Reconstituting schools: "Testing" the "theory of action"

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 113-132

  Malen, Betty ^a   Croninger, Robert ^a   Muncey, Donna ^a   Redmond Jones, Donna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Implementation evaluation; School reconstitution; Theories of action

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036623146     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737024002113     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: The political economy of urban educational reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
2. Archibald, S., & Odden, A. (2000). A case study of resource reallocation to implement a whole school reform model and boost student achievement: Parnell Elementary School. Retrieved May 16, 2002 from Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison Web site: http://www.wcer. wisc.edu/cpre/finance/related/studies/.
3. Argyris, C., & Schon, D.A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action, perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
4. Argyris, C., & Schon, D.A. (1982). Theory in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5. Asher, H.B. (1983). Causal modeling. Second edition. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6. Bryk, A.S., Camburn, E., & Louis, K.S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences, Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (supplement), 751-781.
7. Christensen L. (1998). Reconstituting Jefferson, Rethinking Schools, 13, 1. Retrieved May 16, 2002, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/Archives/13_01/recon.htm.
8. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again, Educational Researcher, 19 (1), 3-13.
9. Education Commission of the States, (2000, June-July). Results matter: The new approach to account-ability, in The Progress of Education Reform 1999-2001: Accountability, 2, (1).
10. Elmore, R.F., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice and the reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
11. Elmore, R.F., & Rothman, R. (1999). Testing, teaching and learning: A guide for states and school districts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12. Finkelstein, B., Malen, B., Croninger, R.C., Rice, J.K., Mourad, R.F., Snell, J., & Thrasher, K. (1998, October). In the early stages of reform: A composite profile of three [reconstituted] schools. Department of Education Policy and Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park: MD.
13. Finkelstein, B., Malen, B., Muncey, D.E., Rice, J.K., Croninger, R.G., Briggs, L., Jones, D.R., & Thrasher, K. (2000). Caught in contradictions: The first two years of a school reconstitution initiative. Department of Education Policy and Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park: MD.
14. Firestone, W.A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research, Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-23.
15. Fraga, L.R., Erlichson, B.A., & Lee, S. (1998). Consensus building and school reform: The role of the courts in San Francisco, in C.N. Stone (Ed.), Changing urban education, (pp. 66-90), Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
16. Fuhrman, S., (2001). From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17. Fullan, M.G., & Streigelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
18. Hendrie, C. (1997). Reconstitution gaining new momentum, Education Week, 24, September, 1997.
19. Hendrie, C. (1998). A mixed record for reconstitution flashes a yellow light for districts, Education Week on the Web, http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol17/42recpn.h17 (accessed August 2002).
20. Hess, F. M. (1999). A political explanation of policy selection, Policy Studies Journal, 27(3), 459-473.
21. Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis, American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
22. Jones, D.R., & Malen, B. (2002). Sources Of victory, seeds of defeat: Linking enactment politics and implementation developments, in W. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Theory and research in educational administration, Volume 1 (pp. 41-76). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
23. Khanna, R., Flores, J.R., Bergum., B., & Desmond, D. (1999, April). The history and practice of reconstitution in San Francisco. A paper prepared for the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
24. Ladd, H. (1996). Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
25. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
26. Louis, K.S., & Marks, H. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers work and student experiences in restructured schools, American Journal of Education, 106 (4), 532-575.
27. Malen, B. (1994). Site-based management: A political utilities analysis, Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 249-267.
28. Malen, B. (2000, April). Reconstitution as promise and punishment: A micropolitical perspective. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
29. Malen, B., Croninger, R., Redmond, D., & Muncey, D. (1999, October). Uncovering the potential contradictions in reconstitution reforms. Paper presented at the annual conference of the University Council for Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN.
30. Malen, B., & Knapp, M. (1997). Rethinking the multiple perspectives approach to education policy analysis: Implications for policy-practice connections, Journal of Education Policy, 12, 419-445.
31. Malen, B., Ogawa, R.T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about site-based management? A case study of the literature, a call for research. In W.H. Clune, & J.F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education Volume H: The practice of choice, decentralization and school restructuring (pp. 289-342). New York: Falmer Press.
32. Massell, D. (1998). Strategies for building capacity in education: Progress and continuing challenges, Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
33. McLaughlin, M.W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 71-178.
34. Mintrop, R. (2000). Towards and understanding of school reconstitution as a strategy to educate children at-risk. In M. Sanders (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents, (pp. 231-259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Muncey, D., Jones, D., & Croninger, R. (2000). Creating school failure: Effects of reconstitution on pedagogical knowledge and practice. A paper prepared for a symposium at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
36. Murphy, J.T. (1980). Getting the facts. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
37. Nave, R., Miech, E., & Mosteller, F. (2000). A lapse in standards; Linking standards-based reform with student achievement, Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 128-132.
38. Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). A case study of resource reallocation to reduce class size, enhance teacher planning time and strengthen literacy: Clayton Elementary School. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison Web site: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/finance/related/studies/.
39. Patton, M.Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
40. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41. Rice, J.K. & Croninger, R. (2001). Resource generation, reallocation or depletion: A multi-disciplinary analysis of the impact of school reconstitution on local capacity. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Finance Association, Cincinnati, OH.
42. Rice, J.K., & Malen, B. (2002). The human cost of reform: The case of school reconstitution. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Finance Association, Albuquerque, NM.
43. Ruenzel, D. (1997, March). Do or die, Education Week on the Web. http://www.edweek.org/tm/vol-08/06sf.h08 (accessed August 2002).
44. Sadovnik, A., & Semel, S.F. (2001). Urban school improvement: A challenge to simplistic solutions to educational problems, Educational Researcher, 30 (9), 27-31.
45. Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Education Review, 47, 171-197.
46. Weiss, C.H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families, in J.P. Connell, A.C. Kubisch, L.B. Schorr, & C.H. Weiss, (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives, (pp. 65-92). Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
47. Weiss, C.H. (1998). Evaluation. (Rev. ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
48. Wong, K., Anagnotopoulos, D., Rutldege, S., Lynn, L., & Dreeben, R. (1999, January). Implementation of an educational accountability agenda: Integrated governance in the Chicago public schools enters its fourth year. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Department of Education and Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies.
49. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.