Accountability and performance in charter schools in Florida: A theory-based evaluation

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 189-212

  Crew Jr , Robert E ^a   Ruggiero Anderson, Mary ^b  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038375707     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1098-2140(03)00030-4     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Behn, R. (1991). Leadership counts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Blalock, H. (1964). Causal inferences in nonexperimental research. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
4. Bossert S. Dwyer D. Rowan B. Lee G. The instructional management role of the principal Educational Administration Quarterly 18 1982 34-64
5. Brandl, J. (1998). Money and good intentions are not enough (pp. 3-8). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
6. Bryk, A., Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1990). High school organization and its effects on teachers and students: An interpretive summary of the research. In W. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education: The theory of choice and control in education (Vol. 1, pp. xx-yy). London: The Falmer Press.
7. Buechler, L., & Fulton, M. (1996). Charter schools: Legislation and results after four years. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center, School of Education, Indiana University.
8. Buthe T. Taking temporality seriously: Modeling history and the use of narratives as evidence American Political Science Review 96 2002 481-494
9. Charter School Accountability Center. (2002). Grades table with performance. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, College of Education.
10. Chen, H.-T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
11. Coleman, J., et al. (1996). Equality of educational quality. Washington, DC: Governmental Printing Office.
12. Cook T.D. et al. Comer's school development program in Prince George's county, Maryland: A program theory-based evaluation American Educational Research Journal 36 1999 543-597
13. Cook T.D.H. Hunt D. Murphy R.F. Comer's school development program in Chicago: A program theory-based evaluation American Educational Research Journal 37 2000 535-597
14. Corwin, R., Carlos, L., Lagomarsino, B., & Scott, R. (1996). From paper to practice: Challenges facing a California charter school. Available: www.wested.org/policy/pbbm.htm.
15. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16. Finn, C., Bierlein, L., & Manno, B. (1996). Charter schools in action: A first look. Washington, DC: The Hudson Institute.
17. Finn, C., Manno, B., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter schools in action: Renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18. Fischer, K. (2002, September 15). Public school, Inc. In St. Petersburg Times. Available: www.sptimes.com/2002/09/15/state/publicℬhoolc.shtml.
19. Florida Department of Education. (2002). Florida school grades. Available: www.firn.edu/doe/schoolgrades.
20. Florida Department of Education, Choice Office. (2002). 1996-2000 listing of charter school closings. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education.
21. Florida Department of Education, Education Information and Accountability Services. (1999-2000). Profiles of Florida school districts, 1999-2000. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education.
22. Gerstner, L., Sererud, R. D., Doyle, D., & Johnston, W. (1994). Reinventing education. New York, NY: Dalton.
23. Good, T., & Braden, J. (2000). The great school debate. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
24. Greene J.C. Caracelli V.J. Graham W.F. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11 1989 255-274
25. Gronberg, T., & Jansen, D. (2001). Navigating newly chartered waters: An analysis of Texas charter school performance. Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation.
26. Hill, P., Lawrence C., Pierce, A. & Gutherie, J. W. (1997). Reinventing public education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27. Horn, J., & Miron, G. (2000). An evaluation of the Michigan charter school initiative: Performance, accountability and impact. Kalamazoo, Michigan, Western Michigan University: The Evaluation Center.
28. Kleitz B. Weiher G. Tedin K. Matland R. Choice charter schools and household preference Social Science Quarterly 8 2000 846-854
29. Kolderie, T. (2001, February 9). What does it mean to ask: Is charter schools working? In Charter Friends National Network. Available: www.charterfriends.org/working.html.
30. Leithwood K.A. Montgomery D. The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement Review of Educational Research 52 1982 319-339
31. Lieberman, M. (1986). Beyond public education. New York, NY: Praeger.
32. Maranto, R., Millman, S., Hess, F., & Gresham, A. (2001). School choice in the real world. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
33. McLaughlin, M., Henderson, K., & Ullah, H. (1996). Charter schools and students with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform.
34. Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2000). Autonomy in exchange for accountability: An initial study of Pennsylvania charter schools. Kalamazoo, Michigan, Western Michigan University: The Evaluation Center.
35. Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2001). Student academic achievement in charter schools: What we know and why we know so little. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.
36. Nathan, J. (1996). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for American education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37. Rogers, P., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T., & Hacsi, T. (2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise and problems. In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hacsi, A. Petrosino, & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), New directions for evaluating. Program theory evaluation: Challenges and opportunities (Vol. 87, pp. 5-13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
38. RPP International. (1999). National study of charter schools: Charter school survey. Emeryville, CA.
39. RPP International. (2000). The state of charter schools: Fourth year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
40. Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Marschall, M. (2000). Choosing schools: Consumer choice and the quality of American schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41. Smith, K., & Meier, K. (1995). The case against school choice: Politics, markets and fools. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
42. State of Florida, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. (2000). Charter schools need improved academic accountability and financial management (Report # 99-48). Available: www.oppaga.state.fl.us.
43. State of Florida, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Governmental Accountability. (2002). Charter school management strengthened, but improved academic accountability needed (Report # 02-22). Available: www.oppaga.state.fl.us.
44. Stuart, L. (2000). The Bronx leadership academy high school. In D. Ravitch & J. Viteritti (Eds.), City schools (pp. xx-yy). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
45. Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Evaluation models. In New directions for evaluation (Vol. 89, pp. xx-yy). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
46. Texas State Board of Education. (1999). Evaluation of open-enrollment charter schools: Survey of public school districts. Austin, TX: Texas State Board of Education
47. Wagner, R. B. (1989). Accountability in education: A philosophical inquiry. New York, NY: Routledge.
48. Weber, D. (2003, March 22). Charter schools go untested. Orlando Sentinel.
49. Weiher G. Tedin K. Does choice lead to racially distinctive schools? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21 2002 79-92
50. Weiss C. How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review 21 1997 501-524
51. Weitzman, B. C., Silver, D., & Dillman, K. (2002). Integrating a comparison group design into a theory of change evaluation: The case of the urban health initiative. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 371-385.
52. Wells, A. S. (2000). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten California school districts. Los Angeles, California: UCLA Charter School Study.
53. Wong, K., & Shen, F. (2000). Institutional effects of charter schools: Competition, innovation and segregation. Paper presented at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 31-September 4.