School Choice or Best Systems_ What Improves Education_ - Margaret C. Wang [34]
Chubb and Moe’s detailed and paradigm-shifting 1990 study identified several characteristics of “effective schools” and then found that school sector—public or private—was by far the most significant factor in determining whether a school was effectively organized. A private school principal, for example, is less likely to face interference in school management by central authorities such as boards and superintendents. The resulting autonomy enables principals to adopt “clear academic goals, strong educational leadership, professionalized teaching, ambitious academic programs, team-like organizations—these effective school characteristics are promoted much more successfully by market control than by direct democratic control.”18
On the basis of extensive observations of Catholic schools, Valerie Lee19 concluded that Catholic schools do well because they offer a delimited core curriculum followed by all students, regardless of their family background, academic preparation, or future educational plans; engender a strong sense of community exemplified by frequent opportunities for face-to-face interactions and shared experiences among adults and students at school events such as athletics, drama, and music; and expect teachers to see their responsibilities beyond classroom subject matter and extending into hallways, school grounds, neighborhoods, and homes. Lee also noted that Catholic schools are decentralized; funds are raised and decisions are made largely at the school level.
Paul Peterson and I studied the organizational features, achievement, and cost differences between all Catholic and public schools in three New York City boroughs (Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx).20 We found that student achievement in Catholic schools exceeded achievement of students in public schools with comparable low, medium, and high levels of poverty. High-poverty Catholic schools did particularly well compared to high-poverty public schools and made substantial progress in closing achievement gaps.
When comparing costs, we first subtracted from public school budgets all of the expenditures for government-funded programs for poor students and those with limited English and special needs. We also subtracted the extra public school costs of transportation, food services, and central office and community board staff that oversee schools. Even after these adjustments, Catholic schools’ costs per student were only 46.8 percent those of public schools.21
Corroborating a Chubb-Moe finding about private schools, my interviews and observations in Catholic schools revealed fewer centrally determined policies. The schools had strong site-level leadership, demanding and largely academic curricula followed by all students, frequent communication with parents, and higher student retention based on parental and student satisfaction.
The public school staff I interviewed operated in a very different environment. Central office and community boards and staff, following U.S. Department of Education and New York state rules and regulations, played major roles in instituting, funding, regulating, and ordering school-level policies and practices. In local schools, high staff turnover undermined curricula, instruction, and disciplinary policies. Central office administrators changed schools’ attendance boundaries and even grade levels without consulting parents or school staff. In several hundred classrooms, I frequently saw teachers unable to keep students attentive, books being sparsely used, and many students who had not completed assignments. Children often held off-topic conversations, rested or slept at their desks, and walked around and in and out of their classrooms.
The level of courtesy, respect, and fairness observed