How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?

Review of Educational Research

Volumn 72, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 433-479

  Desimone, Laura ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehensive school reform; Implementation; Whole school reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036766961     PISSN: 00346543     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/00346543072003433     Document Type: Article

References (178)

1. Adelman, N., & Pringle, B. (1995). Education reform and the uses of time. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 27-29.
2. Anderson, L. W., & Shirley, J. R. (1995). High school principals and school reform: Lessons learned from a statewide study of Project Re: Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(3), 405-423.
3. Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
4. Barnett, W. S. (1996). The economics of school reform: Three promising models. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 299-326). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
5. Berends, M. (1999). Assessing the progress of New American Schools: A status report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
6. Berends, M. (2000). Teacher-reported effects of New American Schools design: Exploring relationships to teacher background and school context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 65-82.
7. Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. N. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American Schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
8. Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. N. (in press a). District and school leadership for whole-school reform: The experience of New American Schools. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
9. Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. N. (in press b). Reforming whole schools: Challenges and complexities. In J. Petrovich & A. Wells (Eds.), Bringing equity back. New York: Teachers College Press.
10. Berends, M., & Chun, J. (1999). Does instructional practice differ in design-based classrooms? Paper presented in symposium (Progress of New American Schools in Districts, Schools and Classrooms) at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, San Antonio, TX.
11. Berends, M., Chun, J., Schuyler, G., Stockly, S., & Briggs, R. J. (2002). Challenges of conflicting school reforms: Effects of New American Schools in a high-poverty district. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
12. Berends, M., & Garet, M. S. (in press). In (re)search of evidence-based school practices: Possibilities for integrating nationally representative surveys and randomized field trials to inform educational policy. Peabody Journal of Education.
13. Berends, M., Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S., & McKelvey, C. (2001). Implementation and performance in New American Schools: Three years into scale-up. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
14. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 4. The findings in review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
15. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 8. Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
16. Bodilly, S. J. (1996). Lessons from New American Schools Development Corporation's demonstration phase. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
17. Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools' scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
18. Bodilly, S. J., & Berends, M. (1999). Necessary district support for comprehensive school reform. In G. Orfield & E. H. DeBray (Eds.), Hard work for good schools: Facts, not fads, in Title I reform (pp. 111-119). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Civil Rights Project.
19. Bol, L., Nunnery, J. A., Lowther, D. L., Dietrick, A. P., Pace, J. B., Anderson, R. S., et al. (1998). Inside-in and outside-in support for restructuring: The effects of internal and external support on change in the New American Schools. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 358-384.
20. Boyer, E. L. (1990). What to teach, how to teach it, and to whom. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Education reform: Making sense of it all (pp. 30-38). Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
21. Bryk, A., Sebring, P. B., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. W. (1994). The state of Chicago school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(1), 74-78.
22. Bryk, A., Sebring, P. B., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. W. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
23. Carnegie Corporation, Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century (Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession). Washington, DC: Author.
24. Chasin, G., & Levin, H. M. (1995). Thomas Edison Accelerated Elementary School. In J. Oakes & H. Quartz (Eds.), Creating new educational communities, schools, and classrooms where all children can be smart (pp. 130-146). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Christensen, G. (1996). Toward a new leadership paradigm: Behaviors of accelerated school principals. In C. Finnan, E. St. John, J. McCarthy, & S. Slovacek (Eds.), Accelerated Schools in action: Lessons from the field (pp. 185-207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
26. Clune, W. (1998). Toward a theory of systematic reform: The case of nine NSF statewide systemic initiatives (National Institute for Science Education Research Monograph No. 16). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.
27. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 327-345.
28. Cohen, D. K. (1994). Evaluating systemic reform. Paper prepared for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
29. Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11-17, 31.
30. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Policy and practice: An overview. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 347-353.
31. Cook, T. D. (1991). Clarifying the warrant for generalized causal inferences in quasi-experimentation. In M. McLaughlin & D. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education at quarter century (pp. 115-144). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
32. Cook, T. D., Habib, F., Phillips, M., Settersten, R. A., Shagle, S. C., & Degirmencioglu, S. M. (1999). Comer's school development program in Prince George's County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 543-597.
33. Cooper, R., Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1998). Success for All: Improving the quality of implementation of whole-school change through the use of a national reform network. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 385-408.
34. Corcoran, T. B. (February, 1997). Evaluating systemic reform. Report prepared for Teacher Enhancement Electronic Community Hall. Available at http://teech.terc.edu/papers/papers/corcoran.htm.
35. Crandall, D. P., & Loucks, S. F. (1983). A roadmap for school improvement: Executive summary of the study of dissemination efforts supporting school improvement. People, policies, and practices: Examining the chain of school improvement (Vol. 10). Andover, MA: Network of Innovative Schools.
36. Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy, and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-151.
37. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13.
38. Darling-Hammond, L. (1988). Policy and professionalism. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools (pp. 57-77). New York: Teachers College Press.
39. Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Policy for restructuring. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The work of restructuring schools: Building from the ground up (pp. 157-175). New York: Teachers College Press.
40. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of whole school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357-374.
42. Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers' responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775-799.
43. Datnow, A., McHugh, B., Stringfield, S., & Hackler, D. J. (1998). Scaling up the core knowledge sequence. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 409-432.
44. Datnow, A., & Stringfield, A. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1-2), 183-204.
45. Davidson, B., & St. John, E. (1996). Principals' changing roles: Analysis of selected case studies. In C. Finnan, E. St. John, J. McCarthy, & S. Slovacek (Eds.), Accelerated schools in action: Lessons from the field (pp. 169-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
46. Demarrais, K. B., & LeCompte, M. D. (1990). The way schools work: A sociological analysis of education. New York: Longman.
47. Easton, J. Q., Bryk, A. S., Driscoll, M. E., Kotsakis, J. G., Sebring, P. A., & van der Poeg, A. J. (1991). Charting reform: The teachers' turn. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Reform.
48. Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-18, 20-24.
49. Edmonds, R. R. (1981). Making public schools effective. Social Policy, 12(2), 56-60.
50. Elmore, R. F. (1975). Design of the Follow Through experiment. In A. M. Rivlin & P. M. Timpane (Eds.), Planned variation in education: Should we give up or try harder? (pp. 23-45). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
51. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1-26.
52. Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice, and the reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
53. Entwistle, D., Alexander, K., & Olson, L. S. (1997). Children, schools, and inequality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
54. Fashola, O. S., & Slavin, R. E. (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.
55. Foorman, B., Francis, D., Fletcher, J., & Schatschneider, C. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
56. Friedman, L. B. (1999). Launching the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program in six Midwest states: Implications for schools, districts, and model providers implementing the program. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Education Laboratory.
57. Fullan, M. G. (1994a). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer.
58. Fullan, M. G. (1994b). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. In R. J. Anson (Ed.), Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
59. Fullan, M. G., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744-752.
60. Fullan, M. G., & Stieglbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
61. Fuhrman, S. H. (Ed.). (1993). Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
62. Fuhrman, S. H., Clune, W., & Elmore, R. (1988). Research on educational reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90(2), 237-257.
63. Fuhrman, S. H., & Elmore, R. F. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82-96.
64. Gamoran, A. (1992). Social factors in education. In M. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 1222-1229). New York: Macmillan.
65. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2002). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal 38(4), 915-945.
66. Glennan, Jr., T. K. (1998). New American Schools after six years. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
67. Gonzalez, V., & Tucker, C. (1996). Teaching all children to read: Hoover Elementary School. In C. Finnan, E. St. John, J. McCarthy, & S. Slovacek (Eds.), Accelerated Schools in action: Lessons from the field (pp. 253-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
68. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
69. Hatch, T. (1998). How comprehensive can comprehensive be? Phi Delta Kappan, 79(7), 518-522.
70. Hatch, T. (2000). What does it take to "go to scale"? Reflections on the promise and the perils of comprehensive school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(4), 339-354.
71. Hawley, W. D. (1988). Missing pieces of the educational reform agenda: Or, Why the first and second waves may miss the boat. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(4), 416-437.
72. Haynes, N. M. (1998). Lessons learned. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3(1), 87-99.
73. Heady, R., & Kilgore, S. (1996). The modern red schoolhouse. In S. Stringfield, S. M. Ross, & L. Smith (Eds.), Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools designs (pp. 139-178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
74. Herman, R., Aladjem, D., McMahon, P., Masem, E., Mulligan, I., O'Malley, A., et al. (1999). An educators' guide to schoolwide reform. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
75. Hess, Jr., A. G. (1995). Restructuring urban schools: A Chicago perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.
76. Honig, M. I. (1999, April). School-district relationships in scaling up educational improvements: The case of comprehensive school reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
77. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Rethinking the quest for school improvement: Some findings from the DESSI study. Teachers College Record, 86(1), 34-54.
78. Huberman, M., & Crandall, D. P. (1982). People, policies, and practices: Examining the chain of school improvement (Vols. 1-10). Andover, MA: Network of Innovative Schools.
79. Joyce, B., Murphy, C., Showers, B., & Murphy, J. (1989). School renewal as cultural change. Educational Leadership, 47(3), 70-77.
80. Keltner, B. R. (1998). Funding comprehensive school reform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
81. Kirby, S. N., Berends, M., & Naftel, S. (2001). Implementation in a longitudinal sample of New American Schools: Four years into scale-up. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
82. Kirst, M. W. (1990). The recent state education reform in the United States: Looking backward and forward. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Education reform: Making sense of it all (pp. 20-29). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
83. Knight, S., & Stallings, J. (1995). The implementation of the Accelerated School model in an urban elementary school. In R. L. Allington & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in American elementary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
84. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47-68.
85. Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62(3), 172-192.
86. Levin, H. M. ( 1991). Learning from Accelerated Schools. Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts.
87. Levin, H. M. (1993). Learning from Accelerated Schools. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
88. Levin, H. M. (1995). Learning from Accelerated Schools. In J. H. Block, S. T. Everson, & T. G. Guskey (Eds.), School improvement programs: A handbook for educational leaders (pp. 267-288). New York: Scholastic Press.
89. Levin, H. M. (1996). Accelerated Schools after eight years. In L. Schable & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
90. Lieberman, A. (1995). Restructuring schools: The dynamics of changing practice, structure, and culture. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The work of restructuring schools: Building from the ground up (pp. 1-17). New York: Teachers College Press.
91. Lipman, P. (1998). Race, class, and power in school restructuring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
92. Louis, K. S., Kruse, S., & Raywid, M. A. (1996). Putting teachers at the center of reform: Learning schools and professional communities. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
93. Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575.
94. Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. B. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.
95. MacMullen, M. M. (1996). Taking stock of a school reform effort (Occasional Paper Series, No. 2). Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University.
96. Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. I., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program for inner-city elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 123-148.
97. Marsh, D. D. (1994, April). State-stimulated high school transformation: What matters and why. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
98. McAdoo, M. (1998). Buying school reform: The Annenberg grant. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), 364-369.
99. McCarthy, J., & Still, S. (1993). Hollibrook Accelerated Elementary School. In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts (pp. 63-83). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
100. McDonald, J. P. (1996). Redesigning school: Lessons for the 21st Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
101. McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record, 77(3), 339-351.
102. McLaughlin, M. (1990). The RAND change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
103. Metz, M. H. (1988). Some missing elements in the educational reform movement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(4), 446-460.
104. Meyer, S. J., & Wong, K. K. (1998). Title I schoolwide programs: A synthesis of findings from recent evaluations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 115-136.
105. Miles, K. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Rethinking the allocation of teaching resources: Some lessons from high-performing schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(1), 9-29.
106. Mims, J. S. (1996). Principals speak out on their evolving leadership roles. In C. Finnan, E. St. John, J. McCarthy, & S. Slovacek (Eds.), Accelerated Schools in action: Lessons from the field (pp. 208-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
107. Mitchell, K. J. (1996). Reforming and conforming: NASDC principals discuss school accountability systems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
108. Muncey, D. E., & McQuillan, P. J. (1993). Education reform as revitalization movement. American Journal of Education, 101(4), 393-431.
109. Muncey, D. E., & McQuillan, P. J. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms: An ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential Schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
110. Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school districts. Journal of Educational Policy, 81(3), 175-181.
111. Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 77-78.
112. Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (Eds.). (1993). Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
113. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: An open letter to the American people: A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education. Washington, DC: Author.
114. Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280-312.
115. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison, WI: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
116. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110, 107th Congress.
117. Nunnery, J. A. (1998). Reform ideology and the locus of development problems in educational restructuring: Enduring lessons from studies of educational innovation. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 277-295.
118. Nunnery, J. A., Bol, L., Dietrick, A., Rich, L., Kelly, S., Hacker, D., & Sterbin, A. (1997). Teachers' initial reactions to their pre-implementation preparation and early restructuring experiences. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(1), 72-94.
119. Odden, A. (1997a). How to rethink school budgets to support school transformation. Rosslyn, VA: New American Schools.
120. Odden, A. (1997b). How to create and manage a decentralized education system. Rosslyn, VA: New American Schools.
121. Odden, A. (2000). The costs of sustaining educational change through comprehensive school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 8(6), 433-438.
122. Orfield, G. (1999). Strengthening Title I: Designing a policy based on evidence. In G. Orfield & E. H. DeBray (Eds.), Hard work for good schools: Facts, not fads, in Title I reform (pp. 1-20). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Civil Rights Project.
123. Peterson, P. L., McCarthey, S. J., & Elmore, R. F. (1996). Learning from school restructuring. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 119-153.
124. Porter, A. C. (1989). External standards and good teaching: The pros and cons of telling teachers what to do. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4), 343-356.
125. Porter, A. C. (1994). National standards and school improvement in the 1990s: Issues and promise. American Journal of Education, 102, 421-449.
126. Porter, A. C., Floden, R., Freeman, D., Schmidt, W., & Schwille, J. (1988). Content determinants in elementary school mathematics. In D. Grouws & Thomas Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
127. Porter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. L., & Schneider, S. A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Madison.
128. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
129. Prestine, N. A., & Bowen, C. (1993). Benchmarks of change: Assessing essential school restructuring efforts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 298-319.
130. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427-452.
131. Purnell, S., & Hill, P. (1992). Time for reform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
132. Quartz, K. H. (1995). Sustaining new educational communities: Toward a new culture of school reform. In J. Oakes & K. H. Quartz (Eds.), Creating new educational communities: Ninety-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 240-252). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
133. Rivlin, A. M., & Timpane, P. M. (Eds.). (1975). Planned variation in education: Should we give up or try harder? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
134. Romberg, T. (1992). Assessing mathematics competence and achievement. In H. Berlak (Ed.), Toward a new science of educational testing and assessment (pp. 23-52). Albany: State University of New York Press.
135. Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., & Nunnery, J. (1999). Selection and evaluation of locally developed versus externally developed schoolwide programs. In G. Orfield & E. H. DeBray (Eds.), Hard work for good schools: Facts, not fads, in Title I reform (pp. 147-158). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Civil Rights Project.
136. Ross, S. M., Henry, D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith, L., & Buggey, T. (1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(1), 45-71.
137. Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Stringfield, S. (1998). The Memphis restructuring initiative: Achievement results for years 1 and 2 on the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) (special report prepared for Memphis City Schools). Memphis, TN: University of Memphis.
138. Ross, S. M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., & Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(1), 95-124.
139. Ross, S. M., Wang, W., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Stringfield, S. (1999). Two- and three-year achievement results on the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System for restructuring schools in Memphis. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
140. Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of education reform: Can we change course before it's too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
141. Schmidt, W. H., & Prawat, R. S. (1999). What does the Third International Mathematics and Science Study tell us about where to draw the line in the top-down versus bottom-up debate? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 85-91.
142. Sebring, P. B., & Bryk, A. S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 440-443.
143. Shanker, A. (1990). The end of the traditional model of schooling-and a proposal for using incentives to restructure our public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(5), 344-357.
144. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
145. Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
146. Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
147. Slavin, R. E. (1983). Realities and remedies. Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 131-138.
148. Slavin, R. E. (1989). The PET and the pendulum. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(10), 752-758.
149. Slavin, R. E. (1997). Design competitions: A proposal for a new federal role in educational research and development. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 22-28.
150. Slavin, R. E. (1999). How Title I can become the engine of reform in America's schools. In G. Orfield & E. H. DeBray (Eds.), Hard work for good schools: Facts, not fads, in Title I reform (pp. 86-102). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Civil Rights Project.
151. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Livermon, B. J., & Dolan, L. (1992). Success for All: A relentless approach to prevention and early intervention in elementary schools. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
152. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (Eds.). (2001). Success for All: Research and reform in elementary school education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
153. Smith, L. J., Maxwell, S., Lowther, D., Hacker, D., Bol, L., & Nunnery J. (1997). Activities in schools and programs experiencing the most, and least, early implementation successes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(1), 125-150.
154. Smith, L. J., Ross, S., McNelis, M., Squires, M., Wasson, R., Maxwell, S., et al. (1998, May). The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 276-325.
155. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
156. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2000). Adapting comprehensive school reform models for English language learners. Retrieved July 11, 2000, from http://www.sedl.org/culture/adapting.html
157. Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87.
158. Stallings, J. A., & Kaskowitz, D. H. (1974). Follow-through classroom observation evaluation, 1972-1973. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.
159. Stringfield, S., & Datnow, A. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring designs in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 269-276.
160. Stringfield, S., & Datnow, A. (2002). Systemic supports for schools serving students placed at risk, In S. Stringfield & D. Land (Eds.), Educating at-risk students. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press.
161. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., & Ross, S. M. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural, multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
162. Stringfield, S., Millsap, M., Herman, R., Yoder, N., Brighma, N., Nesselrodt, P., et al. (1997). Special Strategies Studies: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
163. Stringfield, S., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. (Eds.). (1996). Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools designs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
164. Stringfield, S., Winfield, L., Millsap, M. A., Puma, M. J., Gamse, B., & Randall, B. (1994). Special strategies for educating disadvantaged children: First-year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Undersecretary.
165. Timar, T. (1989). The politics of school restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(4), 165-175.
166. Tushnet, N. C. (1992). A cross-program view of school improvement results. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
167. Tyack, D. (1990). "Restructuring" in historical perspective: Tinkering toward utopia. Teachers College Record, 92(2), 170-191.
168. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
169. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The "grammar" of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479.
170. Wang, M. C., Wong, K. K., & Kim, J. (1999). The need for developing procedural accountability in Title I schoolwide programs. In G. Orfield & E. H. DeBray (Eds.), Hard work for good schools: Facts, not fads, in Title I reform (pp. 175-195). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Civil Rights Project.
171. Wasley, P. A., Hampel, R. L., & Clark, R. N. (1997). The puzzle of whole-school change. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(9), 690-697.
172. Wehlage, G., Smith, G. A., & Lipman, P. (1992). Restructuring urban schools: The New Futures experience. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 51-93.
173. Whitehurst, G. (2002, February 28). Statement before Subcommittee on Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
174. Wilde, J., Thompson, B., & Herrera, R. M. (1999). Guide: Comprehensive school reform models addressing the needs of English language learners. Retrieved June 20, 2000, from http://www.cesdp.nmhu.edu/CSRD-Guide/background.htm
175. Winfield, L. F. (1991). Lessons from the field: Case studies of evolving schoolwide programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(4), 353-362.
176. Wohlstetter, P. (1995). Getting school-based management right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 22-24, 26.
177. 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, 101-126.
178. Yonezawa, S., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Special strategies for educating disadvantaged students follow-up study: Examining the sustainability of research-based school reforms. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.