environment. Within

the organization, the input, transformation, output and feedback processes occur. Inputs refers to the use of

resources such as financial, information, material and personnel. The transformation process occurs by way

administrative practices, the quality of instruction and the use of technology.

6

Outputs refer to the organization’s products and services. In an educational organization, knowledge and

skills are developed and distributed in the form of outputs. Feedback is the qualitative and quantitative

information gathered from the analysis of the outputs that influences the inputs and transformation process

during next cycle of the system.

Methodology

More than two decades ago, since 1995, the New Jersey State Department of Education took over the

Newark Public Schools, the state’s largest district, with the intent to reform the district. However, after 22

years in 2017, the Newark Public Schools, was returned to local control. From 2011 to 2017, while the

Newark Public Schools district was under state control, what influenced the reform and the patterns of student

achievement in terms of high school graduation rates?

Considering the focus of the research, the case study methodology provides authentic examples of

circumstances and people that empower the learner to more vividly understand as well as process

concepts and ideas. Generalized theory is developed in case studies by either a combination of

qualitative and/or quantitative data analysis of active and revealing exchanges with people during unique

circumstances, events, and incidents.

In this analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data from the Newark Public School’s District

Performance Review and high school graduation rates, the embedded case study design will be applied. This

approach looks for consistent patterns of evidence across the embedded units of the five District Performance

Review Indicators (Operations, Fiscal Management, Personnel, Instruction and Programs, and Governance)

and the high school graduation averages (national, state, district, and local).

7

In this case-study, the district’s operations are one embedded unit of analysis and the other embedded

unit of analysis is a selected group of 10 out of 16 high schools within the district. The high school

participant consideration is based on the type of high school, the high school’s total enrolment; also, how well

does its student body reflects the economic, ethnic and social diversity of the city. 37,000 students are

educated in Newark’s 64 public schools. The 64 schools include 5 Pre-Kindergarten to Kindergarten, 41

elementary, 16 high schools and 3 un-graded schools for students with multiple disabilities.

In this single case study of the Newark Public Schools District, the most recent archival data and

documents from 2011 to 2017 relating to the two embedded units of analysis will be collected. The New

Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum District Performance Review Reports and high school

graduation rates will be analysed with lens that progresses from broad to narrow. This broad to narrow lens

provides a perspective from sources at the national, state, district and high school levels. This includes both

qualitative and quantitative archival data that will be disaggregated, coded and organized in terms of

interrelated categories over a period of seven years.

This case study will rely on documentation and archival records as sources of evidence from the

Federal Government, State of New Jersey, the city of Newark, Newark Public Schools (NPS), and its high

schools. There are inherent limitations to some of the sources of evidence. The documents and archival

records may be in a draft format or based on estimates from the available information. The use of multiple

sources of evidence in this case study will position the researcher to establish valid and reliable focus more

clearly on a wider range of current and past behaviours, practices and problems that are germane to the subject

of the study.

8

In the role as a researcher, my professional background and influence in this process must be

taken into consider. Within the past 28 years, I have served in a range of position(s) as an educator,

supervisor, and administrator in the Newark Public Schools. As an educator, I have worked 10 years with

students at various stages of development that ranged from intermediate to adulthood. During the past 18

years, I have served as a vice-principal in Pre-Kindergarten through Eighth grade schools. My influence on

the research data is inert. The intent is to focus on factual and verifiable evidence. The influence is

limited eliminating and marginalizing bias in the depth and breadth the process associated with the

collecting, the analysing and interpreting the data.

Findings in the Newark Public Schools 20011 to 2017 District Performance Review Analysis

The New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) is intended to promote efficient

use of district resources, family and community involvement and establish expectations for student

achievement. District Performance Review process is an extension of New Jersey Quality Single

Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC). The lens of the open-system conceptual framework will be used in

the analysis of the five performance indicators in District Performance Review process. The five performance

indicators are Operations, Fiscal Management, Personnel, Instruction and Programs and Governance. The

open-system conceptual framework consists of six interrelated subsystems that have an affect and effect on

other. The interrelated subsystems are the environment, organization, input, transformation process, output

and feedback. The five performance indicators and the Newark Public Schools (NPS) correlate to the six

interrelated subsystems.

The Operations indicator is gauged in terms of 26 sub-indicators that focus on the district’s facilities,

student conduct, school safety and security, student health and student support services. Operations is the first

of three performance indicators that are aligned with transformation process. It processes inputs by way of

internal operations and operational management to effect outputs.

9

An annual audit, financial and budgetary control, budget planning, efficiency and treatment of

restricted revenue compose the aggregate of 16 sub-indicators. The input of Fiscal Management affects the

transformational process in the manner organization uses its financial, human, informational and physical

resources.

The appropriate certification of personnel, personnel policies and professional development are the

aggregate of 16 sub-indicators that gauge the Personnel indicator. Like Fiscal Management, the input of

Personnel affects and effects the transformational process in the manner organization uses its financial,

human, informational and physical resources.

The quality of Instruction and Programs are gauged in terms of 36 related sub-indicators that focus on

student performance, curriculum, instructional priorities, mandated programs, early childhood programs and

high school practices and graduation rates. Instruction and Programs is second of three performance

indicators that are aligned with the transformation process. It processes inputs by way of internal operations

and operational management to affect the outputs.

Governance is gauged in terms of an aggregate of 51 sub-indicators that focus on the district board

policies that promote student achievement, district board training, disclosure and operation, ethics

compliance, district board policies procedures and by-laws, standard school board practices, annual evaluative

process, district board administration collaboration, district board budget priorities and district board

communications. Governance is the third of three performance indicators that are aligned with the

transformation process. It processes inputs by way of internal operations and operational management to

affect and effect the outputs.

10

Analysis and synthesis of the single case study associated with the takeover and return

to local control of the Newark Public Schools

In recent years, the Newark Public Schools (NPS) has made significant progress while under state

control. This progress was most evident in four of the five performance indicators that include: Fiscal

Management, Personnel, Instruction and Programs and Governance. The lens of the open systems conceptual

framework facilitated the progressive disaggregation of both qualitative and quantitative data from 2011 to

2017 relating to the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) District Performance

Review process and high school graduation rates. It illuminated the factors that explained what led to the

district’s return to local control in 2018.

Takeover, reform, and return to local control of the Newark Public Schools

Educational changes in the operations and student achievement in this district have been progressive

and in stages. These changes have been influenced by the deliberate practices of the students, parents,

educators, school leadership, district leadership, board of education and city officials. Subsequent to the

district’s return to local control, the State of New Jersey Department of Education developed, supported and

monitored a two-year prescriptive plan with the district to ensure its progress is sustained and continues. The

plan consists of a series of tasks and practices that must be completed and instituted by various community

stakeholders to prevent regression.

11

CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review of the National, Political and Social Evolution of Public School, School Reform, State

Takeover and the Return to Local Control

This literature review will focus on the national, state and local evolution of state and district takeovers

and the return to local control. From a national perspective, public school and school reform will be

examined as it evolved in a legal, political and social context. In a narrower but related perspective, school

reform will explore relevant questions in relation to its influence on public school. Nationally, what are the

characteristics school and district takeovers? What caused the state to take over the Newark Public Schools?

After the takeover, how might the school district be returned to local control? What does the process of state

takeovers and return to local control look like in urban districts throughout the nation?

Public Education’s Evolution in the United States

Public schools in the United States were established and developed to provide educational

opportunities for each of its citizens. However, education was not mentioned in the United States

Constitution until the ratification of the Tenth Amendment in 1791. It delegated this responsibility to each

state who subsequently established authority over public school education at the municipal level. With the

authority defined by each state’s adopted constitution, each state progressively developed guidelines by way

of numerous executive, judicial and legislative acts and decisions that empower the local municipalities to

operate, manage and develop the public-school system that serve its residence. Statutes and administrative

codes outline the authority of each local municipality to govern its public-school system. Primarily, public

schools are financed by local and state taxes and supplemented by aide from the federal government.

12

The evolving economic, political and social climate of the nation amplified the demands on public

education to meet the challenges of a progressively expanding and changing populous as it operates in the

international community. The most consequential changes in the nation’s public education system were

influenced by individuals and the federal government.

Some of the individuals who influenced the nation’s public education system were Booker T.

Washington, W.E.B. Dubois, “Johann Herbert, Horace Mann, Henry Bernard and John Dewey “(Cordiero &

Cunningham. p 33, 2000).

John Friedrich Herbert is noted as a founder of modern education and psychology theory in the early

19th century. He defined pedagogy as a scholarly discipline. His approach to pedagogy was divided into steps

that include preparation, association, generalization and application. He pointed out that both the environment

and a person’s physical condition has influence on learning. “The sum of all a person’s ideas exists in the

conscious mind. Learners construct their new ideas based on their old ideas. Learning occurs in five phases

that include: engagement, exploring, explaining, elaborating and evaluating” (Hilgenbeger,1993).

In the early 19th century, Horace Mann was a prominent advocate of public education. He believed

that public education in a democracy should be free, non-religious and available to meet the needs of its

society. This goal can be accomplished by relying on well-prepared professional educators. Henry Barnard

promoted a similar view of public education. He was an attorney, educator and served as the nation’s first

commissioner of education in the later 19th century.

Booker T. Washington was an influential African American educator in the later 19th and early 20th

century. He founded Tuskegee Institute, a Historically Black College in Alabama. He encouraged African

Americans to focus on learning and mastering trade skills that would serve as a foundation for sustained

economic development in their communities. Social and political equality with whites will follow once this

goal was collectively achieved.

13

During the first half of the 20th century, W.E.B. Dubois was another influential scholar, civil and

human rights spokesperson. In contrast Booker T. Washington, he encouraged African Americans to pursue

higher education and resist the pervasive social and political in-equalities that existed throughout the nation.

He also co-founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909.

John Dewey was also a noteworthy educator, philosopher and psychologist beginning in middle of the

20th century. He was an early developer of the philosophy of pragmatism. He believed that school curricula

should be relevant to lives of the students. Education occurs when students learn by doing. While they are

engaged in these learning experiences, they transfer knowledge and make connections to develop practical

life-skills. These ideas have influenced both educational and social reform throughout the nation.

In addition to the lasting influence of the previously mentioned educational leaders and scholars, the

federal government’s influence on the nations educational system is significant. In fact, the federal

government’s authority to influence education throughout the nation is less explicit and more implied by the

general welfare clause in the First Amendment along with the due processes and equal protection clauses in

the Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. “Land grant, public relief and welfare,

national defence, equal opportunity, economic competitiveness and school-safety are the six federal

responsibilities that justify the involvement of the federal government in public education” (Cordiero &

Cunningham. p 34, 2000). From the beginning of the United States to the present, numerous laws have been

enacted to meet and progress each of these federal responsibilities.

Land grants in 1785 began the orderly distribution of public land by surveying and setting aside land

for specific purposes in United States territories. These territories the were a part of the nation’s westward

expansion; eventually, they become states. The new states had to establish and develop a public education

system.

14

The Relief Acts of the 1930’s was part of the federal response to the Great Depression. This was done

by the development of vocational programs for unemployed youths that nourished and educated them. While

they were being educated, the laws also established school lunch and school milk programs. The vocational

skills that the youth learned assisted them in gaining access to and acquiring gainful employment.

The Office of Education was re-assigned to the Federal Security Agency. This agency served as

component of the national defence. It passed the National Science Foundation Act in 1950. This Act funded

and supported both study and research in the Sciences. Equal Education Opportunity Vocational Act and the

Elementary and Secondary School Education Act were established in the early 1960’s to meet the

developmental needs of impoverished African-American youths in urban communities where education was

the primary means to improve the quality of their lives.

The focus on Economic Competitiveness began in the 1980’s. At that time, there were numerous

federal and private reports that compared the performance of students in other industrialized nations to their

American counterparts on standardized assessments. These assessments gauged student’s literacy, thinking,

Math and Science skills. The report from the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983),

entitled A Nation at Risk, stated essentially,” the pattern of underachievement in the nation’s public education

system threatens the current and long-term economic, industrial and technological international pre-eminence

of our nation”. Common to this report and other national and state studies of our educational system, the

nation can regain its Economic Competitiveness by reforming the state and national system of education.

During the evolution of the school reform movement in the mid-1990, charter schools gained

popularity. Currently, they are slowly expanding in urban centers throughout the nation. In the communities

where charter schools are expanding. The parents view charter school as a third alternative to the traditional

public school and private school education. Commonly, the traditional public schools are perceived as failing

and unsafe. In contrast, private schools provide quality education; but they are perceived as expensive.

15

Charter schools are partially independent and non-profit public schools that are funded from the same

source of traditional public schools such as local and state taxes and supplements from the federal

government. The specific amount of funds a charter school receives from a district is based on per pupil

enrollment. Each charter school operates autonomously under a written contract with the state and / or

district. This contract outlines the school’s organization, management, student achievement outcomes and

measurements of the student achievement outcomes.

The national focus on student achievement in the 1990’s contributed to the development of “national

performance goals” that would be established by the year 2000. The intent of the Goals 2000 was to position

the students and nation to be more internationally competitive as well as meet the complex and increasing

demands of the changing global economy. Goals 2000 are (McLaughlin & Shepard, 1995):

• All students in America will start school ready to learn.

• The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.

• All students will leave grades 4, 8 and 12 having demonstrated competence in challenging subject

matter in the core academic subjects

• U.S. students will be first in the world in Mathematics and Science achievement.

• Every adult American will be literate and possess the knowledge and skills to compete in a global

economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

• Every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence and the unauthorized presence of

firearms and alcohol and will offer disciplined environments conducive to learning.

• The nation’s teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their

professional skills and the opportunity to acquire knowledge and skills needed instruct and prepare all

American students for the next century.

• Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in

promoting social, emotional and academic growth of children.

16

Aligned with the timeline to establish “national performance goals”, in the 1990’s, many progressive

states also establish and implemented primary (Pre-K to 2nd), intermediate (3rd to 5th), middle (6th to 8th)

and high school (9th to 12th) level educational standards for learning. For example, in the mid 1990’s, the

New Jersey State Board of Education adopted its first academic standards. The Common Core Content

Standards (CCCS) define the content area skills Pre-K to 12th grade level students should master after

receiving public school education for fifteen to eighteen years. In New Jersey, general education students can

be educated in public school for fifteen years. The student can be enrolled in Pre-Kindergarten as early as

three years old and complete high school when they turn eighteen years old. However, students with

disabilities can be educated in public school for eighteen years. This sub-group of students can also be

enrolled in Pre-Kindergarten at three years old; but the students can remain in high school until they are

twenty-one years old.

Over the last twenty years, New Jersey's academic standards have laid the foundation for local district

curricula that is used by educators in their daily instruction. The nine Kindergarten through twelfth grade

standards focus on: 21st Century Life and Careers, Comprehensive Health and Physical Education, English

Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Technology, Visual and Performing Arts and World

Languages. In addition to the Kindergarten through twelfth grade standards, there were also Pre-Kindergarten

standards. Each standard explicitly defines the achievement benchmarks for students in each grade level.

17

Statutes require the New Jersey Department of Education to review and revise the standards every five

years. These revisions are made based on feedback and input from various members of the school

community. The members include businessmen and women, community activists, Kindergarten through

twelfth grade and collegiate educators, parents, school administrators and students. “The standards define a

"Thorough and Efficient Education" as guaranteed in 1875 by the New Jersey Constitution. Currently the

standards are designed to prepare our students for college and careers by emphasizing high-level skills needed

for tomorrow's world” (State of New Jersey Department of Education, 2019).

Including New Jersey, many states throughout the nation developed and established educational

standards in the 1990’s that defined the skills and proficiency levels their 3rd to 12th students needed to be

educated and earn a high school diploma. The Common Core State Standards were developed to establish

national learning standards “to ensure all students, regardless of where they live, are graduating high school

prepared for college, career, and life “(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2019).

The Common Core State Standards development was facilitated in 2009 by the National Governors

Associated (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in collaboration with curriculum

specialists, educators from elementary, high school and collegiate levels, parents and school administrators

throughout the nation. During the development process, the standards were divided into two parts that include

college and career-readiness, and Kindergarten through twelfth grade. The college and career readiness

standards focus on skills and the level of proficiency each student is expected to acquire by the time

successful complete high school. The Kindergarten through twelfth grade standards focus on the development

of skills and the level of proficiency each student is expected to acquire each student is expected to acquire as

they progress through each grade level preparing for eventual college and/or careers.

18

In 2010, the New Jersey State Board of Education adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) define the English Language Arts and Math skills students in

grades kindergarten through high school should master to prepare them for college and career success.

However, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are not a curriculum. At the local school level, each

district is empowered to determine the content area textbooks, instructional resources, planning and

instructional strategies.

Accountability and empowerment characterize the most recent part of the federal government’s

ongoing effort to improve the nation’s public education system. Every School Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2016

contain numerous provisions to address the developmental needs of students who are: disabled, economically

disadvantaged, English language learners, in foster care, homeless and of color.

Community activists, educators, parents, politicians and school administrators can advance

achievement and equity in the nation’s schools for all of its student by leveraging: access to high- order

learning experiences, multiple measures to access school performance and progress, resource equity, and

evidence based interventions. Cooke-Harvey, Darling-Hammond, Lam, Mercer and Roc (2016, November)

describes in detail the four areas that can be leveraged to address the provisions in Every School Succeeds Act

(ESSA):

19

Rather than Higher-order skills for all students

the rote-oriented education that disadvantaged students have regularly received, which prepares them

for the factory jobs of the past, ESSA insists that states redesign education systems to reflect 21st-

century learning. The new law establishes a set of expectations for states to design standards and

assessments that develop and measure higher-order thinking skills for children and provides related

resources for professional learning.

Multiple measures to assess school performance and progress

ESSA requires the use of multiple measures for accountability, calling upon states to evaluate student

and school progress beyond test score gains and graduation rates by also including one or more

indicators of “school quality or student success.” Carefully chosen measures can help shine a light on

poor learning conditions and other inequities and can provide incentives to expand access to important

learning opportunities, such as high-quality college- and career-ready curriculum; effective teachers;

and indicators of parent/community engagement. A skillfully designed dashboard of indicators can

provide objective, measurable ways for schools, districts, and states to identify challenges and

solutions to close opportunity gaps.

Resource equity

Much more than its predecessor, ESSA directly addresses the resource gaps among our nation’s public

schools. The law contains provisions that require states to focus on equity during the state application

process; to report actual per-pupil spending on school report cards; and to evaluate and address

resource inequities for schools identified as needing intervention assistance. In addition to the

longstanding maintenance-of-effort, comparability, and supplement-not-supplant provisions, ESSA

establishes incentives for districts to adopt strategies that fund schools based on student needs and that

enrich the curriculum opportunities available to historically underserved students.

Equity strategies and evidence-based interventions

Finally, ESSA emphasizes evidence-based practices for school improvement. States and districts are

required to implement evidence-based interventions in schools identified for school improvement,

encouraging educators and leaders to determine which data-driven approaches are best suited for their

schools and students. ESSA also provides funding streams for early childhood education and

community schools, both of which are evidence-based, equity-enhancing approaches to reducing the

opportunity gap.

20

Every School Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides an opportunity for the local school districts and the

federal, state and local governments to develop and implement equitable educational reforms. These reforms

can ensure that the students who have been historically underserved by the same educational system are

prepared for the economic, political, social and technological demands that are associated with the 21st

century.

Historical Context of School Reform

The state takeover of school districts evolved out of the school reform movement that began during the

era of school desegregation. Educational policies were unequivocally connected to the promotion of equity

and reconciling the imbalances between the African American community and the dominant economic,

educational, political, and social segregation in the southern United States. This early school reform

movement was framed in a historical and national context that focused on interventions at the centralized state

and local school - levels to effect change.

The catalyst for the modern school reform began with the case of Brown v. Board of Education of

Topeka (1954), the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that separate but equal public schools for

blacks and whites were unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court’s Brown decision was especially

important because it was not based on tangible factors such as the total inequalities in the facilities that

distinguished previous desegregation cases.

21

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case addressed segregation directly and ruled that, “even if

tangible factors like facilities, teachers and supplies were equal, separation itself was inherently unequal and a

violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.” The Brown ruling overturned the Plessy v.

Ferguson (1896) decision that legalized racial segregation under the pretence of separate but equal. The

decision served as a reagent for the modern civil rights movement. It formed the legal means to challenge

segregation in all areas of society that inspired education reform throughout the United States.

The effort to reform urban public schools throughout the country in the 1960s and 1970s was directed

towards anti-poverty and de-segregation. Educational programs were introduced and established in these

communities to counter the destructive effects of concentrated poverty and racial segregation. To improve

student achievement, the educational program included but were not limited to: Head Start (Pre-

Kindergarten), magnet schools (middle and high school), academic programs financed by Title 1 (the

Elementary and Secondary School Act) and school busing (Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Lashaw, 2010; Noguera &

Wells, 2011).

Subsequently, there was an economic recession in the late 1970s. It left business leaders and

politicians searching for causes and solutions to this national dilemma which lead to a re-focus on education

reform.

In examining the reform movement, Joseph Murphy (1991, p. 1) found that in the early 1980s, a

concerted effort to reform American public education began. The impetus for these attempts was

primarily economic. Analysis from all walks of society concluded that the United States was on the

verge of being displaced as a major in the world economy. The belief that we were falling behind

other industrial powers in development, productivity and equality was a theme that laced the pages of

various reform reports. These reports include the: Carnegie Forum (1986), National Commission on

Excellence in Education (1983), National Governor’s Association (1986) and the National Science

Board (1983).

22

The ideas in these reports assisted reformers in deducing and inducing a perception of a lagging

American economy and an outdated educational system. Per the analysis in these various reports, the

common theme suggested that although times have changed, education has not evolved to meet the demands

associated with these changes.

For example, the arguments in The Nation at Risk report by the National Commission on Excellence in

Education (1983) attributed the overall economic and social decline of the United States as a global industrial

power to education. This problem can be solved by refocusing national, state, and local efforts to correct

deficiencies and inequities that will lead to reforms in the educational system.

Cunningham, William & Cordiero (2000, p.65) stated:

American students compared unfavourably to foreign students and were weak in inferential skills.

Science achievement had declined, and a national problem of illiteracy existed. The response to these

concerns was dramatic. A flurry of legislative action established goals, standards, accountability,

teacher qualification and new structures.

Considering the dynamic interactions of economic, legal, political and forces, there has been a

growing societal demand for measurable quantitative and qualitative change in schools. The demand for

school reform had been amplified in the 1990’s. School reform efforts shifted from factoring the influence of

the social and economic context of the communities on the student outcomes in urban education. The school

reform effort was re-focused on adjusting and modifying the conditions at the schools such as the curriculum,

instruction, structure and the use of technology without consideration for the social and economic factors that

influence learning (Noguera & Wells, 2011). Educators and educational leaders are expected to facilitate the

transformation of the traditional models of education to a new paradigm in the ongoing process of school

improvement.

23

The collective effort to facilitate the demand for change in United States education system was also

evaluated in terms of optimizing the efficient use of public funds. This expectation motivated the effort to

achieve excellence with marginal increases in funding and redefined education as a service in a competitive

market. The change in basic assumptions in funding and redefining education was supported by the

integrating alternate reform measures such as charter schools, privatization, vouchers and more.

So, the current era of school reform has shifted the focus from excellence to accountability. The effort

to establish and sustain excellence in public education is motivated by threat in contrast to support. The

threats appeared in the form of court orders, federal mandates, legislation, policies, funding, and standards.

The threats were used as a reagent for transformation by requiring schools to integrate various mandates into

their effort to change. However, it is not clear if compliant practices in response to threats at the district,

school and classroom level will yield effective results in the long-term.

From Takeover to Turnaround Schools and Districts Throughout the Nation

The responsibility of providing public education to school age children in each state throughout the

country is established by their respective constitutions. However, for all practical purposes, this responsibility

is delegated by the State to the local school boards where the students reside. To meet this charge, the local

school boards continually evaluate the factors that influence the quality of the outcomes that are associated

with their efforts to educate the students of the community. These factors include the quality of the education,

curriculum, financial management, governance, human resources, and standard operating procedures. What

happens when the local school board demonstrates a pattern of failure to meet it responsibilities? The state

government often intervenes. This solution began when the New Jersey Department of Education took over

the Jersey City Public Schools in 1989.

24

The Institute on Education Law & Policy (2002, May, p.1-2; Amparbin, 2017) gleaned the pros and

cons of this process by comparing, contrasting, and evaluating the available evidence and facts associated

with state takeovers throughout the country.

Pros of State takeovers:

1. Are a necessary extension of a state’s constitutional responsibilities.

2. Provide a good opportunity for state and local decision-makers to combine resources and knowledge

to improve children’s learning.

3. Allow a competent executive staff to guide an uninterrupted and effective implementation of school

improvement efforts.

4. Are a catalyst for creating the right environment for the community to address a school district’s

problems.

5. Allow for more radical, and necessary, changes in low-performing school districts.

6. Place school boards on notice that personal agendas, nepotism, and public bickering have severe

consequences.

7. Use achievement data collected from school districts and schools to bolster accountability efforts.

Cons of State Takeovers:

1. Represent a thinly veiled attempt to reduce local control over schools and increase state authority

over school districts.

2. Imply that the community has the problems and the state has the answers, and thus falsely assume

that states can effectively run school districts.

3. Place poorly prepared state-selected officials in charge, with little possibility of any meaningful

change occurring in the classroom.

4. Use narrow learning measures (i.e., standardized test scores) as the primary criterion for takeover

decisions.

5. Usually focus on cleaning up petty corruption and incompetent administration and do not go to the

root of the social problems facing disadvantaged students in urban school districts.

6. Foster negative connotations and impressions that hinder the self-esteem of

school board members, administrators, teachers, students, and parents.

7. Produce showdowns between state and local officials that slow the overhaul of management

practices, drain resources from educational reforms and reinforce community resentments.

As of 2017, thirty-four states throughout the country have laws that empower its Department of

Education to takeover a school district or school based on the intent to correct a pattern of underachievement,

financial mismanagement, ineffective leadership, corrupt management, and deteriorating facilities. In most of

these states, a district takeover is preceded by a thoroughly documented analysis of the district’s problems by

the State Department of Education.

25

Based on the analysis, a series of corrective actions with input from the local district leadership are

applied. If the problem continues to progress, a state takeover of the school district is the ultimate solution to

turn it around. In table 2.01 from Jochim (2016, p.9), the three types of takeover districts (school takeover,

district takeover or both) and their location throughout the United States is listed.

26

Table 2.01, Three Types of Takeover Districts in the United States

School District School and District

1. Indiana 1. Alabama 1. Arizona

2.Louisiana 2. Idaho 2. Arkansas

3. Maryland 3. Mississippi 3. California

4. Minnesota 4. Missouri 4. Colorado

5. Nebraska 5. New Jersey 5. Connecticut

6. Nevada 6. Pennsylvania 6. Illinois

7. Rhode Island 7. Kentucky

8. South Dakota 8. Massachusetts

9. Utah 9. Michigan

10. Ohio

11. Oklahoma

12. New Mexico

13. New York

14. North Carolina

15. South Carolina

16. Tennessee

17. Texas

18. Vermont

19. West Virginia

27

For example, in West Virginia, the local board and the district leadership remain and serve by advising

state-appointed leadership on matters relating to finances and the budget. They still make decisions relating to

the curriculum and instruction. In another instance, such as Boston, Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit, the state

grants the authority of governing the local school district in the hands of the cities’ mayors. However, in New

Jersey, members of the local board and the district leadership are relieved of their responsibilities and replaced

by state appointed management.

More than two decades ago, the two options available to the State Department of Education to address

the patterns of failure were to either disregard or assume direct responsibility of the operations within school

or district. The No Child Left Behind Act was a catalyst for the expansion of state takeover legislation. Its

mandated states to reinforce supervision and assistance to local schools or districts that demonstrated a pattern

failing to meet adequate yearly progress towards student achievement. The current Every Student Succeeds

Act (ESSA) is an evolution in the educational mandates associated the with the No Child Left Behind Act.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is the federal legislation that governs Pre-Kindergarten to Twelfth

Grade education in the United States. Every Student Succeeds Act also empowers each state to develop

turnaround strategies that are best suited for their circumstances.

The current options available to officials engaging in the takeover and turnaround of a school or

district have advanced to five approaches that include targeted assistance and/or oversight, selected schools

and district with additional freedoms, mayoral control, direct individual school intervention and direct district

intervention. Table 2.02 from Jochim (2016, p.9) provides a summary of each approach and describes the

variation in the distinguishing characteristics.

28

Table 2.02, Five Approaches to Takeover and Turnaround a School or District

Description Target Turnaround

Lead

Level of State

Authority

Examples

Target assistance and/or

oversight for low performing

schools or districts

School or

District

District State can encourage

changes but generally

can’t alter site-level

conditions

North Carolina’s Turning Around Lowest

Performing Schools (TALAS) program;

California’s School Assistance and

Intervention Team

State provides select

districts/schools with freedom

from state and district rules

School or

District

District or

Independent

Board

State can require

certain changes as

conditions of

participation

Springfield Empowerment Zone

Partnership (MA); Memphis iZone (TN)

State authorizes the mayor to

take control of the local board

via appointed power

District

Mayor

State is dependent on

mayor to make

changes

New York City (NY)

Cleveland (OH)

State intervenes directly in

individual schools to take

over management via state-

run district or appointment of

a receiver or external

manager

School State State can alter site-

level conditions in

targeted schools

Tennessee’s Achievement School District;

Massachusetts receivership program

State intervenes directly in

the district to take control of

operations via state

appointment of board

District State State can alter district

management and site-

level conditions

New Jersey (receiver)

Pennsylvania (board appointment)

29

Following a school or district takeover, multiple perspectives must be considered in the

approach to ensure the successful implementation of each turnaround option. The state, city, local

officials must factor in the economic, political and social realities of the community that will be

affected. “The likelihood of an approaches success depends largely on factors and actors outside of

state control. States must pick their strategies wisely by weighing elements like district leadership,

state capacity, scale and scope of the turnaround as well as the political appetite for change” Jochim

(2016, November, p. 10). In relation to the connection between school and district takeovers and

politics, Morel (2018) made a relevant point.

Education in our country is a political project. That’s the most important thing that I think we

need to understand. So, if education is a political project, when we think about reforms, we

need to think about them as political objectives as well. And so, if we’re going to take over a

school district, it doesn’t seem consistent with what the literature says about improving

schools that you just remove a community from the entire decision-making process. Because

what the literature tells us is—and it’s just very intuitive—if you look at school districts

across the country who are doing well, everybody has a stake in the district. (p. 2)

To establish and sustain change, in addition to identifying the multiple internal and external influential

factors, an understanding of how to influence each of these factors must be developed and applied. This

understanding subsequently informs the efforts to effect changes in education in terms of planning,

preparation, initiation, interventions, and follow-up that is essential to achieving successful change that is

manifested in reform.

30

New Jersey Constitutional Mandate to Provide a “Thorough and Efficient” Education to All School Age

Children

Although the State of New Jersey Department of Education delegates the operating authority of public

schools to local municipalities, the state has the final responsibility of “providing a thorough and efficient

education to all school age children between the ages of five and eighteen years (The New Jersey

Constitution. 1875, p. 14).” Statutes and regulations such as Title 18A and 6A along with court decisions at

both the State and Federal level outline how this authority should be applied in each school district.

In 1975, the New Jersey Constitution thorough and efficient mandate compelled the New Jersey State

Legislature to direct the Commissioner of Education to develop a uniform and state-wide system to monitor,

assess and evaluate the performance of each school district. This adopted school district performance

evaluation system was called the Thorough and Efficient standards.

The Thorough and Efficient evaluation process includes an annual review of documents associated

with all aspects of a school district’s operations. A school district’s operations refer to quality assurance,

school-level planning, curriculum and instruction, pupil performance, pupil behaviour, teaching staff and

professional development school resources finance and facilities, as well as state and federal mandated

programs.

The monitoring process consists of three levels that escalate in the severity of the consequence from

the previous level in failing districts. When a district fails to correct, the deficiencies identified in one level, it

is assigned more progressive monitoring. As with the Newark Public Schools, the District failed level 1

monitoring in 1984, subsequently failed level 2 monitoring and progressed to level 3 in 1992. At the time, an

external review via a four-part audit and a Verification Report provide an update of the district’s status. It

found that the Newark Public Schools district still had not addressed many of the deficiencies that were

identified in 1984.

31

In January 1988, the state of New Jersey Legislature passed School Intervention Law. The law

authorized the creation of a school district under full state intervention upon determination of failure of the

local school district. It granted the Department of Education the authority to take-over the operation of school

districts that demonstrated they were unable or unwilling to correct serious identified problems.

The State of New Jersey Supreme Court decisions relating to the Abbott vs. Burke (from 1981 through

1997) began one of the most comprehensive efforts to advance the quality of public education for

economically disadvantaged and minority children in the state.

Trachtenberg, Holzer, Miller, Sadovnik & Liss (2002, p.20) pointed out that from 1981 through 1997,

there were a series of Supreme Court decisions regarding the Abbott suit relative to 31 school districts.

This suit charged and later prevailed that the funding system in the State of New Jersey was

unconstitutional, as it did not provide adequately for the children in the lowest socioeconomic urban

centres in the State of New Jersey.

The thirty-one Abbott districts, including Jersey City, Patterson and Newark, represent close to 5% of

New Jersey’s approximate 590 school districts. To ensure that the children in each of these district receive a

thorough and efficient education, as required by the New Jersey Constitution, the State Supreme Court Abbott

(from 1981 through 1997) decisions mandated “the State of New Jersey to apply a comprehensive set of

improvements that included adequate K-12 foundational funding, universal preschool for all 3 and 4 year old

children, supplemental or at-risk programs and funding, and school-by-school reform of curriculum and

instruction “. The Abbott decisions (from 1981 through 1997) have been referred to as the most important

educational equity rulings since Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

32

Conditions that exhorted the state takeover of the Newark Public Schools

Statutes, regulations and court decisions outline the remedy when the operational practices in a

district demonstrates a pattern of failure. As early as 1968, Governor Richard Hughes, presented a proposal

to the state legislature to take over the Newark Public Schools. “The proposal was an extension of a report

that identified the causes of the 1967 Newark rebellion that resulted in 26 deaths, hundreds of injuries,

millions of dollars in property damage and the erosion of the City’s image “(Strunsky, 2017, p. 1).

However, the proposal was not implemented by the state until 17 years later based evidence of

persistent conditions that existed in the Newark Public Schools. The state exercised its direct authority in the

failing district to ensure each school age child can be educated. In the spring of 1993, the New Jersey

Department of Education authorized a Comprehensive Compliance Investigation of the Newark Public

Schools district.

It documents any irregularities and conditions that would prevent the district from successfully

implementing the corrective action plan. A team of investigators with diverse background specialties

conducted a thorough and detailed examination of the district’s educational programs, fiscal practices,

governance, and management. The team of investigators engaged in unannounced sight visits on more than

50 schools, examined documents, interviewed numerous central office and school level personnel. The

investigation focused on curriculum and library media services; governance and management; fiscal

operations; controverted matters; facilities; special education; vocational and adult education; bilingual

education; Chapter 1 program, certification; health services; child nutrition and pupil transportation.

33

“While engaged in Comprehensive Compliance Investigation, the teams of special investigators from

the State of New Jersey Department of Education examined specific content and program areas” (1994, p. 5).

This examination uncovered multiple patterns of dysfunction and mismanagement throughout the District:

There are long standing deficiencies in the appropriate instructional materials, equipment and

supplies in the classroom. Classrooms, for the most part, are dirty and ill-equipped, and instruction is

unchallenging and often misdirected or inappropriate. Across content areas and grade level, there

are few instances of the students being encouraged to generate their own ideas, to collaborate in

problem-solving activities, to write in class, to read widely and independently or to use skills and

facts in context.

Many teachers and other professional staff members are not certified or inappropriately certified for

their current assignment.

Services to special education, bilingual education, vocational education, and chapter 1 program

students are notably deficient and violate state and federal requirements. These programs are planned

and directed from the district central office, with little input from parents, teachers, and school level

administrators.

The special education program on the Newark School District abuses the rights of parents and children

by flagrantly violating state and federal mandates. Special education students with disabilities are

instructed in separate school buildings, per the disability classification, rather than in integrated

settings in their neighbourhood schools as required by federal and state law.

The bilingual education program, which is supposed to parallel the regular program of the school,

cannot do so because native-language materials and bilingual / ESL curricula are not available. No

bilingual or ESL instructional strand is included in the program of the district’s Staff Development

School. The district has also ignored state mandates regarding and exit criteria, as well as the

grouping of children different language backgrounds in the same class when there are enough children

to form a separate bilingual class in English and one native language.

Vocational education deficiencies are ongoing, although it is common knowledge that a significant

percentage of district’s students neither do not go on to or nor complete college.

Chapter 1 program is not being implemented as described in the district’s approved applications for

funding. Some staff members are uncertified; some do not teach the amount of time approved in the

district’s application. Schoolwide Projects and Program Improvement Projects are not being

implemented as described to meet the developmental needs of the students based on achievement data.

34

The State of New Jersey Department of Education team of investigators found that within the past

decade preceding the 1994 investigation, the Newark Public Schools District has been continually

unsuccessful at achieving State Board of Education Certification. Following the recommendation of the

Comprehensive Compliance Investigation, in 1995, the New Jersey State Board of Education exercised its

authority by removing the superintendent and board of education, established a state-operated school district,

and appointed a State District Superintendent. New Jersey State Department of Education (1994, p. 10) also

stated,

The ongoing conditions prevent the district from implementing a corrective action plan to achieve

certification. This includes severe governance and management deficiencies that translate to failure in

the schools and classrooms. The multitude of plans for improvement that have been developed by the

district’s central office have not resulted in corrections of the district’s deficiency or substantive

changes in the education of Newark’s students.

The Board’s lack of urgency to correct the district’s many deficiencies is demonstrated in its failure to

hold the Executive Superintendent for achieving the necessary improvements in the district’s

performance. In addition to the Board’s failure to hold the chief administrator accountable, there is no

effectively integrated strategy for instructional change that been applied by the district’s management.

Based on the findings of the Comprehensive Compliance Investigation, the Newark Public Schools

District has failed or been able to take the corrective action that is needed to establish a Thorough

and Efficient system of education. In order to achieve the constitutional mandate of providing a

“thorough and efficient” system of education for the students of Newark, the state must withdraw its

delegation of that important responsibility to the Newark Board of Education.

Accordingly, the assistant commissioner of the Division of Field Services recommended the creation

of a State-operated school district in the City of Newark.

35

Restoring local control and the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum

In 2002, more than a decade after the first state takeover of a school district in the country, the

Institute on Education Law and Policy published a report, Developing a Plan for Reestablishing Local

Control in the State-operated Districts. Trachtenberg, Holzer, Miller, Sadovnik & Liss (2002) study

analyzed the impact of the state takeover of the Jersey City in 1989, Newark in 1995 and Paterson in 1991

school districts and outlined the legal and policy considerations to reestablish local control. The report led to

the 2005 New Jersey Quality through Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) legislation (N.J.S.A.

18A:7A-10).

The New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) is the New Jersey Department

of Education bi-annual monitoring and evaluation system for each public-school district in the state except

Education Services Commissions and Charter Schools. The New Jersey Quality Single Accountability

Continuum (NJ QSAC) is based on a performance continuum that includes periodical monitoring of

progress, improvement, and interventions. It replaced the seven year cycle certification of the Quality

Assurance Annual Review.

The New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) evolved out of the need to

develop a simplified monitoring system based on uniform standards that are relevant to all districts in the

state. This single comprehensive accountability system consolidates and incorporates the current codes and

statues, Abbott mandates, State Takeover law and the 2002 Federal No Child Left Behind Legislation. The

system shifts the monitoring and evaluation focus from compliance to assistance, capacity-building and

improvement. Institute on Education Law and Policy (2007, p.6) guide explains:

36

The New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum requires an evaluation of each district’s

capacity and effectiveness in Instruction and Program, Fiscal Management, Governance, Personnel,

and Operations. Capacity refers to (1) all of the resources (including human, financial, community

resources) in a school district, (2) the ability of the district to perform satisfactorily in all components

of school district effectiveness, (3) the ability to meet state and federal policy and regulatory

requirements, and (4) the ability to ensure the provision of a thorough and efficient education.

Effectiveness refers to the quality of performance — how well a district performs each required task

— in addition to the fact that each task has been performed.

The New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) is intended to promote

efficient use of district resources, family and community involvement and establish expectations for student

achievement. Via the District Performance Review, it allows progressive districts to continue their forward

movement without any impediment from the State of New Jersey Department of Education (NJ DOE). The

New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) was also developed to establish an

objective and uniform criterion to determine when a State takeover district could be returned to local control.

The New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) requires a biannual evaluation of

each districts capacity and effectiveness based on the District Performance Review.

The District Performance Review is a process that must be completed in three phases. It requires the

district to engage in a self-assessment. Then, the county executive superintendent verifies the assessment.

Subsequentialley, the Commissioner of Education reviews the assessment to determine the appropriate score

and placement of the district on the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC).

In the self-assessment process, the district is required to construct an assessment committee. This

committee is composed of the superintendent, school business administrator, assistant superintendent for

curriculum and instruction, administrative staff, a cross section of content area and/or grade level

instructional staff, members of collective bargaining units and members of the board of education.

37

The district committee’s response to each of the indicators must be supported by the appropriate

documentation. The district committee’s self-assessment is then approved by the board and accompanied by

a statement of assurance that confirms the accuracy of the responses and supporting documentation before

the District Performance Review is forwarded to the county executive superintendent.

Via a site visit and audit of the submitted responses along with the supporting documentation

associated with the District Performance Review, the county executive superintendent verifies the district’s

responses. In the four takeover districts, like Jersey City, Newark, Paterson and Camden in 2014, the New

Jersey Department of Education (NJ DOE) staff contributes to the verification process.

The Commissioner of Education’s review of the district’s District Performance Review follows the

county executive superintendent to verification. Per the review, each district’s performance is assessed,

scored and evaluated. Each of New Jersey’s public-school districts capacity and effectiveness is gauged in

terms of 6 to 18 sub-indicators that correlate to Operations, Fiscal Management, Personnel, Governance,

Instruction and Programs and Indicators in the District Performance Review (DPR) process.

38

The quality of a school district’s performance and capacity in terms of the Operations indicator is

gauged by 18 sub-indicators that focus on the district’s facilities, student conduct, school safety and security,

student health and student support services. Each of the measures are evaluated, combined and weighted, then

used to determine a possible total score of 10. It measures the districts efforts to implement policies that

relate to students such as:

• Alcohol, tobacco and other drug use,

• Attendance

• Conduct

• Harassment, intimidation and bullying,

• Support services (counselling, guidance and transportation)

Reporting accurate data to the Student Safety Data System.

39

An annual audit, financial and budgetary control, budget planning, efficiency and treatment of

restricted revenue compose an aggregate of 15 related sub-indicators that are used to gauge the quality of

Fiscal Management. These related sub-indicators are evaluated, combined and weighted, then used to

determine a possible total score of 50 for the Fiscal Management indicator. Fiscal management requires each

district to:

• Maintain standard operating procedures and monthly reports

• Satisfy annual audits

• Manage grants and capital funds

• Approve only purchases orders that are permitted by the purchasing agent

• Implement a facilities plan

• Complete the annual safety review

• Prepare an analysis of the fiscal year’s cash flow

• Employ a certified facilities manager

40

The appropriate certification of personnel, personnel policies and professional development compose

the aggregate of 16 related sub-indicators that are used to assess a district’s performance and capacity to meet

state staffing and staff development requirements. These sub-indicators are evaluated, combined and

weighted, then used to determine a possible total score of 10. The Personnel indicator focuses on:

• High quality professional development

• Aligning staff evaluation to TEACH NJ

• Professional support of non-tenured and novice educators

• Promote quality supervision at the school and district level

• Track staffing data

• Implement and fulfil required legal mandates such as employee criminal history and background

checks

TEACH NJ refers to teacher tenure reform that was signed into law on August 6th, 2019. The law is

intended “raise student achievement by improving instruction through the adoption of evaluations that provide

specific feedback to educators, inform the provision of aligned professional development, and inform

personnel decisions” (New Jersey Department of Education, 2012)

TEACH NJ reforms the processes associated with earning and maintaining tenure by improving the

performance evaluations and expanding opportunities for professional development and growth. With this

adopted evaluation procedure, tenure is earned based on multiple measure relating to student achievement and

professional practices. Professional feedback is more prescriptive to influence the educator’s development

and the educational needs of the students. The duration and cost of tenure hearings have been abbreviated and

focus more on process.

41

The Instruction and Programs indicator assess a school district’s capacity and performance in relation

to the quality of instruction that it provides to its students and the patterns of student achievement using 16

related sub-indicators. These sub-indicators include metrics that focus on:

• Measuring a district’s pattern of chronic absenteeism

• Early childhood education

• Student progress on standardized assessments

• Patterns of high school graduation rates

• An analysis of the results on the standardized assessments and strategies to inform teaching and

learning

• Curriculum and instruction alignment with the New Jersey Student Learning Standards

• Ongoing improvements in the curriculum

• Equal access of each student sub-group to the New Jersey Student Learning Standards

• Tiered support for all student sub-groups

The tiered support refers to the district’s practices in its efforts to meet the developmental needs of

each student based the varied stages of their cognitive, economic and social developmental. The students

reflect diverse racial sub-groups. These sub-groups include American Indian, Asian, African American,

Hispanic, White or Two or more races. The students in these diverse racial sub-groups may be Economically

Disadvantaged, Disabled and/or English Language Learners.

42

7 of the 16 related sub-indicators in this component of the evaluation process factor in the district’s

grade level configuration. The grade level configuration could include primary (Pre-K to 2nd), intermediate

(3rd to 5th), middle school (6th to 8th) and high school (9th to 12th). However, the grade level configuration span

could also be limited to primary and intermediate, a middle school or a high school. For example, districts

with only primary, intermediate, middle schools will provide data relating to student growth measures. In

contract, districts with only a high school will provide data relating to graduation.

Each of the 16 related sub-indicators are evaluated and weighted in alignment with Every Student

Succeeds Act (ESSA). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is the federal legislation that governs Pre-

Kindergarten to Twelfth Grade education in the United States. The points earned in each of these related sub-

indicators are measured, combined and weighted to determine a possible total score of 100 for the Instruction

and Programs Indicator.

43

The Governance indicator gauges the performance and capacity of each public district’s board of

education. The board of education has direct authority over the district. The quality of a district’s

Governance is gauged by an aggregate of 14 related sub-indicators that are evaluated, combined and

weighted, then used to determine a possible total score of 50. The analysis focuses on the district board

policies as it manages the:

• Development of State Standard aligned curriculum

• District board training

• Disclosures and operations

• Ethics compliance

• District board policies procedures and by-laws

• Evaluation of contracts

• Annual evaluative process of the superintendent

• District board and administration collaboration

• District board budget priorities

District board communications

44

Following the assessment and scoring process with each indicator, the district is given feedback from

the New Jersey Department of Education (NJ DOE) and placed in one of three categories on the New Jersey

Quality Single Accountability Continuum. The three categories are high performing, developing and

implementing an improvement plan, and requiring a thorough evaluation to determine the most effect support

and assistance. High performing districts score in the range of eighty percent to hundred percent. Districts

developing and implementing an improvement plan score between seventy-nine and fifty percent. The

districts requiring a thorough evaluation to determine the most effect support and assistance score below fifty

percent. Castellanos, Veronica, & Vliet, N. (2008, p. 4) outlined distinguishing attributes of New Jersey

Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) that empowers educators and public officials at the

state, county and municipal levels of influence:

• It provides for the expanded authority for the Commissioner to intervene quickly when significant

problems occur.

• The system provides a clear and attainable mechanism for return to local control where performance

has demonstrated improvements in certain areas while continuing state intervention in identified areas.

• It rests on principles of uniform standards, simplicity, effectiveness, efficiency, prevention and

involvement of the department for only the time necessary in the specific areas of need.

Refer to table 2.03 from the New Jersey Department of Education Division of Field Services (2019).

It summarizes the five Quality Performance Indicators, the number of related sub-indicators, the maximum

possible points for each indicator and the three performance categories in the District Performance Review

(DPR) process. This process is central to the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum.

45

Table 2.03. District Performance Review (DPR) Scoring

Quality Performance

Indicators

(6 to 18 related sub-

indicators)

Maximum

Points

(possible)

Points

Earned

Percent

of Total

Performance

Category for each indicator include high

performing (100 % to 80 %), developing

and implementing an improvement plan

(79% to 50%) and requiring a thorough

evaluation (59% and below)

Operations

(18 sub-indicators)

10

Fiscal Management

(15 related sub-

indicators)

50

Personnel

(16 related sub-

indicators)

10

Instruction and

Program

(16 related sub-

indicators)

100

Governance

(14 related sub-

indicators)

50

46

Journey from State takeover to reform and local control

The forced takeover of schools and districts often creates on going conflict between the collective

bargaining units, educational leaders and politicians within those respective communities. For example, the

opposition of state takeovers argued that following the natural disaster of Katrina in New Orleans, there was a

national agenda to privatize public schools (Garda, 2011) and deny the local predominant African-American

and Hispanic communities of political power and influence under the guise of school improvement (Morel,

2018). This policy lever reduces the democratic control of the public schools (Welsh & Williams 2018).

There have been two types of responses to the state takeover policy that occur in the form of litigation

or community-led opposition. Organized labour, politicians, and special interest groups have unsuccessfully

challenged the legality of state takeovers (Burns, 2003; Morel, 2018). However, community-led opposition

have successfully challenged the legitimacy of state takeovers on the basis that they disproportionately target

and harm communities of color is more effective according the research (Orr, 1999; Henig, 2001; Burns,

2003; Russakoff, 2015; Welsh, 2017; Glazer & Egan, 2018; Moral, 2018).

For example, following the Katrina disaster and the re-opening of the New Orleans public schools, the

teachers’ union filed a lawsuit in response to the state takeover failed (Garda, 2011; Welsh & Williams,

2018). Conversely, there were two instances where community-led opposition limited and /or checked the

takeover of schools and a district. Opponents of former New York Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to expand his

mayoral and the chancellor’s influence over the public schools was organized community-based groups.

47

These community-based groups successfully lobbied for greater transparency and limited authority of

both officials in relation to the city’s educational concerns (Henig, 2001; Welsh & Williams 2018).

Comparably, the Education Achievement Authority in Michigan was opposed by community-based

“sustained political opposition” stirred the state and local leadership as well as changed legislation and

mandates that led to its subsequent dissolution (Mason & Arson, 2014; Glazer & Egan, 2018; Welsh &

Williams 2018).

The specific nature of the change in a school or district is influenced by the exchange between the

cross-section of the multiple internal and external factors that characterize the open-system of public

education. Considering the unique interactions of these factors, the nature of the change can be digressive,

non-existent, incremental, or progressive. Also, based on these same factors, the duration of the change can

be temporary, short-term, long-term, or institutionalized.

Fullan (2001) and Datnow & Springfield (2000, p.199) pointed out that,

Our research has documented the random adoption, implementation and sustainability, and school

change more generally, are not processes that result from individuals or institution acting in isolation

from one another. Rather, they are the result of the interrelations between and across groups in

different contexts at various points in time. In this way, forces at the state and district levels, at the

design team level, and at the school and classroom levels shape the ways in which reforms fail or

succeed.

The process of effecting school and district change via educational reform is complex. From the first

state district takeover in 1989 to the present, this reality is evident in the efforts of state, municipal,

community officials to change the course of a school or district from the level of failing to performing.

Fullan (2004,1999 & 2000) stated, “An elementary school can be turned around in about 3 years, a high

school in about 6 years and a district in about 8 depending on the size” (p.17). Jochim (2016, p.31)

provides a prospective of the reality in the process of taking over and turning around schools and districts in

states such as Michigan, Louisiana, California, New York and New Jersey.

48

Michigan’s Education Achievement Authority

The Education Achievement Authority (EAA) was created in 2011 through an interlocal

agreement between the emergency manager of Detroit Public Schools and the regents of

Eastern Michigan University. Three schools were converted to charter schools while twelve

were run directly by a board whose members are appointed by the governor. More charters

may have been approved, but the district garnered just three on-time applicants.

The district focused its reform efforts on pushing for competency-based and blended learning

models, operating more like a traditional district or charter management organization than an

authorizer or portfolio manager.

Just twenty percent of the existing teachers were retained, creating a huge demand for new

talent in the system. Controversy and trouble have surrounded the district since its creation.

Enrolment in the schools plummeted by twenty-five percent by their second year, and high

turnover and staff cuts resulted in further disruption for students. An Education Achievement

Authority (EAA) principal was indicted after allegedly taking kickbacks from a contractor. In

late 2015, Governor Rick Snyder offered to dissolve the Education Achievement Authority

(EAA)if state lawmakers approved his plan for overhauling education in Detroit. By early

2016, the board of regents for Eastern Michigan University voted to end the interlocal

agreement that created the Education Achievement Authority (EAA) in 2011.

Louisiana’s Recovery School District

After Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco used a pre-existing state

authority to take over and operate or charter out persistently low-performing schools anywhere in the

state. Prior to the storm, Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) was widely viewed as corrupt and

plagued by financial mismanagement and the board did not actively resist the state takeover. The

state’s Recovery School District (RSD) took over 65 low-performing schools in New Orleans, leaving

only 20 to be overseen by the existing OPSB.

The state also used a newly enacted statute as authority to terminate the employment contracts of

teachers whose schools were taken over by the RSD. As a result, OPSB was forced to fire 4,000

teachers. After a few months of slow progress, attorney Paul Pastorek became state superintendent of

schools and hired former Chicago and Philadelphia schools’ CEO Paul Vallas to head the RSD.

Together they set out to use chartering as their main method of reopening schools, and to attract school

leaders and teachers (including many from Teach for America) from across the country.

49

Teachers who returned early to New Orleans opposed the process of firing teachers, creating charter

schools, and hiring teachers from new sources and were able to gain support from outside the city. The

movement toward a fully chartered system brought new challenges including a complicated enrolment

process, gaps in special education services, and problems with school discipline, which led to

frustration for parents and a lawsuit by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

By 2012, the RSD moved to address these problems through new centralized policies that sought to

improve fairness and transparency system wide. In 2016, the state passed legislation that provided for

the return of RSD’s schools in just a few short years. Charter schools would retain key autonomies and

OPSB would take on functions previously managed by the RSD. Supporters of the reforms in New

Orleans openly worried whether the change would be the end to the new model of governance

embraced by the RSD.

Oakland, CA

The state of California stepped in to take control of Oakland’s school system in 2003 after

years of growing financial deficits, shrinking student enrolment, and stagnant performance.

Randy Ward, who had successfully served as state administrator in Compton, was appointed as

Oakland’s state administrator with all the powers of the superintendent and school board. Ward

initiated changes to how schools were funded, staffed, and supported by the central office.

Schools also faced enhanced expectations for performance, with alternative options sought

when schools failed to improve.

Many of the new schools first to open were managed by prominent community groups or

experienced charter school operators. The Eli and Edith Broad Foundation, the Annie E. Casey

Foundation, the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

provided more than $12 million to develop the new systems, schools, and management

capacities listed above. Though Ward possessed extraordinary powers and freedom of action,

the initiative was affected by normal urban politics.

Schools in the wealthier areas of Oakland, which would lose money if funds were redistributed

on a strict per-pupil basis, were able to get special funding to allow them to keep their teaching

staffs.

The teachers’ union refused to believe that the district had come clean about its finances and

mounted a successful strike, gaining significant salary increases, a return of placement

preferences for senior teachers, and a reduction of principals’ freedoms. The union also

demanded Ward’s firing and, in the spring of 2006, the state superintendent, threatened with

loss of union support for his re-election, pushed Ward out of the job. The state superintendent

then appointed a cautious new administrator for Oakland and eventually returned control to the

local school board in 2009. By 2010, most of Ward’s initiatives had been incrementally eroded,

though some vestiges of the pupil-based funding and new schools’ strategies remained.

50

New York, NY

After winning a landslide election in 2001, Mayor Michael Bloomberg sought state legislation

that eliminated the 32 community school districts (CSDs) with elected school boards and

provided broad powers to the mayor to run the school system. The return to mayoral control

was sought in response to the dysfunction and layers of bureaucracy fuelled by

decentralization. Community school boards were disbanded, and the Board of Education

became the Panel for Educational Policy, a 12-member board of which seven members are

appointed by the mayor and five by the borough presidents.

The city’s schools were initially grouped in ten regions and the board retained control of

school budgets and capital spending but was barred from daily management. Chancellor Joel

Klein took the helm of the system and launched a variety of efforts to improve instruction and

administration, including new small high schools, more autonomy for school principals, and

cuts to the central office.

Many of the reforms resulted in clashes between the Bloomberg administration and the city’s

teachers’ unions, as well as disaffected middle-class parents. The union, middle-class families

who resented loss of control of neighbourhood school buildings, community groups who

lamented the loss of CSDs, and liberals who objected to charter schools united in opposition to

elect a new mayor in 2013, Bill de Blasio, who withdrew many parts of Bloomberg’s reforms.

Newark, NJ

State monitoring in Newark began in 1992 and included independent investigations by

numerous groups. The takeover initially included new administrators (though previous

administrators had tenure protections and could request a new post in the district), a new

central administrative structure, and school improvement planning and supports. A series of

state-appointed superintendents led the charge.

In 2007, the state ceded some power back to the Public-School Advisory Board over facility

and management operations (the state maintained its power over finances, personnel, and

instructional programs) but retained oversight over key district functions. In 2010, Mayor Cory

Booker brokered a $100 million investment in the district by Facebook founder Mark

Zuckerburg to support reform and other national foundations line up to support charter school

creation.

51

At the same time, Cami Anderson was appointed as superintendent. Anderson launched her

own round of reforms to the schools, including the introduction of eight “renew schools” and

later, the One Newark plan that included closing several schools, restructuring others, and

expanding charter schools. The teachers’ union opposed the reform plan; because, the closing

of schools and the expansion of charter schools resulted in the loss of teacher jobs. Union

organizers and money came to Newark from New York and other cities, and arguments against

the “billionaire boys club” were imported from New York City.

In 2013, Booker campaigned for and won a vacant U.S. Senate seat; Anderson lost one of her

biggest local advocates. In 2014, the Board of Education voted to return financial management

to the local board in Newark. Politics was an ever-present force in the takeover of Newark, but

under Superintendent Anderson when it reached a fever pitch with protests, opinion pieces,

and mayoral candidates speaking against her reign on a weekly basis. By 2014, Anderson,

described as bereft of support, was still in her job and pushing forward with One Newark.

New Mayor Ras Baraka, who ran on an anti-Anderson platform, made the case in editorials

that the mayor, not the state, would be better poised to fix the city’s schools. Anderson was

forced to resigned in June 2015 and former state superintendent Christopher Cerf took her

position. He served as the last state-appointed Superintendent of the district until on February

1st, 2018. As of that day, the Newark Public Schools was officially returned to local control

and Newark Board of Education will assume full authority of the schools.

Reagents of change in the turnaround process from takeover to local control

Michigan, Louisiana, California, New York and New Jersey represent one of the three types of

takeover districts throughout the United States. The three types of takeovers are: school takeovers, district

takeovers, and both school and district takeovers. The common motivating factors that compelled state and

municipal officials to takeover and engage in the turnaround process where patterns of student

underachievement and financial mismanagement.

52

However, an analysis of the Detroit, New Orleans, Oakland, New York City and Newark school

district reveal a combination of reoccurring reagents that had a direct influence on the efforts and outcomes

that are associated with the turnaround process in each type of takeover. The four commonly reoccurring

reagents were: (1) charter schools, (2) funding, (3) organized labor and (4) political ideologies.

In the Detroit and New York City Public Schools, the three reagents in the turnaround process were

charter schools, organized labor and political ideologies. The turnaround process in the Orleans Parish

School Board (OPSB) and the Newark Public Schools was influenced by the charter schools, funding,

organized labor and political ideologies reagents. In the Oakland school system, the two reagents in the

turnaround process were funding and organized labor. Reagents refer to the factors in the external

environment of the school district that affect and effect organizational change as it operates in an open

system.

Schools and school districts belong to each of the communities they serve. These communities are

composed of students, parents, residence, educators, educational leaders, local activist and politicians. The

collective and deliberate efforts of each member of the school community influence the practices and

outcomes that are associated with successful reform. The changes that occur at the school and district by

way of reform is a process not an event or incident. The success is a result of ongoing efforts from the

members of the school community to gauge and refine both their practices and outcomes.

53

Rodes and Pearlman (1989) described a strategy that members of a school or district can apply to

effect and sustain reform. This strategy consists of multiple steps that include communicating, assessing the

current, developing an action plan, implementing the plan and sharing accountability.

1. Establish and maintain open lines of communication by way of informal and formal meetings

to continually exchange ideas, interventions and solutions with the members of the school community.

The school community is composed of students, parents, educators, educational leaders, community

activists, and politicians.

2. Assess the educational programs and the factors that affect each program’s effectiveness. In

this assessment, consider each program’s purpose, characteristics, implementation, strengths and

weaknesses.

3. Develop an action plan that focuses on specific and measurable objectives. The development

of the action plan factors in school priorities, available resources, timing, delivery and gauges to

measure the plan’s level of effectiveness during implementation.

4. Implementation is best framed in terms of guiding principles and procedures that are reflected

in specific activities. This is done by establishing an administrative structure that delegates

responsibilities and is supported by accountability and continual communication.

5. Accountability takes the form of establishing an ongoing system that allows for reflection, self-

evaluation and revisions of administrative practices. Continual communication refers to periodic and

regular communication with all community stakeholders at the school, neighbourhood, district,

municipal and state levels.

Persistent Urban District Challenges that Follow the Return to Local Control

There are multiple dimensions to the challenges that are associated with urban public schools and

districts that have led to change, subsequent takeover, reform or turnaround. The district educators and

educational leaders appear to be bogged down in a political bureaucracy with an endless cycle of reform that

does not seem to lead to sustained school improvement(s) that impact the students in the communities they

serve. In many of these urban public-school districts there are enduring problems that are prevalent with the

students including: poor attendance, under scholastic achievement, low performance on standardized tests

and high drop-out rates.

54

This characterization of urban school failure is pervasive. It is endemic in the nation’s largest cities-

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia and common in small towns such as East St.

Louis, Poughkeepsie, Camden, and Compton. In fact, wherever poor people are concentrated, and

employment is scarce, public schools are almost always very bad. In many parts of the country, the

problems present within urban schools are perceived as so numerous and intractable that the term

crisis frequently is applied to describe the situation; and this is described by those who haven’t given

up hope completely (Noguera, 2003, p. 4).

For many residents of urban communities with school aged children who share this point of view,

charter and or private schools are alternatives. In contrast to other residents of the same or similar urban

communities, public schools are essential. Without question, the problems common to many public-school

districts are difficult to manage and solve. As Noguera (2003, p.4) pointed out, “without any viable

alternatives available, urban public schools cannot be written off as rotten structures in need of demolition.”

55

CHAPTER THREE

Conceptual framework

Systems Theory

To understand the outcomes associated with the takeover and the reform of the Newark Public Schools

(NPS), systems theory provides an inductive and deductive prospective of the whole organization in terms of

the interrelation of its six functioning subsystems to accomplish specific goals and objectives. The six

interrelated subsystems include the: environment, organization, input, transformation process, outputs, and

feedback. In this system, the organization is influence by economic, legal, political and social forces that

compose the surrounding environment. Within the organization, the input, transformation, output and

feedback processes occur. Inputs refers to the use of resources such as financial, information, material and

personnel. The transformation process occurs by way administrative practices, the quality of instruction and

the use of technology. Outputs refer to the organization’s products and services. In an educational

organization, knowledge and skills are developed and distributed in the form of outputs. Feedback is the

qualitative and quantitative information gathered from the analysis of the outputs that influences the inputs

and transformation process during next cycle of the system. The interrelationship of the six subsystems in the

basic system framework is illustrated below by Lunenburg & Ornstein (p.18, 1991) in figure 3.01.

56

Figure 3.01, Basic Systems Framework

Environment

Organization

Feedback

Input Transformation Process Outputs

57

General Systems Theory was developed by the Biologist Ludwig Van Bertalaffy and J. G. Miller in

the 1960s and 70s. It has applications in both natural and social sciences in the study of how a system

achieves it goals in its environment. The environment that the social system functions and operates, such as

the school district, has an influence on the duration and quality of the changes that occur within the

organization. The duration of the organizational change refers to its beginning, pace and ending. And, the

quality of the organizational change manifests itself in the form of transactions, incremental progression, a

revolution or transformation within the context of the social system.

Betts (1992) describes a system as inter-related subsystems (elements) that function together to

amplify the whole system’s value by way of cooperation to achieve a common objective. The relationship

between each of the subsystems is supported by variations in their potential energy that facilitate an

interchange of energy that is continually redistributed. “For example, money in a banking system, heat in a

thermodynamic system, or information in a learning system is example of energy interchanges”. This process

of energy redistribution among the subsystems is critical to the function and maintenance of the whole system

to avoid entropy. Entropy occurs when there is an even distribution of energy that lead to either the disruption

or the destruction of the whole system. “The recent failure of the U.S.S.R. is an example of a closed political

system were that required more energy to maintain itself than could be generated internally or imported”. In

addition to the process energy redistribution, energy must be either imported or be created within a system to

ensure that it exists and functions. A system that cannot import exhausted energy is a closed system.

Conversely, a system that operates by importing and exporting energy is an open system.

58

Each subsystem within the system is open to the influences of the environment that it operates in. The

operations, organizations and structures associated with the district reflect a system that characterizes the

context of how it is managed, determines its direction, and influences the outcomes associated with its

practices that affect systemic changes. These outcomes are often used as gauges to measure the effectiveness

of the system. Applying the lens of open systems theory assists with the development of a conceptual

framework that facilitates the analyses of the school district in terms of its interrelated parts within its

functioning social system.

Within the open system of a school district, specialization and levels of complexity distinguish the

subsystems. “The specializations and levels of complexity can be viewed through three lenses such as

hierarchy, homeostasis, and purposiveness “(Betts, 1992). A system's hierarchy refers to the number of

levels within the system. Each successively higher level of the hierarchy encompasses all the processes at

each lower level and is increasingly complex as the number of elements and the relationships among elements

increases.

For example, there is a hierarchy in school districts that is amplified in terms of complexity and energy

as it progresses in levels influence. This hierarchy begins with each student and progresses to the classroom,

school building, the district and the local and state government. It is reflected in the progressive efforts and

levels of management of individuals in the classroom, the grade-level (Pre-K to 12), the school (primary,

intermediate, middle and high), and district (rural, sub-urban and rural). Homeostasis refers to self-regulation

through feedback mechanisms. Within the context of a school, feedback mechanisms can take the form of

individual student progress reports, standardized assessment data, school graduation rates, teacher evaluations,

administrator evaluations as well as school and district performance reports.

59

Purposiveness refers to a whether the system has single and clear goal. Banathy (1991, p. 35)

characterizes it as a “unitary” system. In contrast, to a “pluralistic” system that may have multiple and

possible divergent or opposing goals. “Schools are structured and organized to interact and function in the

environment of each community they serve” (Scott, 2008). The Open - Systems Theory is a lens that provides

insight to analyse interrelated subsystems in a school district considering the complexity of hierarchy,

homeostasis and purposiveness of the levels within the educational system.

Open system

School districts are social systems that are commonly viewed as open systems. Each school and

district are composed of distinctive arrangements of subsystems that have uniquely organized and structured

inter-relationships of the environment, organization, inputs, the transformation process, outputs and feedback.

The school systems inputs use four forms of environmental resources that are financial, human, informational

and physical. The financial resources refer to the money that is used for both short and long-term operations.

Human resources include organized labour, parents, professional capacity, staffing (administrative,

instructional and support) and students. Informational resources refer to court decisions, curricula, state and

Federal mandates, statutes and student achievement data that influence school and district level decisions.

The physical resources include the equipment, facilities, materials, and supplies that are used maintain and

operate the schools and buildings within the district.

During the transformation process, the educational organization converts inputs from the external

environment to produce some form of output via work. This component of the system amplifies the work in

process by giving it a “value added” (Sergiovanni, 1990). The transformation process includes the

organization’s internal operations and operational management. The elements of the organization’s internal

operations refer to its structures, culture, motivations, professional development, and curricula.

60

Some of the elements of the system operational management refer to the school administrator’s professional

skillset that are associated with the ability adapt to change, communicate, develop plans, make decisions, and

implement ideas. Both the internal operations and operational management within the structure of the

organization affects the school district’s outputs.

In the social system of schools, the outputs are produced as a results of the input of resources from the

environment and efforts within the organization that facilitates the transformational process. These outputs

are gauged in terms of “products, results, outcomes, or accomplishments of the system that are manifested in

student growth and achievement levels, student dropout rates, employee performance and turnover, school-

community relations and job satisfaction“ (Lunenburg, 2010).

“Satisfaction refers to more than salaries, working conditions and job security” (Herzberg, 2009). “It

refers to the school’s efforts to provide for employees' needs for affiliation, acceptance, esteem and perhaps

even self-actualization if they hope to retain a motivated, committed work force capable of performing at

maximum levels” (Maslow, 1998).

The legal, social, political, and economic forces in the external environment react to outputs that

develop from the inputs and the transformation process by providing the open-system with feedback.

Whether the feedback is positive, negative, constructive, or destructive; it is an invaluable resource to

determine the degree of the school districts operational success. Positive or constructive feedback can affirm

proficiencies in practices that influence input and transformational process relating to personnel and

professional development. In contrast, negative or destructive feedback can be used to inform and correct

deficiencies in the internal operations and the operational management.

61

CHAPTER FOUR

Methodology

Research Question

More than two decades ago, since 1995, the New Jersey State Department of Education took over the

Newark Public Schools, the state’s largest district, with the intent to reform the district. However, after 22

years in 2017, the Newark Public Schools, was returned to local control.

During the period of state control, student achievement was one of the foci of the district reform effort.

In fact, student achievement levels are common indicators that are associated with gauging the quality of

education provided by a school and a school district. From 2011 to 2017, while the Newark Public Schools

district was under state control, what influenced the reform and the patterns of student achievement in terms

of high school graduation rates?

Case Study Research Methodology

Considering the focus of the research, the case study methodology provides authentic examples of

circumstances and people that empower the learner to more vividly understand as well as process

concepts and ideas. “A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in

depth and within its real-life context, (especially when) the boundaries between the phenomenon and the

context are not clear” (Yin. 2003, p.13).

Generalized theory is developed in case studies by either a combination of qualitative and/or

quantitative data analysis of active and revealing exchanges with people during unique circumstances,

events, and incidents. Merriam (1998, p. 33) states, “case study is a particular suitable design if you are

interested in process.” Process as a focus for case study research can be viewed in two different ways

according to (Reichardt & Cook,1979, p. 21).

62

The first meaning of the process is monitoring by describing the population and context of the study,

discovering the extent to which the treatment or program has been implemented, providing immediate

feedback of a formative type, and the like. The second meaning of process is causal explanation by

discovering or confirming the treatment had the effect that it did.

This is study will focus on recent evaluations of the district’s performance, the practices

associated with the performance and the outcome of the district’s high school completion rates. Each

component of this study is an explicit and implicit analysis of a process. The intent of this analysis is to

acquire an insight to the causes and effects that occurred in the district during this process. Considering

these conditions, according to Merriam (1998) and Reichardt & Cook (1979), the Case Study research

methodology would be the most suitable approach to study the Newark Public Schools (NPS) within this

context.

Yin (2003, p. 45) described the conditions that justify a single-case design – “when the case

represents (a) critical test of an existing theory, (b) a rare or unique circumstance, or (c) a representative

or typical case or when the case serves a (d) revelatory or (e) longitudinal purpose”. Although a case-

study may focus on a single organization, the analysis may highlight units within the organization. The

highlighted units are called “embedded units”. “A single - case study design may be either holistic or

embedded” (Yin, 2003, p. 39). Holistic designs include a single unit of analysis. The intent of the holistic

design is to study the nature of the phenomenon when no logical sub-units can be pointed out. Abstract ideas

can evolve out of this approach. In contrast, the embedded design involves the collection and analysis of

multiple data units at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels sequentially or simultaneously. The secondary

and tertiary data either confirms or supplements the primary data. This approach is a more intensive analysis

that provides an opportunity for acquiring greater understanding of the organization or specific aspects of the

organization.

63

In this analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data from the Newark Public School’s District

Performance Review and high school graduation rates, the embedded case study design will be applied. The

qualitative and quantitative data have a complementary relationship. Qualitative data describes the process;

and, the quantitative data gauges the outcome of the process. This approach looks for consistent patterns of

evidence across the embedded units of the five District Performance Review Indicators (Operations, Fiscal

Management, Personnel, Instruction and Programs, and Governance) and the high school graduation averages

(national, state, district, and local). The four data sources will be disaggregated, coded and organized in terms

of each embedded unit of analysis within this single case study to construct an explanation. “Figure 4.01

illustrates the context and relationship of the embedded units of analysis in this single case study” (Yin, 2003,

p.40 and Creswell, 2012, p. 541). The Appendix lists the specific 101 archival data and documents that

compose the collected embedded units of analysis.

64

Figure 4.01, Single Case Study with multiple embedded units of analysis

The study’s Context

is from 2011 to 2017 during the state control of the Newark Public Schools.

The Case is the Newark Public Schools.

1st embedded unit of analysis

is the

New Jersey

Single

Accountability

Continuum

District

Performance

Review indicators for the

Newark Public Schools.

(qualitative and quantitative data)

2nd embedded unit of analysis

is the high school graduation rates

(quantitative data)

Interpretation

65

District and school level participant selection procedure

In this case-study, the district’s operations is one embedded unit of analysis and the other embedded

unit of analysis is a selected group of 10 out of 16 high schools within the district. To select the high school

participants, two questions were considered. What high schools would provide the most diverse and richest

source of information relating to this inquiry? Why? The high school participant consideration is based on the

type of high school, the high school’s total enrolment; also, how well does its student body reflects the

economic, ethnic and social diversity of the city. 37,000 students are educated in Newark’s 64 public schools.

Considering family income of the students, 75% receive free lunch, 5 % receive reduced price lunch

(Economically Disadvantaged) and 20 % pay for lunch because the household income is above the qualifying

threshold for free or reduced lunch. The total enrollment is composed of 47 % Hispanic, 43 % African

Ancestry; 8% European Ancestry, less than 1% Asian, less than 1% Pacific Islander and less than 1% Native-

American students. The student educational sub-groups are composed of 73 % General Education, 10%

Limited English Proficient (Bilingual and English as a Second Language) and 17 % Special Education

(Student with Disabilities). Based on population density and the developmental needs and interest of the

student, they are educated in schools that are divided geographically among Newark’s North, South, East,

West, and Central wards.

66

The 64 schools include 5 Pre-Kindergarten to Kindergarten, 41 elementary, 16 high schools and 3 un-

graded schools for students with multiple disabilities. Twenty-seven percent of the total enrollments are

educated in the 16 high schools are also divided into subgroups that are defined as either magnet or

comprehensive. Entry to the magnet high schools requires screening each student’s middle school record,

successfully passing one or more entrance exams, the student’s preferences, and available seats. In contrast,

entry to the comprehensive high schools is based on the screening of each student’s middle school record, the

student’s preferences, and available seats. Currently, there are 14 charter schools that service the students of

Newark; but each charter school operate as separate and independent from the traditional public schools.

The sample size of the participants will include 10 high schools. Five of the high schools are

comprehensive. The other five high schools are magnet. Comparatively, the six comprehensive high schools

have the largest populations and the most ethnically diverse. The five magnet high school themes include

history and social justice, visual and performing arts, sciences, technology and college preparation. The

interconnected layered sample of comprehensive and magnet high schools will provide an essential source of

data in response to key ideas in the research question.

Data Collection Method

In this single case study of the Newark Public Schools District, the most recent archival data and

documents from 2011 to 2017 relating to the two embedded units of analysis will be collected. The New

Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum District Performance Review Reports and high school

graduation rates will be analysed with lens that progresses from broad to narrow. This broad to narrow lens

provides a perspective from sources at the national, state, district, and high school levels.

67

At the state and district level, seven years of data will be the progressively analysed and disaggregated

from 2011 to 2017 that relate to the Newark Public Schools (NPS) District Performance Review Reports.

From a national, state, district and high school level, four layers of high school graduation data from 2011 to

2017, spanning seven-years, will also be analysed and disaggregated to discern the trends. These trends can

provide data to inform the practices that influence the district’s high school graduation rates, and to leverage

improvements in district-wide student programs and services.

Data Analysis

The Newark Public Schools (NPS) District Performance Review Reports from 2011 to 2017 includes

both qualitative and quantitative archival data in relation to the state and the district. This data will be

disaggregated, coded and organized in terms of interrelated categories over a period of seven years. These

categories are the: five performance indicators, descriptions of the practices associated with each indicator,

categorical scores for each indicator, and the year control of each indicator was restored to the district

advisory board.

The quantitative archival data refers to the average high school graduation rates from 2011 to 2018 in

relation to the nation, state, district and 10 district high schools. The 10 sampled district high schools are

demographically diverse. The diversity in each of these 10 district high schools will also be disaggregated,

coded and organized in terms of interrelated categories. These categories include the high school’s: type,

theme, total student enrolment, rate of chronic student absenteeism, teacher to student ratio, teacher average

experience, student socio-economic status, student disabilities and student that are English language learners.

68

Both, the qualitative and quantitative data sources will be triangulated. Yin (2003, p. 99) defines data

triangulation as the collection and analysis of information from multiple sources but aimed at corroborating

the same fact or phenomenon. When triangulating data, the events or facts of the case study are supported by

more than a single source of evidence (Sieber, 1973; Yin, 1982c). The logic of triangulation is based on the

premise that no single method ever really solves the problem of rival causal factors. Because each method

reveals different aspects of empirical reality, multiple methods of observation must be employed. This is

termed triangulation (Patton, 2002, p. 247).

According to Yin (2003, p. 97), The benefits of the multiple sources of evidence can be maximized if

the researcher follows three principles. They include: 1. Using multiple sources of evidence, 2. Create

a case study data base, and 3. Maintain a chain of evidence. When used properly, the principles can

help deal with the problems of establishing the construct of validity and reliability of the case study

evidence.

In the application of data triangulation, the potential problems associated with construct validity also

can be solved because multiple sources of evidence essentially provide multiple measures of the same

phenomenon. If these objectives are achieved, a case study also will have addressed the methodological

problem of determining construct validity thereby increasing the overall quality of the study.

The analysis will explore the questions listed below that are relevant to the District Performance

Review, the process earning a high school diploma, district wide practices, patterns of student achievement in

terms of graduation rates:

1. In each of the five indicators associated with the District Performance Review, what reforms

might have contributed to the improvements?

2. What is the standard to earning a high school diploma with-in four years? What incremental

gauges are used to determine each student’s the level of growth and proficiency in their efforts

to earn a high school diploma?

3. What does the disaggregated of the achievement data for each of the student sub-groups

(General Education, Economically Disadvantaged, Limited English Proficient, and Students

with Disabilities) that are educated in the district state about the growth and development of

graduation rates?

69

Both the District Performance Review and high school graduation occurs by way of a process. The

operations, organizations and structures associated with the Newark Public Schools (NPS) creates a system

that frames the context of how it is managed, determines its direction, and influences the outcomes associated

with its practices. These outcomes are often used as gauges to measure the effectiveness of the system.

However, this system operates by way of six interrelated subsystems. The subsystems consist of the:

environment, organization, input, transformational process, output and feedback. The open-systems theory is

a conceptual framework that facilitates an analysis of the processes within the organization’s structure through

the lens of each subsystem. The intent is to discern the cause and effect of the practices that influenced the

district’s return to local control and changes in the high school graduation rates.

Limitations and Delimitations

This case study will rely on documentation and archival records as sources of evidence from the

Federal Government, State of New Jersey, the city of Newark, Newark Public Schools (NPS), and its high

schools. There are inherent limitations to some of the sources of evidence. Merriam (1998, p.42-3) pointed

out that, some readers may think a case study is an account of the whole. “It tends to masquerade when in

fact they are a part – slice of life.”

Documents and archival records may be in a draft format or based on estimates from the available

information. The use of multiple sources of evidence in this case study will position the researcher to

establish valid and reliable focus more clearly on a wider range of current and past behaviours, practices and

problems that are germane to the subject of the study.

70

The purpose of the case study research is to generalize about the influences on the district’s operations

and graduation rates by constructing theory based on evidence that has been uncovered via sources from the

State of New Jersey Department of Education (NJ DOE), the city of Newark and the Newark Public Schools

(NPS) district. The district has been under state control for more than 20 years. The research would be

impractical and unreasonable if the focus was extended for two decades. The research sampling and focuses

begins at the inception District Performance Reviews process in 2011; and, it is link to high school graduation

rates for the Newark Public Schools (NPS) from 2011 to 2017.

Relationship Between the Researcher and the Newark Public Schools

In the role as a researcher, my professional background and influence in this process must be

taken into consider. Within the past 28 years, I have served in a range of position(s) as an educator,

supervisor, and administrator in the Newark Public Schools. As an educator, I have worked 10 years with

students at various stages of development that ranged from intermediate to adulthood. The empirical

knowledge that was gained while engaged in these efforts prepared me for the transition from teaching to

administration and supervision.

During the past 18 years, I have served as a vice-principal in Pre-Kindergarten through Eighth grade

schools. At the Primary (Pre-K to 2nd), Intermediate (3rd-5th) and Middle School (6th – 8th) levels of

development, I have had the privilege of working with educators who address the developmental needs of the

diverse student populations. This population is composed of subgroups that are Limited English Proficient

(Bilingual and English as a Second Language), General Education (at – risk of dropping out) and Special

Education learners. These subgroups of students are educated in our district and similar urban schools district

throughout the nation.

71

My influence on the research data is inert. The intent is to focus on factual and verifiable

evidence. The influence is limited eliminating and marginalizing bias in the depth and breadth the

process associated with the collecting, the analysing and interpreting the data.

72

CHAPTER FIVE

Findings in the Newark Public Schools 2011 to 2017 District Performance Review Analysis

The New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) is intended to promote efficient

use of district resources, family and community involvement and establish expectations for student

achievement. District Performance Review process is an extension of New Jersey Quality Single

Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC). The lens of the open-system conceptual framework will be used in

the analysis of the five performance indicators in District Performance Review process. The five performance

indicators are Operations, Fiscal Management, Personnel, Instruction and Programs and Governance. The

open-system conceptual framework consists of six interrelated subsystems that have an affect and effect on the

other. The interrelated subsystems are the environment, organization, input, transformation process, output

and feedback. The five performance indicators and the Newark Public Schools (NPS) correlate to the six

interrelated subsystems.

Through this lens, qualitative and quantitative data from 2011 to 2017 relating to the Newark Public

School’s (NPS) District Performance Review process and high school graduation rates will be disaggregated,

analyzed and compared to trends in the state and the nation. The analysis will consist of three layers of data

from the state, district and selected high schools. While engaged in this process, possible relationships can be

defined to provide an insight to the cause, affect and effect of the changes that influenced the Newark Public

Schools high school graduation rates and the district’s the transition from a takeover district to its return to

local control.

In terms of the five performance indicators, the district’s performance is evaluated, scored and

organized into one of three categories. This process of evaluating, scoring and categorizing the district

performance fits within the context of the feedback (District Performance Review) subsystem in the open-

system conceptual framework.

73

The feedback informs the input (Personnel and Fiscal Management), the transformation process (Operations,

Instruction and Programs, and Governance) and output (student achievement) subsystems within the

organization (Newark Public Schools). Eighty percent to one hundred percent is defined as high level of

performance. Fifty percent to seventy-nine percent requires the district to develop and implement an

improvement plan for each of the area(s) of deficiency and may require a thorough evaluation. Scores of

measuring below fifty percent are required to go through a thorough evaluation as well as develop and

implement an improvement plan for each of the area(s) of deficiency. In extreme cases, the Department of

Education may intervene to address one or more the of five standards that are used to gauge a district’s

performance.

The District Performance Review process allows progressive districts to continue their forward

movement without any impediment from the Department of Education. However, in low performing

districts, it broadens the authority of the Commissioner to intervene when problems are evident and ongoing

within the context of one or a combination the five performance indicators that include Operations, Fiscal

Management, Personnel, Instruction and Program and Governance. Figure 5.01 is a summary of the Newark

Public Schools NJ QSAC District Performance Review from 2011 through 2017 (State of New Jersey

Department of Education 2017, p. 8).

74

Figure 5.01, 2011 – 17 Newark Public Schools District Performance Review

OperationsFiscal

ManagementPersonnel

Instruction &

ProgramsGovernance

2011 83% 93% 94% 64% 89%

2012 83% 88% 48% 34% 55%

2014 83% 88% 100% 33% 76%

2015 95% 82% 60% 58% 72%

2016 95% 82% 100% 64% 88%

2017 95% 94% 100% 92% 100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Lev

el P

erfo

rman

ce

2011-17 Newark Public Schools

District Performance Review

75

Operations

The Operations indicator is gauged in terms of 26 sub-indicators that focus on the district’s facilities,

student conduct, school safety and security, student health and student support services. These related sub-

indicators are evaluated, weighted, and scored to determine a possible total score of 10. From 2011 to 2017,

the trends in the score for Operations reflected a substantial progression that has been consistent. From 2008

to the present, control of Operations has been restored and maintained by the district when it earned a

performance score of 83%.

The district’s approach to decision-making and practices are reflected in its Operations. Operations

facilitate the transformation process in the organization (Newark Public Schools). This process is

accomplished by applying strategies as well as organizing and using financial, human, informational and

physical resources to effect ongoing improvements that influence outputs (student outcomes). The outcomes

refer to improvements in student attendance, behaviour, achievement and rates of high school completion.

Fiscal Management

An annual audit, financial and budgetary control, budget planning, efficiency and treatment of

restricted revenue compose the aggregate of 16 sub-indicators. These sub-indicators relating to Fiscal

Management indicator are evaluated, weighted, and scored to determine a possible total score of 50. Within

the seven-year period from 2011 to 2017, an analysis of the trends relating to the standards of Fiscal

Management reveal a steady pattern of improvement that reflected high level of performance scores of 82 %

or greater. Although in 2011 and 2012, the district earned a score of 93% and 88% in this indicator, the State

of New Jersey Board of Education delayed empowering the locally elected school district advisory board with

control of Fiscal Management until 2014.

76

Effective Fiscal Management is essential to the input subsystem within the organization (Newark

Public Schools). It has a direct influence on the organization’s functions as it operates in an open system.

The superintendent and school board manage the district’s financial resources and obligations by budgeting,

restricting and allocating funds to ensure short and long-term financial stability. This stability positions the

district to initiate and support school and district-wide programs influence student outcomes.

Relative to the domain of Fiscal Management the district leadership, elected school advisory and the

elected city officials had made progress in recent years that positively influenced the district’s finances.

Health insurance costs were re-negotiated and resulted in a $10 million savings. There were improvements in

the means of funding district facilities by increasing the quantity of projects that are submitted to the School

Development Authority and issued a $30 million school funding bond. The district central office was

relocated to a more cost-efficient space that resulted in a $2 million annual savings.

Twelve unused buildings were sold to the city’s housing authority earned the district $10 million and

saved $1 million annually. Advocate for mandated state school funding and raise local taxes to increase

district revenue. In 2012, an innovative contract for the district’s largest collective bargaining unit was

negotiated. The teacher performance-based contract that compensates educators is a resource to predict

annual costs for employees’ total salaries.

Personnel

The appropriate certification of personnel, personnel policies and professional development are the

aggregate of 16 sub-indicators that gauge the Personnel indicator. These sub-indicators relating to the

Personnel indicator are evaluated, weighted, and scored to determine a possible total score of 10. There have

been cyclical changes in the percentage scores from 2011 to 2017. Conditional control of Personnel was

restored to the elected school advisory board in 2017.

77

The practices associated with the selection, retainment and efforts of the district’s Personnel at every

level of the organization contributed to the conditional return to local control. Personnel is an essential part of

the input subsystem in the open-system conceptual framework. These practices have influenced the

administrators, educators, parents, students and support staff in the school community.

The first performance based collective bargaining agreement for teachers in New Jersey was

established in 2012. It changed the way educators are compensated and managed. Educators who earned an

effective or high-effective annual evaluation rating received salary advances. In contrast, educators who

earned a partially effective or ineffective annual evaluation did not receive salary advances; they were subject

to a corrective action plan and possible tenure charges. Instructional vacancies were significantly reduced.

Staffing decisions were decentralized and based on the school level by empowering principals to select

instructional staff that could have the greatest impact on student achievement. The ability to select and retain

effective instructional staff was also influenced by a newly adopted teacher evaluation framework.

Instruction and Programs

Instruction and Programs influence teaching and learning which is the fundamental function and

purpose of school. In fact, the quality of teaching and learning in schools and districts is commonly gauged in

terms of the outcomes associated with student achievement levels. These achievement levels are reflected in

the students’ performance on standardized assessments and high school graduation rates.

The quality of Instruction and Programs are gauged in terms of 36 related sub-indicators that focus on

student performance, curriculum, instructional priorities, mandated programs, early childhood programs and

high school practices and graduation rates. These sub-indicators relating to Instruction and Programs

indicator are evaluated, weighted, and scored to determine a possible total score of 100. From 2014 to 2017,

the score has changed significantly. In three years, there was 59% increase.

78

In alignment with the New Jersey Constitutional mandate to provide a “thorough and efficient”

public education, the district has demonstrated continuous progress in recent years in relation to Instruction

and Programs. Framed within the context of an open system, the indicator uses human, informational and

physical resources in the transformational process to produce the output of educating the district’s Pre-

Kindergarten through twelfth grade students. The English Language Arts and Math curricula has been

aligned with the Common Core State Standards. The district also collaborated with the authors of the

Common Core State Standards to develop the teacher evaluation instrument and manage its effort in

adopting curricula. Ongoing professional development for content and grade level teachers and school

leadership has been established to facilitate the effective implementation of the adopted standards and

innovative instructional practices. Some selected schools have extended school days and years. And, many

of the lowest performing schools have been restructured or closed. As a result of these efforts, NPS Newark

Public Schools has demonstrated significant improvement in nearly all core outcome areas reported by the

State of New Jersey Department of Education (2017, December).

On the state-wide PARCC exam, Newark has seen average scale scores and proficiency rates

improve in both English Language Arts and Mathematics by nearly 10 percentile points in just three

years. In alignment with this improvement, the District has also seen much improved Student Growth

Percentile scores, moving from the high 30s in 2014 to scores over the past three years that have

hovered near the 50th percentile – meaning that Newark students are seeing academic growth at levels

on par with their peers across the State. The District has also seen significant and steady

improvement in their graduation rates.

Further insight to student achievement in terms of high school completion in the Newark Public

Schools can be developed from multiple sources of both qualitative and quantitative data. The New Jersey

graduation standards outline what is required of each public high school student to successfully earn a

diploma. A comparative analysis of the district, demographic subgroups and 10 of 16 high schools to the state

and nation can provide a wide perspective on its progress.

79

Graduation Standards in New Jersey

The standard to graduate from high school in the State of New Jersey and the Newark Public Schools

require each candidate to complete four components that include attendance, courses, standardized

assessments and the pathways. The candidates for graduation must attend school at least 162 days (90 % of

180 days), accumulate at least 110 credits (95 required and 15 elective courses), accumulate at least 60 hours

of community service and meet the English Language Arts and Math assessment standard by one or a

combination of three pathways.

The three pathways include: alternate-proficiency assessments, portfolio assessments and standardized

assessments to earn a high school diploma. The New Jersey Alternate Proficiency Assessment (APA) is a

portfolio assessment for students who have demonstrated significant cognitive disabilities. It gauges each

student progress toward achieving New Jersey’s state educational standards who are unable to participate in

the assessments that are administered to the general education students.

Portfolio assessments are alternatives to traditional classroom tests. The portfolio is a purposeful

accumulation of a student’s efforts, progress and achievements over time. It is based on the content and

quality of tasks in English Language Arts and Math that were completed independently by the student under

the teacher’s supervision.

The standardized assessment pathway is composed of the ACT, PARCC and SAT. The ACT

standardized assessment is used to measure each student’s level of proficiency in English Language Arts,

Math and Science to assist with gauging a student’s preparedness for college.

80

The annual Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) test 3rd

through 11th grade students in English Language Arts and Math to gauge their proficiency in each of the

content areas. The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) also gauges each student’s level of proficiency with a

Math and an evidence-based English Language Arts assessment to determine college preparedness.

Graduation data through the lens of the district, state and nation

Refer to figure 5.02, it is a comparison of the national, state and district four-year graduation rates

from 2011 to 2017 (National Center for Educational Statistics; New Jersey Department of Education). The

District graduation rates are below the graduation rates for both the State and Nation. In 2017, the difference

between the district and state rate is 13 %; in comparison to the nation, the difference is 7 %. There has been

incremental growth of 17 % points when comparing the District’s graduation rates from 2011 to 2017. What

could have influenced this growth? The Newark Public Schools 2017 Deputy–Superintendent, Robert Gregory,

was interviewed by Mazzola (2017, June). Mr. Gregory shared a perspective on the cause and effect of the growth in

the District’s graduation rates. He stated that, ‘the District has struggled with graduation rates for some time.

Although there has been movement in terms of a four-point growth from 70 % in 2015 to 74 % in 2016, the District is

still below the 2016 state-wide 90 % graduation rate. The number of students graduating varied dramatically from

high school to high school ‘.

He also anticipated a district-wide increase in graduation rates to 80 % in 2017 as a result of the introduction

and establishment of innovative practices. Student will be allowed to make-up classes on-line and at the evening high

school. A graduation tracker has been mandated for each of the 16 high schools to chart and monitor the progress of

each high school senior. When a student falls behind on the graduation requirements, the school leadership must

intervene to provide support and assistance. A quarterly credit accumulation tracker has also been introduced for high

school freshman, sophomores and juniors that will position and empower each student to graduate within four years

from high school.

81

Figure 5.02, 2011-2017 District, State and National Graduation Rates

82

Graduation Data Through the Lens of Student Subgroups, District and State

Figure 5.03 (State of New Jersey Department of Education) is another comparative look at the

graduation rates for the state, district, Economically Disadvantaged, Limited – English Proficient and

Disabled student subgroups. Although the district has demonstrated progress, there is a significant difference

between the district and state rates.

However, the rates for the district and Economically Disadvantaged are almost identical. This data

trend reveals that most graduating students is composed of this demographic subgroup. Also, the greatest

difference in the rates between these three subgroups is nine percentage points. Perhaps, prescriptive and

consistently applied changes in the district’s instructional practices, curricula resources and programs would

affect sustained growth and improvement in each of these subgroups.

83

Figure 5.03, Comparison of Economically Disadvantaged, Limited English Proficient and Student with

Disabilities

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Comparison of Economically Disadvantaged, Limited English Proficient and Students with Disbilities

84

Refer to figure 5.04 (State of New Jersey Department of Education), the comparative analysis of the

graduation rates of the state, district and its ethnic groups reveal growth; however, there is an ongoing gap.

This gap persists when comparing the state and Whites to the district, Black and Hispanic ethnic groups. The

overwhelming majority of the student enrollment in the district is composed of Blacks and Hispanics. In fact,

the 2017 achievement levels of between both groups differ by one - percentage point. In contrast, the

difference between the rates of lowest achieving ethnic group, Blacks, and the state in 2017 was thirteen –

percentage points.

The cause(s) of the mitigating circumstances that contribute to the achievement gap in the Black and

Hispanic communities must be explored by educators who serve these students. Cross (2007. p.252) and

Perry, Steele, & Hilliard (2003) offered advise relating how a solution to this problem can be developed. “We

should not begin with a search for student deficiencies as the explanation for their academic failure or success.

Language and cultural diversity, poverty, crime, drug-ridden neighborhoods, and single-parent, mostly

female-headed households, may determine opportunity to learn, not capacity to learn” (Hilliard &

Amankwatia, 2003, p. 133– 134). An acquired understanding of the cause(s) will lead to the development,

adoption and implementation of more effective practices and programs at school and in homes. “It is

reasonable to conclude that thinking from deficit views leads to solutions grounded in ideas of natural

inferiority, and thinking from high achievement views leads to solutions designed for high expectations and

high abilities that as-sure equity in the opportunity to learn” (Cross, 2007, p.252).

85

Figure 5.04, Graduation Rates Based on Ethnicity

86

Graduation Data Through the Lens of Comprehensive and Magnet High schools, District and State

The following figure 5.05 is a comparative look at the graduation rates of the state, district, five magnet and

five comprehensive high schools (New Jersey Department of Education). The differences in each group over the seven-

year period is evident. The magnet high school rates are greater than the district and state. Although, the

comprehensive high school rates reflect a pattern below the state, district and magnet high schools; there has been

incremental growth.

A closer comparison of graduation data associated with the comprehensive and magnet high schools’ rates

reveal at least a 20% difference each year. What could be the cause of this pattern of under-achievement in the

comprehensive high school in contrast to achievement in the magnet high schools? Each schools funding is based on

consideration of total student enrollment and the subgroups (Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities

and English Learners) they educate. All the 16 high schools in the district have access to the same Common Core

Curricula (English Language Arts, Math and Science), instructional programs and district resources. Could the cause of

this effect be connected to how the district resources are used? Or, could it be the influence of the social and economic

conditions of the communities and households where each of the students reside? The cause of this pattern of under-

achievement could also be a combination these factors and more.

Noguera & Wells (2011, p.16) pointed that there is substantial evidence that concentrated poverty in urban

neighborhoods, and the adverse social and economic conditions that typically accompany them, impact the

performance of a school in at least three important ways: (a) students’ academic and social supports outside of

school; (b) conditions that influence students’ health, safety, and well-being; and (c) conditions that influence

the ability of parents and schools to develop social capital.

Poverty influences the amount and quality of academic and social support students receive outside of school, at

home from parents and other relatives, or elsewhere.

Also, consider the fact that student demographics of both the comprehensive and magnet high schools are

similar. The overwhelming majority of the students in both types of high school reside in similar communities and

households. Are clues to the solution of this dilemma in mind-set, efforts, motivation and self-perception of the

students, parents and educators

87

Figure 5.05, State, District, Magnet and Comprehensive High School Comparison

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

State 83% 86% 88% 89% 90% 90% 91%

District 79% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85%

Magnet HS 94% 96% 94% 95% 95% 94% 94%

Comprehensive HS 67% 71% 67% 68% 72% 72% 73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

School Year

S TATE, DIS TRIC T, MAGN ET AN D C O MP REHEN S IVE HS

C O MPARIS ON

State District Magnet HS Comprehensive HS

88

Tables 5.06 and 5.07 outline the most recently available demographic data relating to 10 of 16 high

schools in the Newark Public Schools. A closer look at this summary data that was obtained from each of the

sample high school’s 2017 NJ School Performance Report via the New Jersey Department of Education (NJ

DOE) provide a description of each high school. The schools share some proportionate similarities in relation

to student to teacher ratios is twelve to one, teacher average years of experience and Economically

Disadvantaged.

However, there are significant differences in the total student enrollment, four-year graduation rates,

grade levels, absenteeism and the subgroups of Students with Disabilities and English Learners. In six of the

ten schools, the total student enrollment is less than 800. The smaller enrollment is more prevalent in the

magnet schools. The magnet high schools also educate students in grades 7th and 8th in addition to the

traditional grades 9th to 12th.

Both the comprehensive high schools feed from elementary schools throughout the city who share a

similar socio-economic background. But, the students are selected to attend magnet high schools based on

criteria from middle school grades, performance on standardized assessments, behaviour and an entrance

exam. This ability to screen and select the enrolment influences the quality of students that attend the magnet

high schools. The student four-year graduation rate in the comprehensive high schools average 72 %,

“needing improvement”, according to the state school performance criteria. In contrast to magnet high

schools, the four-year graduation rate average 93%, “showing progress” and exceed both the district and state

rates.

89

In this comparison analysis of both comprehensive and magnet high schools, the rate of chronic

absenteeism is astonishing. The average rate of chronic absenteeism in each of the high school “need

improvement”, the rate at the comprehensive high schools’ rate is 54 % and the magnet high school rate is

28%. Engaging in the practice of daily and prompt school attendance has a direct influence on learning,

achievement and the probability of successful high school and higher education completion. According to the

New Jersey of Department of Education (2017, July), Attendance is one of three Important Markers in the

rubric for Future Success. The two other Important Markers for Future Success are Active Participation and

Academic Independence. As described in the rubric, Attendance means “never absent”. Active Participation

means, “always prepared and engaged in the learning process”. Academic Independence means “consistently

demonstrating intellectual curiosity, self-motivation and independence”.

Twenty-five percent of more of the student enrolment in three of the ten high schools, Central (Five

Learning Academies), Malcom X Shabazz (Video game and App. Development) and (Allied Health

Sciences), educate Students with Disabilities. The student to teacher ratio at Barringer High School

(S.T.E.A.M Academy) and East Side (AP & Early College) is significantly different because both school

services the greatest population of English Learners.

90

Common and Unique Subgroup Challenges

The distinguishing factors that influence student graduation rates at the comprehensive and magnet

high schools can be correlated to the district’s practices to address chronic absenteeism and the developmental

needs of General Education students, Students with Disabilities and English Learners. In the district’s effort

to address the challenges that are common and unique to each of these student subgroups; curricula,

instruction and programs may need to be adapted, adjusted or modified by the educators to position each of

the Kindergarten through Twelfth grade students to consistently engage in each of the three Important

Markers for Future Success. This effort can occur across all Content areas and in each domain learning

(cognitive, emotional and social)

91

Table 5.06, 2017 NJ School Performance Report Summary for Selected Comprehensive High Schools

Comprehensive

high schools

(Educational

theme)

Total

students

Students

Graduating

4 yrs.

%

Chronic

Absenteeism

%

Student

to

teacher

ratio

Teacher

Avg.

Exp.

Economically

Disadvantaged

%

Students

With

Disabilities

%

English

Learners

%

1. Barringer

(S.T.E.A.M)

853

9-12

74

(needing

improvement)

52

(needing

improvement)

15:1 9 87 14 46

2. Central

(Five Learning

Academies)

856

9-12

76

(needing

improvement)

50

(needing

improvement)

11:1 13 76 25 8

3. East Side

(AP & Early

College)

1943

9-12

77

(needing

improvement)

41

(needing

improvement)

15:1 12 75 17 26

4. Malcom X

Shabazz

(Video game

and App.

Development)

418

9-12

61

(needing

improvement)

67

(needing

improvement)

9:1 12 64 31 1

5. Weequahic 270

9-12

74

(needing

improvement)

62

(needing

improvement)

9:1 18 68 26 1

Average 868 72

(needing

improvement)

54

(needing

improvement)

12 13 74 23 16

92

Table 5.07, 2017 NJ School Performance Report Summary for Selected Magnet High Schools

Magnet

high schools

(Educational

theme)

Total

students

Students

Graduating

4 yrs.

%

Chronic

Absenteeism

%

Student

to

teacher

ratio

Teacher

Avg.

Exp.

Economically

Disadvantaged

%

Students

With

Disabilities

%

English

Learners

%

6. American

History

(history and

social justice)

431

07-12

90

(showing

progress)

30

(needing

improvement)

12:1 12 78 14 1

7. Arts

(visual and

performing

arts)

680

07-12

90

(showing

progress)

27

(needing

improvement)

12:1 13 71 8 1

8. Science

Park

(sciences)

800

07-12

98

(excellent)

24

(needing

improvement)

12:1 13 68 5 0

9.

Technology

(technology)

611

09-12

95

(excellent)

18

(needing

improvement)

11:1 10 85 14 2

10.

University

(college

preparation)

538

07-12

94

(showing

progress)

40

(needing

improvement)

13:1 13 73 11 1

Average 612 93

(showing

progress)

30

(needing

improvement)

12:1 12 75 10 1

93

Governance

Governance and Instruction and Programs appear to be the two key areas that reflected ongoing

challenges. As the name implies, Governance is significant; because, it is required to maintain and develop

the quality of the education that is provided in the school district. The district operates based on decisions,

procedures and standards that have been established by the leadership.

Governance is gauged in terms of an aggregate of 51 sub-indicators that focus on the district board

policies that promote student achievement, district board training, disclosure and operation, ethics

compliance, district board policies procedures and by-laws, standard school board practices, annual evaluative

process, district board administration collaboration, district board budget priorities and district board

communications. These sub-indicators relating to the Governance indicator are evaluated, weighted, and

scored to determine a possible total score of 50.

In 2014, the score for Governance was 76%. In contrast to 2017, the score was 100%. In three years,

there was 24% increase. What has occurred in the district from 2012 to 2017 that would influence this change

that has led to the return to local control? Governance requires the on-going consideration of relevant and

reliable information that is associated with budgeting, curricula, instruction, parental involvement, personnel,

strategic planning, and student achievement. Governance is a transformational subsystem. It also directly

influences each of the other four performance indicators (Operations, Fiscal Management, Personnel and

Instruction and Programs) within the context of the open system that the organization (Newark Public

Schools) functions.

Following the Newark Public Schools earning a score of 88% in the domain of Governance in 2016,

the district and local school board developed and published a three-year strategic plan that outline

administrative goals and objective for the following three-years until 2019. The strategic plan was developed

with input from various members of the community.

94

The local school board members also completed professional develop courses to acquire Board

Certifications and demonstrated a restored commitment to work collaboratively with the district and school

level leadership. The school board also has established functioning committees and voted on resolutions in

the domains that have been restored to local control such as Operations, Fiscal Management and Personnel.

Legislation, litigation and the political environment provided the foundation that facilitated the district

reforms and changes in Governance.

Legislation and Litigation

Preceding and during the period of state control of the Newark Public Schools (NPS), there were substantial

state-wide laws, practices and rulings that influence the reform efforts to educate the students of Newark.

Although these events were followed by an economic recession, there influence on the Newark Public

Schools (NPS) resources are an integral part of the decision and process associated with state control of the

district. These events are briefly described below by Baker & Weber (2017, p. 2):

1. 1998 Abbott rulings, which led to a substantial infusion of funding into

Newark and other Abbott districts, including the introduction and expansion

of state-funded universal pre-k programs, a large infusion of funding for capital infrastructure, and

substantial infusion of general operating state aid. 2. The introduction and expansion of charter schooling and opening of what have become the state’s

and city’s most well-heeled operators, including: TEAM/KIPP Academy, North Star/Uncommon

Academy, and Robert Treat Academy.

3. The 2008 adoption of the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA), which initiated the scaling back of

funding to high-poverty urban districts including Newark, and, until the recession a few years

later, began distributing more aid to non-Abbott, high-poverty districts.

95

Political Environment

Prior to the return of the Newark Public Schools to local control, the “final word” in the district

Governance is in the order of the elected State Governor, State School Board, appointed Commissioner of

Education and State-Appointed Superintendent. The locally elected school board, mayor and collective

bargaining units serve in an advisory capacity at best.

Five state-appointed superintendents had direct influence on Governance from 1995 to 2017;

nonetheless, four of the five State-Appointed Superintendents moved the school board incrementally towards

regaining local control of the district. This fact was evident in the data from the beginning of the state-wide

bi-annual District Performance Review process in 2007 to the Newark Public Schools (NPS) 2017 return to

local control. In 2007, during the administration of the second State-Appointed Superintendent Marion

Bolden, the district gained control of certain Facility and Management Operations. Subsequently in 2014,

during the period when Cami Anderson served as the 4th State-Appointed Superintendent, the district gained

control of Financial Management.

Nonetheless, the most significant changes in the Newark Public Schools (NPS) bi-annual District

Performance Review scores occurred during the tenure of Governor Chris Christie and the two most recent

State-Appointed Superintendents, Cami Anderson (from 2011 to 2015) and Christopher Cerf (from 2015 to

2017). Preceding her arrival to Newark, Anderson was the superintendent of alternative schools that served

at-risk students in New York City. In addition to her appointment by the Governor Chris Christie, she was

also publicly endorsed at that time by the current Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf and Mayor

Corey Booker (Russakoff, 2015).

96

In the fall of 2010, prior to Anderson’s appointment, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook

pledged $100 million to Newark Public Schools (NPS) if Governor Chris Christie and Mayor Corey Booker

could raise matching funds from other philanthropic sources while appearing on the 'The Oprah Winfrey

Show' (Strunsky. 2017, September). This event set the stage for the State-Appointed Superintendent

Anderson to initiate district wide reforms in the fall of 2012. These reforms were a group of interventions

that focused on effecting changes from two perspectives that exist with-in schools and between schools

(Chin, Kane, Kozakowski, Schueler & Staiger 2017, October p. 2)

The reforms with-in schools included innovations to the new teacher contract (new performance

evaluation process and merit-pay), appointing new school level leadership, aligning the English

Language Arts and Math curricula to the Common Core Standards, and improving outcomes at

selected existing under-achieving schools by turning them around to become “renew schools”.

Complementing the with-in school reforms, the interventions focusing on reforms between schools

included school closures, the expansion of charter schools and a universal school choice plan via “One

Newark” that allowed parents to submit a single application for their child to attend “more effective”

district or local charter school.

While the State-Appointed Superintendent Anderson was initiating and establishing this reform

package from 2011 through 2015, community-based organizations and the locally elected advisory school

board organized and amplified their efforts to have the school district returned to local control. The

opposition vented their issues with state control, Anderson and her reform package in terms of student sit-ins,

rallies, debates and hearings. The protests were ongoing in a range of community and political forums at both

the local and state level. The forums included the district’s central office, monthly advisory board meetings,

State Board of Education meetings, the State Legislature Education sub-committee meetings and both the

mayoral (Ras Baraka) and gubernatorial (Chris Christie) elections.

97

Although the opposition and protest to Anderson and her initiatives was growing, her contract was

renewed in February of 2015. Education Commissioner David Hespe stated that, "Cami has worked

tirelessly to implement positive education reforms that have benefited Newark students and parents"

(Strunsky, 2017). However, in June of 2015, unceremoniously, she was no longer serving in that position.

The next month, she was replaced by the former Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf via a 6 to 4 vote

from the State Board of Education.

Christopher Cerf’s tenure as the State-Appointed Superintendent from 2015 to 2017 was at the

precipice of the transition from state to local control of the district. The point of view from his position can

provide clearer insight to the question of how the state takeover of the Newark Public Schools (NPS)

influenced the district and high school completion. In Moran (2018, February) Cerf shared a resonating

portion of the 50-page report that lead to the district takeover more than two decades ago.

Imagine that it's 1995, you live in Newark, and you can't afford to send your kids to private school.

In more than half of the public elementary schools, not a single 8 thgrader passed the state test on

academic competence. Putrid bathrooms lacked even toilet paper. The superintendent had 10

relatives on the payroll. Board members flew to Hawaii for conferences, and bought lavish meals at

home, with house accounts at 32 area restaurants.

But it's 1995 in Newark, and you have no choice: You must send your kids into that system.

The recent reforms that were implemented in-school and between schools by the administration

preceding Cerf affected improvements in each of the five District Performance Review standards. The reform

efforts in-schools and between schools influenced outcomes in the classroom, school buildings and

throughout the district. In the classroom, the student performance on 3rd - 8th grade the English Language Arts

and Math standardized assessments in similar New Jersey districts improved from 2010 to 2017. In the

interview with Moran (2018, February), Cerf highlighted student achievements in relation elementary school

standardized assessments and high school completions.

98

The 3rd - 8th grade district average English Language Arts the score were 44 % in 2010 and change to

81% in 2017. The 3rd - 8th grade district average Math the score were 33 % in 2010 and changed to 83

% in 2017. The graduation rate in 1995 was 54 % in contrast to 2017 where the graduation rate is 78

%.

At the school building level, ineffective principals were replaced, and tenure charges were successfully

brought against 15 percent of the instructional staff. Also, a performance evaluation system had been

reintroduced for instructional, non-instructional, support and administrative staff. Throughout the district,

approximately one out of three students are enrolled in a charter school. 11 of the worst schools were closed.

And, a contract was successfully negotiated with the collective bargaining units that represent each of the

various groups of instructional, non-instructional, support and school level administrative employees.

However, there was a deliberate effort by Cerf to acknowledge and reconcile the political discourse

and overt hostility within the city towards the state takeover and his predecessor to prevent the community

from undermining or dismantling the established reforms. In this predominant African-American and

Hispanic-American city, there were ongoing accusations of racism and a “plantation mentality” that was

exhibited by a group of mostly empowered white people from outside of the community who were bestowed

the charge of managing the schools for the Republican Governor Chris Christie. The local collective

bargaining unit representing teachers lobbied for a moratorium on the expansion of non-unionized charters

schools.

The charter school expansion is the extension of a plan from failed Wall Street hedge fund financier to

divert money from the public non-profit to the private for-profit sectors of our economy. "The state takeover

is no longer about a takeover," said Sen. Ron Rice (D-Essex). "It's about occupation, and so our schools

are really being occupied by folks who want to promulgate privatization" (Moran, 2018).

99

Upon his arrival to Newark, Cerf acknowledged the political challenges that were ahead of him.

He stated that, "I came here with the very specific goal of preserving the work, but having the work

become something the city owned and believed in, rather than something that needs to be reversed and

revenge exacted" (Moran, 2018). Unlike his predecessor, he worked towards realizing this vision by

regularly attending mayoral, district, charter school and community meetings. During these meetings he

was often treated with hostility and unflattering accusations; but these exchanges were used as a feedback

to create opportunities for building relationships with his opposition.

These relationships facilitated collaboration that led to progress in the journey towards the district

school advisory board re-acquiring local control of the public schools. In the summer of 2016, the State

Board of Education reviewed the Newark Public School’s performance, the district earned a score of 95% for

the standard of Personnel; and, hiring and firing authority was returned to the school advisory board. Also,

during the same period in the summer of 2016, both the Mayor, Baraka and Governor, Christie appointed a

9-member panel to research and draft the report, Path to Local Control.

This report estimated that complete local control could occur with-in 9 months during the 2017-18

school year. Then, during the following summer of 2017, the State Board of Education also returned

control of Instruction and programming to the authority of the school district advisory board.

100

In the later part of the summer of 2017, the State of New Jersey Board of Education voted to return

Governance of the Newark Public Schools to the school district advisory board after receiving the

District’s Performance Review from the State Education Commissioner Kimberly Harrington. "This is

really a historic moment," state-appointed Schools Superintendent Christopher Cerf said. "The Newark

public school students have indeed made great progress as reflected in virtually every measurable statistic

that one cares to look at " (Strunsky, 2017). Although the school district was officially under the authority

of the elected Newark Board of Education following the vote, Cerf remained in the position during the

transition period until late winter of 2018 and an interim superintendent was appointed.

The Quality Single Accountability Continuum is particularly relevant to the focus of this study in

relation to some fundamental questions that are associated with the duration and outcomes of the New Jersey

Department of Education (NJ DOE) takeover of the Newark Public Schools (NPS) district. Within the context

of the state takeover, the Quality Single Accountability Continuum is both a local district and State

self-assessment. Who is evaluating the New Jersey Department of Education (NJ DOE)? How can the New

Jersey Department of Education (NJ DOE) judge itself? From the initial District Performance Review, a

decade ago in 2007 to the Newark Public Schools return to the control of the locally elected school board in

2018, the district demonstrated incremental stages of progress in its efforts to address each of these five

indicators. Applying the lens of the district and State performance self-assessment of the five Quality

Performance Indicators in relation to the open system conceptual framework provides an insight to gauge

both the district’s reform and the student achievement outcomes in terms of high school graduation rates.

101

CHAPTER SIX

Analysis and synthesis of the case study associated with the takeover and return to local control of the

Newark Public Schools

Factors Contributing to the Reform and Repair of the Newark Public Schools

While under state control, Newark Public Schools has made significant progress in recent years. This

progress was most evident from 2011 to 2017 in the disaggregation of the data from the New Jersey Quality

Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) District Performance Review process. The progressive analysis

of the qualitative and quantitative data in four of five indicators associated with the District Performance

Review process illuminate the factors that led to the return to local control in 2018. The four performance

indicators were: Fiscal Management, Personnel, Instruction and Programs and Governance.

In Fiscal Management the district’s progress included: renegotiated health insurance costs, issued

school funding bonds, relocating the central office to a more cost-efficient space, selling 12 unused buildings

to city’s housing authority, increasing revenue by raising local taxes, advocating for mandated state funding

and renewed the 2012 contract for the district’s largest collective bargaining unit.

In the Personnel indicator, the district progressed can be gauged by the establishing state’s first

performance based collective bargaining agreement, adopting a teacher evaluation framework, reducing in

instructional vacancies and decentralizing staffing decisions by empowering principals to select effective

educators.

102

In relation to Instruction and Programs, the district’s progress is reflected in the 3rd – 11th grade

students’ performance on Reading and Math standardized assessments. There has also been a steady

improvement in the graduation rates.

In terms of Governance, the community stakeholders that include the district leadership, the local

school board and the city leadership have made a re-commitment to work collaboratively by planning,

participating in ongoing professional development, establishing functioning committees and voting on

resolutions that improve the operations of the district.

The application of the open-systems theory in this analysis of the Newark Public Schools (NPS)

presents an inductive and deductive prospective of the functions within the whole organization in terms of its

interrelated five functioning subsystems. The six interrelated subsystems include: input, transformation

process, outputs, feedback, organization and the environment. Together, the six subsystems function to

accomplish specific goals and objectives.

Reform and Repair of the Newark Public Schools Through Lens of the Open Systems Conceptual

Framework

Acquiring an understanding of the pattern of the interrelated six subsystems supports a lens to analyse

the causes and effects of the: (1) Inputs (Personnel and Fiscal management), (2) Transformation process

(Instruction and Programs, Operations and Governance), (3) Outputs (Graduation rates), (4) Feedback

(District Performance Review process), (5) Organization (Newark Public Schools) and (6) Environment

(Local, State and Federal mandates, funding, politics and demographics) of the school district.

103

Framed within the context of these six subsystems in Figure 6.01, the New Jersey Quality Single

Accountability Continuum District Performance Review process is an extension of a more refined lens that

educators, educational leaders, parents and politicians can use to evaluate, focus, refocus and direct efforts to

effect change in the Newark Public Schools. The results from this analysis provides a reliable resource of data

to inform, improve and change the practices within each of the five indicators that evaluate the performance

of the school district as it works towards achieving the fundamental objective of educating its students.

104

Figure 6.01, Open-Systems Framework in an Educational Organization

The Organization is the Newark Public

The external Environment refers to the influence of local, state and Federal mandates, funding,

politics and demographics forces on the organization.

The Organization is the Newark Public Schools.

Feedback is evident in the New Jersey Quality Single

Accountability Continuum District Performance Review

process

Inputs environmental resources are financial,

human, informational and physical.

• Personnel

• Fiscal management

Transformation Process refers to organization’s

internal operations and operational management.

• Instruction and Programs

• Operations

• Governance

Outputs are gauged in terms of products, results,

outcomes, or accomplishments of the system.

• Student achievement

• Graduation rates

105

The Process of Change in the Context of Reform and the Return to Local Control

Fullan (2001) quoted Sarason (1971) to emphasize a common prospective that relates to change as it

occurs at the district level. “Often proposed changes within a district are intended to affect all or most of the

schools. It assumes that change is an improvement of the status quo that should expand quickly and influence

many.” This common reality describes the challenges to take over and turn-around urban public-school

districts throughout the United States. As in this case study of the Newark Public School, educational changes

in the operations and student achievement in this district have been progressive and in stages.

Acquiring an understanding of the evolving complexities associated with the process and scope of

change in urban public education facilitates the ongoing development of the thinking and practices of the

leadership and stakeholders who serve in these communities. The depth of this acquired understanding

influences the efforts of the leadership and stakeholders to effect organizational change at the district, school

and classroom levels. Fullan (2004, p.43) describes five characteristics of change that frames the construct of

the complex process associated with organizational change:

1. Change is rapid and nonlinear, which creates messiness. It offers great potential for creative

breakthroughs. The paradox is that transformation would not be possible without messiness.

2. Most change occurs within an organization in response to disturbances in the system’s external

or internal environment. Immediate and reflexive responses to the disturbance are often unmanaged

and can lead to other problems. Also, attempts to “manage” change can cause problems as well.

3. Irrational factors in organizations include strategy and operations that are not well integrated;

different individual idiosyncrasies, approaches, and problems; friendships and animosities that affect

the functioning of subsystems; and political factors such as power and authority, protection of turf and

competition for resources.

4. Key stakeholders and the organizational culture are primary considerations in organizational

change.

5. Change cannot be “managed” (controlled). It can be understood and perhaps led.

106

In education, an understanding of the process of change is essential to program implementation and

innovation. Fullan (1993) argued, “It is probably closer to the truth to say the main problem in public

education is not resistance to change, but the presence of too many innovations mandated or adopted

uncritically and superficially on an ad hoc fragmented basis”. The successful implementation of ideas thrives

on abundant opportunity for dialogue that encourages educators to evaluate the curricula, practices and

programs that influence student achievement. This dialogue will more than likely involve conflict as in

events that occurred before, during and at the close of the state takeover. If we think of conflict in terms of

“conflict with civility”, then it is not only healthy, but a necessary ingredient in district and school level

development that characterizes the scope of change.

To define the scope of the change, planning must reflect the anticipation of possible challenges that

precede implementation of the idea such as if, when, how to start, and what conditions must be established

prior to the start. The scope and process of change have a complementary relationship that begins with the

idea’s initiation and is followed up by its implementation. This relationship is based on conditions that are

determined by organizational priorities. District and school takeovers and reform efforts are examples of this

process.

The prospect of current significant political or social opposition supports the approach of establishing

and implementing policies before, during or after the reform. Then, implementation can subsequently occur

to yield results based on the rule of law, incentives, sanctions, and new initiators to produce future outcomes

from an open system. This construct is acutely evident in the analysis of Fiscal Management, Operations,

Personnel, Governance and Instruction and Program domains that are associated with the Newark Public

Schools’ District Performance Review process.

107

The changes can be characterized as evolutionary. It is influenced by the environment, inputs, the

transformational processes and the resulting outputs. In this open system of urban public education, the

environment (politics, human and financial resources) dictate the reality of the planning, preparation,

implementation, and continuity of the change process. The district and school level reform strategies to effect

change were adopted and implemented to target specific changes yielded results.

However, as the organization operating in this environment, the district and its schools changed to

survive in response to the feedback. In this instance, the conceptual theories that characterize organizational

change within education can be applied to assist the participants (educators, school leaders, district leaders,

the advisory board and city officials) with more clearly understanding the content (what) and the processes

(how) of change to inform organizational decisions and practices that lead to growth and development. Both

growth and development are synonymous with sustained organizational change.

108

CHAPTER SEVEN

Conclusion

Takeover, Reform and Repair of the Newark Public Schools

After more than two decades of state control, the interventions to reform the district’s operations and

student achievement in terms of high school graduation rates have been steady and most impactful from 2011

to 2017. Following the district’s return to local control in 2018, there is room for all the stakeholders in the

Newark Public Schools (NPS) and community for greater progress. The stakeholders include the: students,

parents, educators, school leadership, district leadership, board of education and city officials.

This effort begins with collective and individual reflection that is based on evidentiary facts and

candour that was described in the 2017 local control transition plans that were published by the New Jersey

Department of Education (NJ DOE) and the Newark Education Success Board report. Gauging the districts

operation and patterns of student achievement from the perspective of assessing only its deficits in relation to

weaknesses undermines any efforts to affect change. The paradigm of the stakeholders must shift to embrace

the district’s strength and incremental achievements to position the district for sustained growth and

development.

After the return to local control

Although the Newark Public Schools has been returned to local control at the beginning of 2018, the

State of New Jersey Department of Education developed, supported and monitored a two-year prescriptive

plan for the district. This plan was drafted in collaboration with the school advisory board, district leadership

and city officials. The plan includes safety measures and a timeline with specific objectives to maintain the

current improvements and prevent the district from regressing in its efforts to progress and return to the

conditions that led to the state takeover.

109

The objectives in this plan will focus on the areas of: Governance, Curriculum, Instruction and

Programs, Talent Development, Family and Community Engagement and Finance. The over-all intent of this

two-year plan is to ensure the current improvements will continue and benefit the students for decades into

the future. Considering this conditional return to local control, insight from an extended case study that focus

on this two-year period would benefit the Newark Public Schools (NPS) and similar urban school districts.

This extended case-study could examine the efforts of the district’s leadership, local school board’s and city

officials during this period to meet each of the focus area objectives and the influenced of these efforts on the

students, schools and district.

110

References

Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1999). Mental health in schools and system restructuring.

Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 137-163.

Ahrweiler, P. (2011). Innovation in complex social systems. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Amparbin, K. A. (April 2017). From 2010 to 2018, has the State control reformed, repaired, or impaired

student achievement in terms of high school graduation rates in the Newark Public Schools?

University of Calgary: Alberta, Canada.

Amparbin, K. A. (May 2017) Change and the evolution of education reform. Alberta, Canada: University of

Calgary.

Anderson, J. D. (November 2004). The historical context for understanding the test score gap. Unpublished

paper distributed at the Mississippi State Conference on Dismantling the Achievement Gap: A

Gathering of the Stakeholders to Assess Where We Have Been, Where We Are, and to Determine

Where We Need to Go, Itta Bena, MS.

Anfara Jr., V. A. & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Theoretical framework in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, Ca:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Armstrong, T. (2006). The Best schools. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Aragon, S. & Workman, E. (2015, October). Emerging State turnaround strategies. Education Trends. Denver, Co:

Education Commission of the States.

111

Baker, B. D. & Weber, M. (2017, December). Ap p e n d i c e s f o r NEPC Review: School District Reform

in Newark (National Bureau of Economic Research, October 2017) and Impact of the Newark

Education Reforms (Center for Education Policy Research, Harvard University, September 2017).

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Retrieved on January 12th from https://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-newark-reform

Banathy, B. H. (1991). Systems design of education: A journey to create the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Educational Technology Publication.

Barnum, M. (2018). Hostile Takeover. Education Digest, 84(4), 55–61.

Bartolomé, L. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational

Review, 64, 7–22.

Barton, P., & Coley, R. (2010). The black-white achievement gap: When progress

stopped. Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service.

Betts, F. (November 1992). How Systems Thinking Applies to Education. Educational Leadership:

Improving School Quality, 50(3), 38-41.

Black, S. (2008). The Takeover Threat. American School Board Journal, 195(1), 34–35.

Blanc, S., Christman, J., Gill, B., & Zimmer. R. (2007). State takeover, school restructuring, private

management, and student achievement in Philadelphia. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Bloomberg, L.D. & Volpe, M. Completing your qualitative dissertation: a road map from beginning to End

(2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications, Inc.

112

Bowles, S. A., Churchill, A. M., Effrat, A. & McDermott, K. A. (2002). School and district intervention: A

Decision-Making framework for policymakers. Amherst, MA: Massachusetts University, Center for

Education Policy.

Brayboy, B., Cozart, S. Jennings, M. E. & Noblit, G. W. (2007) Educational Foundations, Summer- Fall

2007. Accountability and abdication: School reform and urban school districts in the era of

accountability.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools

for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Burke, W. W. (2002). Organizational change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Burns, P. (2010). Race and support for state takeovers of local school districts.

Urban Education, 45(3),274–292.

Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1997). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Burlington, VT:

Ashgate Publishing Company.

Calabrese, R.L. (2006). The Elements of an effective dissertation & thesis: A Step-by-step guide to getting it

right the first time. Lanham, Maryland: Rowan and Littlefield.

Carnegie Forum on Education and Economy (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the twenty first century.

New York: Report on the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession.

113

Castellanos, P., Vernotica, G., & Vliet, N. (December 17th, 2008). New Jersey quality single accountability

continuum (NJQSAC). Power Point presented at the 2008 workshop on the New Jersey quality single

accountability continuum.

Center on Reinventing Public Education. (2018). Citywide Education Progress Report: Philadelphia.

Retrieved on January 5th, 2019 from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED586304&site=ehost-live

Charters, W. & Jones, J. (1973). On the neglect of independent variable in program evaluation. Unpublished

paper. Eugene: University of Oregon.

Chin, M.J., Kane, T.J., Kozakowski, W., Schueler, B.E. & Staiger, D.O. (2017, October). School District

Reform in Newark: Within-and Between-School Changes in Achievement Growth. Cambridge, MA:

National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 23922

Cohen, L., Manion, L.& Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & Yonk, R. (1966).

Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and

Welfare, Office of Education.

Common Core State Standards Initiative (2019). Frequently Asked Questions.

Retrieved September 1st, 2019 from

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/frequently-asked-questions/

114

Cooke-Harvey, C.M., Darling-Hammond, L., Lam, L., Mercer, Roc, M. (2016, November) Equity and the

ESSA: Leveraging educational opportunity through Every Student Succeeds Act. Learning Policy

Institute. Retrieved September 1st, 2019 from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/equity-essa-

report

Corbin, Juliet M. and Straus, Anselm (1998) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and

techniques. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.

Cordiero, P. A. & Cunningham, W. G. (2000). Educational administration: a problem-based approach.

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Craib, I. (1992). Modern social theory: from Parsons to Habermas (2nd ed.). NY, NY: St. Martin’s Press Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2012) Educational research: planning conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative

research (4th ed.). India. Pearson Education Inc.

Crotty, M. (2003). The Foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process.

Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.

Cuban, L. & Usdan, M. (2003). “What Happened in the six cities?” In Larry Cuban & Michael Usban (Eds.),

Power Reforms with shallow roots: Improving America’s Urban Schools (pp. 147 – 170). NY, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Cunningham, William G. & Cordiero, P. A. (2000). Educational administration: a problem-based approach.

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

115

Darling-Hammond, L., Bae, S., Cooke-Harvey, C.M., Lam, L., Mercer, C., Podolsky, A. & Stosich, E.L.

(2016, April) Pathways to new accountability through Every Student Succeeds Act. Learning Policy

Institute.

Retrieved September 1st, 2019 from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-

files/Pathways_New-Accountability_Through_Every_Student_Succeeds_Act_04202016.pdf

Datnow, S.L. & Springfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for

Students Placed at Risk, 5(1&2), 183-204.

Deming, D.J., Goodman, J. & Schueler, B.E. (2016). Can States Take Over and Turn Around School

Districts? Evidence from Lawrence, Massachusetts, Working Paper No. 21895. Cambridge,

MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

DeArmond, M., Denice, P. Gross, B., Hernandez, J., Lake, R. & Jochim, A. (2015, October). Measuring up:

Educational improvement and opportunity in 50 states. Center on Reinventing Public Education.

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/measuringup_10.2015_0.pdf

District Performance Review, Appendix to N.J.A.C. 6A: 30 Quality Assurance Annual Review (QAAR),

N.J.A.C. 6A: 32-12.1

Dr. William L. Libera Commissioner of Education. (2005, June 15). Designation of Abbott Districts: Criteria

and Process.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989, October). Building Theories from Case Study Research

The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4. 532 - 550.

Eglinton, W. M., Gratz, D.B. Ph.D., & Slotnick, W.J. (2000, May).

Myths and Realities: The impact of the State Takeover on the schools in Newark. Boston, Mass:

Community Training and Assistance Center.

116

Fullan, M. (1993). Innovations, reforms, and restructuring strategies. In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Challenges and

achievement of American education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: the sequel. Philadelphia, Pa.: Flamer Press/Taylor & Francis Inc.

Fullan, M. (2000, June). Infrastructure is all. London Times Education Supplement, 19, p. 15.

Fullan, M. (2001). The New meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). NY, NY: Teacher College Press.

Fullan, M. (2003). The Moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (2004). Leading in a culture of change: Personal action guide and workbook. San Francisco, Ca:

Josey-Bass.

Garda, R. (2011). The politics of education reform: Lessons from New Orleans. Journal of Law & Education,

40(1), 57–104.

Glazer, J. L., & Egan, C. (2018). The ties that bind: Building civic capacity for the Tennessee achievement

school district. American Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 928-964.

Gorard, S. (2001). Quantitative methods in educational research: The Role of numbers made easy. New York,

NY: Continuum.

Gorton, R. & Snowden, P. (1997). School leadership and administration (5th Ed.) Madison, WI: WCB Brown

and Benchmark.

Green, P. C. III & OLuwole, J. O. (2009). State takeover of school districts: Race and the equal protection

clause. Indiana Law Review pp 343-408. Vol. 42:343.

Guba, Egon G., and Yvonne s. Lincoln ed. (1990). “Can There Be a Human Science?” Person-Centered

Review 5 (2): 130 - 54.

Hare, A. (1999). Exploring the effectiveness of non-profit organizations encouraging education reform: A

case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

117

Henig, J. R., Hula, R. C., Orr, M., & Pedescleaux, D. S. (2001). The color of school reform: Race, politics,

and the challenge of urban education. Princeton University Press

Herzberg, F. (2009). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Boston, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.

Hespe, D. (2015, July). Newark School District Quality Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC) district

performance review (DPR). Trenton, NJ: Department of Education.

Hess, F. (1999). Spinning wheels: The unpolitic of urban school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings

Institute.

Heists, G. D. & Lang, G. (1994). A Practical guide to research methods (5th ed.). Lanham, Maryland:

University Press of America.

Hilgenbeger, N. (1993, September). Johann Friedrich Herbart. Prospects 23, 649–664.

Hirsch, L. (2006, Spring). The Abbott Districts in 2005-06 progress and challenges: Abbott indicator

project. Newark, NJ: Education Law Center.

Holzer, M., Liss, B., Miller, J., Sadovnik, A. & Trachtenberg, P.L. (2002). Developing a plan for

reestablishing local control. Newark, NJ: Rutgers Law School - Institute on Education Law & Policy.

Huberman, A.M., Miles, M. B. & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications, Inc.

Institute on Education Law & Policy. (2002, May). 50 State Report on Accountability, State Intervention, and

Takeover. Newark, NJ: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey - Institute on Education Law &

Policy.

Institute on Education Law and Policy. (2007, May). QSAC New Jersey Quality Single Accountability

Continuum a Guide for School Officials and the Public.

Newark, NJ: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey - Institute on Education Law & Policy.

118

Jencks, C. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in

America. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution

Press.

Jochim, A. E. & Hill, P.T. (2016, August) Street-Savvy School Reform, Education Next.

Jochim, A. (2016, November). Measures of Last Resort: Assessing Strategies for State-Initiated Turnarounds.

Linking State and Local School Improvement. Center on Reinventing Public Education.

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from https://www.crpe.org/publications/measures-last-resort

Jochim, A. & Opalka, A. (2017, April). The City of Firsts Charts a New Path on Turnaround. Linking State

and Local School Improvement. Center on Reinventing Public Education.

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/crpe-city-firsts.pdf

Kaplan, A. (1973) The Conduct of inquiry. Aylesbury: Intertext Books.

Karp, S. (2005). The Trouble with Takeovers. Educational Leadership, Vol. 62, Issue 5.

Katz, D., and R. L. Kahn. (1969). “Common Characteristics of Open Systems.” In Systems Thinking, edited

by F. E. Emery. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books Ltd.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed). New York: Wiley.

Kilmann, R. (1989, October). A completely integrated program for creating and maintaining organizational

success. Organizational Dynamics, 5-19.

Kool, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools (1st ed.). NY, NY: Crown Publishing.

Klute, M.M. (2016). State Policies for Intervening in Chronically Low-Performing Schools: A 50-State Scan.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences.

LaGuardia, Armando, and Arthur Pearl. (2009). Necessary Educational Reform for the 2lst Century: The

Future of Public Schools in our Democracy. Urban Review 41: 352-368.

119

Lattimer, P.E. & Schoyners, D. (2006, October). New Jersey quality single accountability continuum

(NJQSAC). Power Point presented to the New Jersey School Board Association.

Lashaw, A. (2010). The radical promise of reformist zeal: What makes inquiry for equity plausible?

Anthropology and Education, 41, 323-340.

Layton, L. (2016, February). GOP-led states increasingly taking control from local school boards. The

Washington Post.

Liethwood, K., Milford, W. & Silins, H. (2004). Educational leadership for organizational learning and

improved student outcomes. Toronto, Canada: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lunenburg, F. C. & Ornstein, A. C. (1991). Educational administration: Concepts and

practices. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). Schooling: volume 1, number 1, Schools as open systems. Sam Houston State

University. Huntsville, Texas.

The Leadership Conference (n.d.). Brown v. Board of Education.

Maslow, A. H. (1998). Maslow on management. New York, NY: Wiley.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage

Publications.

Marx, G. (2006). Future focused leadership: Preparing schools, students, and communities for tomorrow’s

realities. Alexandria, Va: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action? Alexandria, Va: Association

of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mascarenhas, R. & Calefati. J. (2010, December). Three N.J. districts struggle to regain control of schools

from state despite problematic statute. Star-Ledger Staff.

120

Mason, M., & Arsen, D. (2014). Michigan's education achievement authority and the future of public

education in Detroit: The challenge of aligning policy design and policy goals (Working Paper #43).

East Lansing, MI: The Education Policy Center at Michigan State University.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An Interactive Approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Mazzola, J. (2017, June). 5 trends that Newark leaders say show schools are turning a corner. Retrieved January

13th, 2019 from

https://www.nj.com/essex/2017/06/7_graduation_statistics_that_newark_leaders_say_sh.html

McDougall, D., Saunders, W. S., & Goldenberg, C. (2007, March) Inside the black box of school reform:

Explaining the how and why of change at getting results schools. International Journal of Disability,

Development, and Education. Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 51–89.

McLaughlin, M. W. & Shepard, L. A. (1995). Improving Education through Standards-Based Reform. A

Report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform. Stanford,

CA: National Academy of Education, Stanford University.

McLesky, J. & Waldron, N.L. (2006). Comprehensive school reform and inclusive schools. Theory into

practice, 45(3), pp. 269–278.

Merriam, S.B. (1998) Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed.)

Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications, Inc.

Mitchell, C. (2016). Governing Urban Schools in the Future. Education Week, 35(18), 5.

Retrieved January 19th, 2019 from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=112411416&site=ehost-live

121

Mooney, J. (2013, July). Appeals court upholds state control of Newark Schools. NJSPOTLIGHT.

Mooney, J. (2014, May). Explainer: State Control of Local School Districts Comes Under Fire in Third

Decade.

Moran, T. (2018, February) In Newark, Chris Cerf's diplomacy protects solid classroom gains.

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from https://www.nj.com/opinion/2018/02/for_newark_students.html

Morel, D. (2018). Takeover: Race, Education and American Democracy. Oxford University Press: NY.NY.

Murillo, E. (2002). Reform by shame: Managing the stigma of labels in high stakes testing. Educational

Foundations,16(2), 93-108.

Murphy, J. (1990). The educational reform movement in the 1980’s. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The reform of

American public education in the 1980’s: Perspectives and cases. Berkley, Ca.: McCutchan.

Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York, New York:

Teachers College Press.

National Center for Educational Statistics. Public High School Graduation Rates

Retrieved on January 12th, 2019 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_coi.asp

National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational

reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Governors Association (1986). Time for results. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.

National Science Board (1983). Educating Americans for the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: National

Science Foundation.

Newark Education Success Board Report (August 2016). Pathway to local control.

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from https://issuu.com/cityofnewark/docs/nesb_report-printfinalis

Newark Public Schools Detailed School Summaries

Retrieved January 5 t h , 2019 from

http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/departments/data-research/school-summaries/

122

Newark Public Schools (2018, January 24th). Newark school progress data

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from

https://www.nps.k12.nj.us/mdocs-posts/newark-school-progress-data-01-24-2018/

Newark Public Schools (2018, January 31st) Newark Public Schools Begins Official Transition to Local

Control. Retrieved January 12th, 2019 from

http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/press-releases/newark-public-schools-begins-official-transition-local-

control/

Newark QSAC Appeal, No A6302 – 10 (NJ Superior Court Appellate Division. July 8th, 2013)

New Jersey Constitution, Article 8, section 4, paragraph 1(1875).

New Jersey Department of Education. (1994, July). Comprehensive Compliance Investigation of the Newark

School District Executive Summary. Trenton, New Jersey: Author.

New Jersey Department of Education. (2015, June). Newark School District Quality Single Accountability

Continuum District Performance Review. Trenton, New Jersey: Author.

New Jersey Department of Education Division of Field Services. (2019, August). New Jersey Quality Single

Accountability (NJ QSAC) user manual. Trenton, New Jersey: Author.

N.J.A.C. 6A:30. Administrative code for the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum.

N.J.S.A. 18A:7A-10. Quality Single Accountability Continuum regulations; evaluation of the performance of

school districts. Effective February 2005.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 34. Creation of school district under full State intervention upon determination of failure

of local school district. January 13, 1988. Amended by L. 2005.

New Jersey Department of Education (2012). Guide to the NJ Teach Act. Retrieved September 1 s t ,

2019 from https://www.cgschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/TeachNJ -

Guide.pdf

123

New Jersey of Department of Education (2017, July). Sample Rubric for Important Markers for Future

Success

Retrieved January 5 t h , 2019 from

https:/ /www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/ SampleRubricForImportantMarkers

OfFutureSuccess.pdf

New Jersey Department of Education. NJDOE School Performance Reports

Retrieved January 5 t h , 2019 from https://rc.doe.state.nj .us/Sea rchForSchool.aspx

New Jersey Department of Education. NJ high school graduation requirements

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from https://www.state.nj.us/education/news/2009/0220req.htm

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A -10. New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum; evaluation of performance of

each district. Effective January 13, 2008.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 11. Progress reports; assessment of quality performance indicators; report to

commissioner. Effective January 24, 2007.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 14. Commissioner evaluation of progress reports; recognition as a high performing

district; improvement plan where certain key indicators unmet; in-depth evaluation of performance

and capacity; state intervention. Effective January 24, 2007.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 14a. Legislative findings and declarations; quality education programs for all children.

Effective January 13, 2008.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7E-3. Report card information; the school district and for each school within the district.

Effective 2014.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 15. Order to show cause; full State Intervention; State district superintendent; technical

assistance in implementing improvement plan. Effective January 24, 2007.

124

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 15.1. Authority of State board; appointment of additional district board members;

creation of school district under full State intervention; appointment of State district superintendent of

schools. Effective January 24, 2007.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 34. Creation of school district under full State intervention upon determination of failure

of local school district. January 13, 1988. Amended by L. 2005.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 35. State district superintendent of schools; conduct and supervision of schools in district

under full State intervention; selection of new superintendent or retention of existing superintendent;

appointment term; salary; powers and duties. January 24, 2007.

N.J.S.A. 18A:6-117. Teacher Effectiveness and Accountability for the Children of New Jersey (TEACHNJ)

Act. August 2012.

Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American Dream: reclaiming the promise of public education. New

York, NY: Teacher College Pres.

Norlin, J. M. (2009). Human behaviour and the social environment: Social systems theory. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Peck, C. & Reitzug, U.C. School Turnaround Fever: The Paradoxes of a Historical Practice Promoted as a

New Reform, Urban Education 49, no. 1 (2014): 8–38.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

Reeves, D. B. (2002). The Daily disciplines of leadership. San-Francisco, Ca: Josey-Bass

Reichardt, C.S. and Cook, T.D. (1979). “Beyond Qualitative Versus Quantitative Methods.” In T.D. Cook

and C.S. Reichardt (eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Thousand

Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications, Inc.

125

Reynolds, P. D. (1979) Ethical Dilemmas and Social Science Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Rhine, J. (2009, March). What is grounded theory. Grounded Theory Institute.

Rowntree, D. (2004). Statistics without tears: A Primer for non-mathematicians. Boston, MA: Alyn and

Bacon Classics.

Russakoff, D. (2015). The prize: Who's in charge of America's schools? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Sarason, S. (1971). The culture of school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sarason, S. B., & Doris, J. (1990). Educational handicap, public policy, and social history. New York: Free

Press.

Schomoker, M. (1999). Results: The Key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, Va:

Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Scott, R. W. (2008). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1990). Value added leadership. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Shen, F. X. & Wong, K. K. (2001). Does school district takeover work? Assessing the

effectiveness of city and state takeover as a school reform strategy. Philadelphia, PA.: Mid-Atlantic

Lab for Student Success.

Shen, F.X. & Wong, K.K. (2013). Mayoral Governance and Student Achievement: How Mayor-Led Districts

Are Improving School and Student Performance. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Shen, F.X., Morel, D, and Wong, K.K. (2018). Takeover: Race, Education and American Democracy.

Oxford University Press: NY.NY.

Shweder, R.A. (Ed.). (1980) Fallible judgement in behavioural research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

126

Smith, N. & Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2012). The Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the

Buckeye State. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Retrieved January 12th, 2019 from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED528943&site=ehost-live

Smith, N. (2015) Redefining the School District in America. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Soy, Susan K. (1997). The case study as a research method. Unpublished paper, University of Texas at

Austin.

Steiner, L. (2005). State takeover of individual schools. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive

School Reform and Improvement.

Strauss, Anselm & Juliet Corbin. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for

Developing Grounded Theory (2d. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strunk, W. & White, E.B. (2000). The Elements of style (4th ed.). Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.

Strunsky, S. (2017, September). 22 years of state control over Newark schools: A Timeline

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from

https://www.nj.com/essex/2017/09/timeline_22_years_of_st ate_control_of_newark_sch

oo.html

Symons, M. Gannett Trenton Bureau 2:22 p.m. EDT March 26, 2013. Results of New Jersey school

takeovers mixed.

Tellis, W. (1997, September). Application of a Case Study Methodology. The Qualitative Report, Volume 3,

Number 3.

127

The Alliance for the Newark Public Schools (December 2014). An Analysis of the effectiveness of conversion

of eight Newark, New Jersey public elementary schools into renew schools as measured by school-

wide student pass rates on the LAL and Math sections of the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and

Knowledge (NJ ASK) test. Newark, NJ: Author.

The Alliance to Reclaim our Schools. (2015, August). Out of Control: The Systematic Disenfranchisement of

African America and Latino Communities Through School Takeovers.

The History of Abbott v. Burke. Education Law Center.

The Leadership Conference (n.d.). Brown v. Board of Education.

The New Jersey Department of Education (July 1994). Comprehensive compliance investigation of the

Newark School District executive summary.

State of New Jersey Department of Education. (2016, November). Newark School District Quality Single

Accountability Continuum district performance review. Trenton, NJ: State of New Jersey Department

of Education.

State of New Jersey Department of Education. (from 2007 to 2017). Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates.

Retrieved January 13th, 2019 from https://www.state.nj.us/education/data/grate/

State of New Jersey Department of Education (2019). New Jersey Student Learning Standards.

Retrieved September 1st, 2019 from https://www.nj.gov/education/cccs/

Strunsky, S. (2017, September) 22 years of state control over Newark schools: A Timeline.

Retrieved January 13th, 2019 from

https://www.nj.com/essex/2017/09/timeline_22_years_of_state_control_of_newark_schoo.html

Trachtenberg, P. (2013, December). A Tale of two deeply divided NJ Public School Systems.

128

Trachtenberg, P.L., Holzer, M., Miller, J., Sadovnik, A. & Liss, B. (2002). Developing a plan for

reestablishing local control. Newark, NJ: Rutgers Law School- Institute on Education Law & Policy.

Turabian, K. L. (2007). A Manual for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations (7th ed.).

Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

United States Courts. (nd). History - Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of general system theory. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 1,

134-165.

Welsh, R., Williams, S., Little, S & Graham, J. (2017). Right cause, wrong method? Examining the politics of

state takeover in Georgia. Urban Affairs Review.

Welsh, R. O., & Williams, S. M. (2018). Incentivizing Improvement or Imposition? An Examination of the

Response to Gubernatorial School Takeover and State-wide Turnaround Districts. Education Policy

Analysis Archives, 26 (124). Retrieved January 13th from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1193685&site=ehost-live

Williams, A. (2005, June). Class, Race, and Power: Interest Group

Politics and Education. The Urban Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, June 2005.

Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Yin, R. (2005). Introducing the world of education: A Case study reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Yin, R. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

129

Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalization.

Alexandria, Va: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Newark Public Schools Office of Data, Assessment and Educational Technology (2017, October).

NPS High School Graduation Outcome 2017 Cohort. Retrieved January 19th, 2019 from

https://www.nps.k12.nj.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2017-Cohort-Graduation-Outcome.pdf

Newark QSAC Appeal, No A6302 – 10 (NJ Superior Court Appellate Division. July 8th, 2013)

New Jersey Constitution, Article 8, section 4, paragraph 1(1875).

New Jersey Department of Education (1994, July). Comprehensive Compliance Investigation of the Newark

School District Executive Summary. Trenton, New Jersey: Author.

New Jersey Department of Education. (June). Newark School District Quality Single Accountability

Continuum District Performance Review. Trenton, New Jersey: Author.

New Jersey Department of Education. (1996-2019). Data and Report.

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from https://www.state.nj.us/education/data/

New Jersey Department of Education. NJ School Performance Report.

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from https://rc.doe.state.nj.us/SearchForSchool.aspx

New Jersey high school graduation requirements

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from https://www.nj.gov/education/cccs/grad.pdf

NJDOE School Performance Reports. Retrieved January 5 t h , 2019 from

https:/ /rc.doe.state.nj.us/SearchForSchool.aspx

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 11. Progress reports; assessment of quality performance indicators; report to

commissioner. Effective January 24, 2007.

130

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 14. Commissioner evaluation of progress reports; recognition as a high performing

district; improvement plan where certain key indicators unmet; in-depth evaluation of performance

and capacity; state intervention. Effective January 24, 2007.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 14a. Legislative findings and declarations; quality education programs for all children.

Effective January 13, 2008.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7E-3. Report card information; the school district and for each school within the district.

Effective 2014.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 15. Order to show cause; full State Intervention; State district superintendent; technical

assistance in implementing improvement plan. Effective January 24, 2007.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 15.1. Authority of State board; appointment of additional district board members;

creation of school district under full State intervention; appointment of State district superintendent of

schools. Effective January 24, 2007.

N.J.S.A. 18A: 7A – 35. State district superintendent of schools; conduct and supervision of schools in district

under full State intervention; selection of new superintendent or retention of existing superintendent;

appointment term; salary; powers and duties. Effective January 24, 2007.

Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American Dream: reclaiming the promise of public education. New

York, NY: Teacher College Pres.

Noguera, P. A. & Wells, L. (2011, January). The Politics of School Reform: A Broader and Bolder Approach

for Newark. Berkeley Review of Education, 2(1).

Retrieved January 19th, 2019 from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9mj097nv

Norlin, J. M. (2009). Human behaviour and the social environment: Social systems theory. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.

131

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Payne, C. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban

schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Peck, C. & Reitzel, U.C. School Turnaround Fever: The Paradoxes of a Historical Practice Promoted as a

New Reform, Urban Education 49, no. 1 (2014): 8–38.

Perry, T., Steele, C., & Hilliard, A., III. (2003). Young, gifted and Black: Promoting high

achievement among African American students. Boston: Beacon.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

Reeves, D. B. (2002). The Daily disciplines of leadership. San-Francisco, Ca: Josey-Bass

Reichardt, C.S. and Cook, T.D. (1979). Beyond Qualitative Versus Quantitative Methods. In T.D. Cook and

C.S. Reichardt (eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Thousand Oaks,

Ca: Sage Publications, Inc.

Reynolds, P. D. (1979) Ethical Dilemmas and Social Science Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Rhine, J. (2009, March 16th). What is grounded theory. Grounded Theory Institute.

Retrieved August 1st, 2014 from http://www.groundedtheory.com/what-is-gt.aspx

Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the

black-white achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Rowntree, D. (2004). Statistics without tears: A Primer for non-mathematicians. Boston, MA: Alyn and

Bacon Classics.

Rushkoff, D. (2015). The prize: Who's in charge of America's schools? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

State of New Jersey Department of Education. Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates.

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from https://www.state.nj.us/education/data/grate/

132

Sarasin, S. (1971). The culture of school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sarason, S. B., & Doris, J. (1990). Educational handicap, public policy, and social history. New York: Free

Press.

Schomoker, M. (1999). Results: The Key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, Va:

Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Scott, R. W. (2008). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1990). Value added leadership. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Shen, F. X. & Wong, K. K. (2001). Does school district takeover work? Assessing the

effectiveness of city and state takeover as a school reform strategy. Philadelphia, PA.: Mid-Atlantic

Lab for Student Success.

Shen, F.X. & Wong, K.K. (2013). Mayoral Governance and Student Achievement: How Mayor-Led Districts

Are Improving School and Student Performance. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Shen, F.X., Morel, D, and Wong, K.K. (2018). Takeover: Race, Education and American Democracy.

Oxford University Press: NY.NY.

Shweder, R.A. (Ed.). (1980) Fallible judgement in behavioural research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, N. & Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2012). The Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the

Buckeye State. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Retrieved January 12th, 2019 from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED528943&site=ehost-live

Smith, N. (2015) Redefining the School District in America. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Soy, Susan K. (1997). The case study as a research method. Unpublished paper, University of Texas at

Austin.

133

State of New Jersey Department of Education. NJ Quality Single Accountability Continuum.

State of New Jersey Department of Education. Priority and Focus Schools

Steiner, L. (2005). State takeover of individual schools. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive

School Reform and Improvement.

Strauss, Anselm & Juliet Corbin. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for

Developing Grounded Theory (2d. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strunk, W. & White, E.B. (2000). The Elements of style (4th ed.). Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.

Strunsky, S. (2017, September). 22 years of state control over Newark schools: A Timeline

Retrieved January 5th, 2019 from

https://www.nj.com/essex/2017/09/timeline_22_years_of_state_control_of_newark_sch

oo.html

Symons, M. Gannett Trenton Bureau 2:22 p.m. EDT March 26, 2013. Results of New Jersey school

takeovers mixed.

Tellis, W. (1997, September). Application of a Case Study Methodology. The Qualitative Report, Volume 3,

Number 3.

The Alliance for the Newark Public Schools (December 2014). An Analysis of the effectiveness of conversion

of eight Newark, New Jersey public elementary schools into renew schools as measured by school-

wide student pass rates on the LAL and Math sections of the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and

Knowledge (NJ ASK) test. Newark, NJ: Author.

The Alliance to Reclaim our Schools. (2015, August). Out of Control: The Systematic Disenfranchisement of

African America and Latino Communities Through School Takeovers.

The History of Abbott v. Burke. Education Law Center.

The Leadership Conference (n.d.). Brown v. Board of Education.

134

The New Jersey Department of Education (1994, July). Comprehensive compliance investigation of the

Newark School District executive summary.

State of New Jersey Department of Education (2017, December). Transition Plan for the Return of Local

Control to Newark Public School.

State of New Jersey Department of Education. (2016, November). Newark School District Quality Single

Accountability Continuum district performance review. Trenton, NJ: State of New Jersey Department

of Education.

State of New Jersey Department of Education. (from 2007 to 2017). Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates.

Retrieved January 13th, 2019 from https://www.state.nj.us/education/data/grate/

Strunsky, S. (2017, September) 22 years of state control over Newark schools: A Timeline.

Retrieved January 13th, 2019 from

https://www.nj.com/essex/2017/09/timeline_22_years_of_state_control_of_newark_schoo.html

Trachtenberg, P. (2013, December). A Tale of two deeply divided NJ Public School Systems.

Trachtenberg, P.L., Holzer, M., Miller, J., Sadovnik, A. & Liss, B. (2002). Developing a plan for

reestablishing local control. Newark, NJ: Rutgers Law School- Institute on Education Law & Policy.

Turabian, K. L. (2007). A Manual for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations (7th ed.).

Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school

reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

United States Courts. (nd). History - Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of general system theory. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 1,

134-165.

135

Welsh, R., Williams, S., Little, S & Graham, J. (2017). Right cause, wrong method? Examining the politics of

state takeover in Georgia. Urban Affairs Review.

Welsh, R. O., & Williams, S. M. (2018). Incentivizing Improvement or Imposition? An Examination of the

Response to Gubernatorial School Takeover and Statewide

Turnaround Districts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26 (124).

Retrieved January 13th , 2019 from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1193685&site=ehost-live

Williams, A. (2005, June). Class, Race, and Power: Interest Group

Politics and Education. The Urban Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, June 2005.

Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Yin, R. (2005). Introducing the world of education: A Case study reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Yin, R. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalization.

Alexandria, Va: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

136

Appendix

List of Federal (Unites States), State (New Jersey), City (Newark) and District (Newark Public Schools)

Archival Data and Documents including 1994, and from 2007 to 2019

Source Archival data and documents Quantity

Federal National Centre for Educational Statistics. Public High School Graduation Rates from

2011 to 2017

7 Reports

State New Jersey Department of Education. (1994, July). Comprehensive Compliance

Investigation of the Newark School District Executive Summary

New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum District Performance Review for

Newark Public School from 2011 to 2017

State of New Jersey Department of Education. (from 2007 to 2017). Adjusted Cohort

Graduation Rates.

NJ School Performance Reports for 10 of 16 high schools in Newark Public Schools district

via from 2011 to 2017:

1 Report

8 Reports

11 Years

70

Reports

137

Source Archival data and documents Quantity

State Comprehensive high schools (Educational theme)

1. Barringer (S.T.E.A.M) NJ School Performance Reports from 2011 to 17

2. Central (Five Learning Academies) NJ School Performance Reports from

2011 to 17

3. East Side (AP & Early College) NJ School Performance Reports from 2011

to 17

4. Malcom X Shabazz (Video game and App. Development) NJ School

Performance Reports from 2011 to 17

5. Weequahic NJ School Performance Reports from 2011 to 17

Magnet high schools (Educational theme)

6. American History (history and social justice) NJ School Performance

Reports from 2011 to 17

7. Arts (visual and performing arts) NJ School Performance Reports from 2011

to 17 (7 years)

8. Science Park (sciences) NJ School Performance Reports from 2011 to 17

9. Technology (technology) NJ School Performance Reports from 2011 to 17

10. University (college preparation) NJ School Performance Reports from 2011

to 17

1 Manual

138

Source Archival data and documents Quantity

State New Jersey Department of Education Division of Field Services. (2019, August). New

Jersey Quality Single Accountability (NJ QSAC) user manual

1 Manual

City Newark Education Success Board Report (2017)

The Alliance for the Newark Public Schools (December 2014)

1 Report

1 Report

District Transition plan for the return to local control of Newark Public Schools (2017, December)

1 Report

Total 101

Reports

and

Documents