Policy makers have initiated a dramatic period of standards-based reform for New York State students, an effort of great relevance across the United States. Although comprehensive high school examinations and state-endorsed Regents diplomas are over 100 years old, the demand that all students must earn college-preparatory diplomas is new. This research asked under what conditions district context matters in implementing of standards-based reform. The authors posited that personnel (teachers, principals, and superintendents) interact with the contextual characteristics of their district environments (organizational size, geography, resources, personnel level) in ways that shape responses to standards-based reforms. Surveys and state-collected data, along with multilevel modeling, were used to weigh programmatic reform at the school district level. Districts serving greater proportions of poor students were more likely to offer general equivalency diploma alternatives to the Regents diploma. Whether these phenomena undermine the heightened standards for all children or reflect healthy local variation and choice is debatable.
Berman, P.,& McGlaughlin, M. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change: Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica: RAND.
2.
Bishop, J. H., & Mane, F. (2001). The impacts of minimum competency exam graduation requirements on college attendance and early labor market success of disadvantaged students. In M. L. Kornhaber (Ed.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and highstakes testing in public education(pp. 51-84). New York: Century Foundation Press.
3.
Bishop, J. H., Moriarity, J.,& Mane, F. (1998). Diplomas for learning not seat time: The impacts of New York regents examinations. In Educational finance to support high learning standards(pp. 56-77). Albany: New York State Board of Regents.
4.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. H. (2002). School district expenditures and fiscal stress. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/edfin/CR02.BLW.ReportWeb.pdf
5.
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. New York. 719 N.Y.S. 2d 475 (2001).
6.
Cibulka, J. G., & Derlin, R. L. (1998). Accountability policy adoption to policy sustainability: Reforms and systemic initiatives in Colorado and Maryland. Education and Urban Society, 30(4), 502-515.
7.
Clune, W. (2001). Toward a theory of standards-based reform: The case of nine NSF statewide systemic initiatives. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standardsbased reform in the states(pp. 13-38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Cohen, D. K. (1996). Rewarding teachers for student performance. In J. O’Day (Ed.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work(pp. 60-112). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Corcoran, T., & Goertz, M. (1995). Instructional capacity and high performing schools. Educational Researcher, 24(9), 27-31.
10.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1988). Accountability and teacher professionalism. American Educator, 12(4), 8-13, 38-43.
11.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda: Developing capacity for school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 753-761.
12.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). National standards and assessments: Will they improve?American Journal of Education, 102, 478-510.
13.
DeBray, E., Parson, G.,& Woodworth, K. (2001). Patterns of response in four high schools under state accountability policies inVermont andNewYork. In S. Furhman (Ed.), Fromthe capital to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states(pp. 170-192). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Elmore, R. F. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system(pp. 96-124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice, and the reform ofAmerican education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
16.
Fairman, J. C.,& Firestone, W. A. (2001). The district role in state assessment policy: An exploratory study. In S. H. Furhman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states(pp. 124-147). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Firestone, W. (1989). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Education and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151-164.
18.
Firestone, W., Furhman, S., & Kirst, M. (1988). The progress of reform: An appraisal of state education initiatives. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Policy Research and Reform.
19.
Floden, R., Porter, A., Alford, L., Freeman, D., Irwin, S., Schmidt, W., et al. (1988). Instructional leadership at the district level: A closer look at autonomy and control. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 96-104.
20.
Fuhrman, S. (Ed.). (2001). From the capital to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Galvin, P. (2001). Organizational boundaries, authority, and school district organization. In N. D. Theobold& B. Malen (Eds.), Balancing local control and state responsibility for k-12 education(pp. 279-310). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
22.
Goertz, M. E., Floden, R. E., & O’Day, J. (1995). Studies of education reform: Systemic reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center or Policy Research in Education.
23.
Grant, S. G. (2000). An uncertain lever: The influence of state-level testing in New York on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record, 103, 398-426.
24.
Hannaway, J., & Kimbull, K. (2001). Big isn’t always bad: School district size, poverty, and standards-based reform. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capital to the classroom: Standardsbased reform in the states(pp. 99-123). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Horton, N. J., & Lipsitz, S. R. (1999). Review of software to fit generalized estimating equation regression models. The American Statistician, 53, 160-169.
26.
Kadamus, J. A. (2001). Standards to assessments—Looking at the whole picture. Albany: New York State Education Department, Office for Elementary, Middle, Secondary, and Continuing Education.
27.
Killeen, K., & Sipple, J. W. (2002). How have performance standards changed school district practice? Results from a statewide survey of New York state school districts. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/edfin/CR02.KS.Report.Web.pdf
28.
Knoke, D., & Kalleberg, A. L. (1996). Job training in U.S. organizations. InA. L. Kalleberg, D. Knoke, P. V. Marsden, & J. L. Spaeth (Eds.), Organizations in America: Analyzing their structures and human resource practices(pp. 157-179). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Massell, D. (2000). The district role in building capacity: CPRE policy briefs. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
30.
Massell, D. (2001). The theory and practice of using data to build capacity: State and local strategies and their effects. In S. H. Furhman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standardsbased reform in the states(pp. 148-169). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Massell, D., & Goertz, M. E. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In M. W. McLaughlin (Ed.), School districts and instructional renewal(pp. 43-60). New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
McDonnell, L. M.,& Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 133-152.
33.
Meyer, J. W.,& Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
34.
Monk, D., Sipple, J. W., & Killeen, K. (2001). Adoption and adaptation: New York State school districts’responses to state imposed high school graduation requirements: An eight-year retrospective. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/edfin/CR01_MSK_Report.pdf
35.
New York State Office of Real Property Services. (2004). STAR: School Tax Relief. Retrieved from http://www.orps.state.ny.us/star/index.cfm
36.
O’Day, J., Goertz, M. E., & Floden, R. E. (1995). Building capacity for education reform. In CPRE policy briefs: Reporting on issues and research in education policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
37.
O’Day, J., & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system(pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
Ogawa, R. T., Sandholtz, J. H., Martines-Flores, M., & Scribner, S. P. (2003). The substantive and symbolic consequences of a district’s standards-based curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 147-176.
39.
Orfield, G., & Kornhaber, M. L. (2001). Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education. New York: Century Foundation Press.
40.
Rowan, B. (1983). Instructional management in historical perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, 43-59.
41.
Rowan, B., & Miskel, C. G. (1999). Institutional theory and the study of educational organizations. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), The handbook of educational administration(2nd ed., pp. 359-383). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
42.
Schrag, F. (1995). Back to basics: Fundamental educational questions reexamined. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
43.
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROCMIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growthmodels. Journal ofEducational and Behavioral Statistics, 24(4), 323-355.
44.
Sipple, J. W. (in press). Local anchors versus state levers in state-led school reform: Identifying the community around public schools. In W. K. Hoy &C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement(Vol. 3). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
45.
Sipple, J. W., Killeen, K., & Monk, D. (in press). Adoption and adaptation: School district responses to state imposed learning and graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
46.
Skinner, R. A.,& Staresina, L. N. (2004). The state of the states. EducationWeek, 23(17), 68-92.
47.
Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10, 63-63.
48.
Zeger, S. L., Liang, K.-Y., & Albert, P. S. (1988). Models for longitudinal data: A generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics, 44, 1049-1060.
