Design cooperation: Strengthening the link between organizational and instructional change in schools

Educational Policy

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 520-546

  Mintrop, Heinrich ^a   Gamson, David ^a   Mclaughlin, Milbrey ^a   Wong, Pia Lindquist ^a   Oberman, Ida ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035620567     PISSN: 08959048     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0895904801015004002     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bodilly, S. (1996). Lessons learned. In S. Stringfield, S. Ross, & L. Smith (Eds.), Bold plans for school restructuring (pp. 289-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Bodilly, S. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools 'scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple sites. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
3. Chicago Public Schools. (1997). School probation information packet. Chicago: Office of Accountability
4. Clune, W. (1993). The best path to systemic educational policy: Standards/centralized or differentiated/decentralized? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 233-254.
5. Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner E. T., & Ben-Avie, M. (Eds.). (1996). Rallying the whole village: The Comer process for reforming education. New York: Teachers College Press.
6. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1998, May). States and districts and comprehensive school reform. CPRE Policy Briefs, p. 1-11.
7. Elmore, R., Abelmann, C., & Fuhrman, S. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65-98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
8. Elmore, R., & Associates. (1990) Restructuring schools. The next generation of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9. Elmore, R., Peterson, P., & McCarthey, S. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10. Fashola, O., & Slavin, R. (1997). Promising programs for elementary and middle schools: Evidence of effectiveness and replicability. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, 2(3), 251-307.
11. Fuhrman, S. (1993). Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12. Hanushek, E. (1994). Making schools work: Improving performance and controlling costs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
13. Hatch, T. (1998). The differences in theory that matter in the practice of school improvement. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 3-31.
14. Levin, H. (1998). Accelerated schools: A decade of evolution. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 807-830). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
15. Little, J., &. McLaughlin, M. (1993) Teachers' work. Individuals, colleagues, and contexts. New York: Teachers College Press.
16. McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
17. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning (Unpublished report). Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
18. Mintrop, H. (2000). Towards an understanding of school reconstitution as a strategy to educate children placed at risk. In M. Sanders (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Muncey, D., & McQuillan, P. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms: An ethnographic view of the coalition of essential schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20. O'Day, J., & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21. Olson, L. (1994a, November 2). Growing pains. Education Week, pp. 28-29.
22. Olson, L. (1994b, November 2). Learning their lessons. Education Week, pp. 32-33.
23. Rosenholtz, S. (1991). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Teachers' College Press.
24. Slavin, R. (1997). Design competitions: A proposal for a new federal role in educational research and development. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 22-28.
25. Slavin, R., Madden, N., Dolan, L., Wasik, B., Ross, S., & Smith, L. (1994, April). "Whenever and wherever we choose": The replication of "success for all." Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 639-647.
26. Spillane, J., & Thompson, C. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local educational agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185-203.
27. Stokes, L., Sato, N., McLaughlin, M, & Talbert, J. (1997). Theory-based reform and problems of change: Contexts that matter for teachers' learning and community. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary Teaching.
28. Stringfield, S., Ross, S., & Smith, L. (Eds.). (1996). Bold plans for school restructuring. The New American School designs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Timar, T., & Kirp, D. (1988). Managing educational excellence. New York: Falher.
30. Viadero, D. (1999, January 20). Who's in, who's out. Education Week on the Web, pp. 1, 12-13.
31. Wechsler, M., & Friedrich, L. (1997). The role of mediating organizations for school reform: Independent agents or district dependents. Journal of Education Policy, 12(5), 385-402.
32. Wong, K., Anagnostopoulos, D., & Rutledge, S. (1998, October). Accommodation and conflict: The implementation of Chicago's probation and reconstitution policies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, New York.
33. Yonezawa, S., & Datnow, A. (1999). Supporting multiple reform designs in a culturally and linguistically diverse school district. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 4(1), 101-125.