Is quality/effectiveness an empirically demonstrable school attribute? Statistical aids for determining appropriate levels of analysis

School Effectiveness and School Improvement

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 91-122

  Griffith, James ^a,b  

^a Montgomery County Public Schools   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038895609     PISSN: 09243453     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1076/sesi.13.1.91.3441     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Blank, R.K. (1993). Developing a system of education indicators: Selecting, implementing, and reporting indicators. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(1), 65-80.
2. Bliese, P. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K.J. Klein & S.W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extension, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3. Cook, T.D., Habib, F., Phillips, M., Settersten, R.A., Shagle, S.C., & Derirmencioplu, S.M. (2000). Comer's school development program in prince George's County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 543-597.
4. Creemers, B.P.M. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell.
5. Creemers, B., Reynolds, D., Chrispeels, J., Mortimore, P., Murphy, J., Stringfield, S., Stoll, L., & Townsend, T. (1998). The future of school effectiveness and improvement (a report on the special sessions and plenary at ICSEI 1998 in Manchester, UK). School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 125-134.
6. Creemers, B., & Scheerens, J. (1994). Developments in the educational effectiveness research programme. International Journal of Educational Research, 21(2), 125-139.
7. Croninger, R.G. (2000, April). Schools-within-schools in five high schools: Purpose, stratification, and organization. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
8. Dansereau, F., & Alutto, J.A. (1990). Levels-of-analysis issues in climate and culture research. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 193-236). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9. Dansereau, F., Alutto, J.A., & Yammarino, F.J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10. Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F.J. (2000). Within and between analysis: The varient paradigm as an underlying approach to theory building and testing. In K.J. Klein & S.W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extension, and new directions (pp. 425-466). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Toward what end? The evaluation of student learning for the improvement of teaching. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? (pp. 248-263). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
12. Diez-Roux, A.V. (1998). Bringing context back into epidemiology: Variables and fallacies in multilevel analyses. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 216-222.
13. Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. (1996). Monitoring education: Indicators, quality and effectiveness. London: Cassell.
14. Flynn, J. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29-51.
15. Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models (2nd ed). London: Edward Arnold & New York: Halsted Press.
16. Goldstein, H. (1997). Methods of school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 369-395.
17. Good, T.L. (1999). Introduction. The purposes of schooling in America. The Elementary School Journal, 9(5), 383-389.
18. Good, T., & Braden, J. (2000). The great school debate: Choice, vouchers, and charters. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Gray, J., & Wilcox, B. (1995). "Good school, bad school:" Evaluating performance and encouraging improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.
20. Griffith, J. (1997). The relation of organizational value orientation and internal processes to effectiveness and efficiency in elementary public schools. Social Psychology of Education, 1(4), 297-321, 1997.
21. Griffith, J. (1999). School Climate as "social order" and "social action:" A multilevel analysis of public elementary school student perceptions. Social Psychology of Education, 2(4), 1-31.
22. Griffith, J. (2001, April). Minority achievement gap and stereotype threat: A multilevel analysis of school environment on student achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
23. Halpin, A.W., & Croft, D.B. (1963). Organizational climate of schools. Chicago, IL: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago.
24. Hammond, J.L. (1973). Two sources of error in ecological correlations. American Sociological Review, 38, 764-777.
25. Hanushek, E.A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-164.
26. Heck, R.E. (2000). Examining the impact of school quality on school outcomes and improvement: A value-added approach. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(4), 513-552.
27. Hill, P.W., & Rowe, K.J. (1996). Multilevel modeling in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 1-34.
28. Hofmann, D.A., Griffin, M.A., & Gavin, M.B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K.J. Klein & S.W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extension, and new directions (pp. 467-511). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29. Hoy, W.K., Tarter, C.J., & Bliss, J.R. (1990). Organizational climate, school health, and effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 260-279.
30. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.
31. Kenny, D.A., & Judd, C.M. (1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 422-431.
32. Klein, K.J., & Kozlowski, S.W. (Eds.). (2000). Multilevel theory research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extension, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
33. Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2), 161-167.
34. Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Klein, K. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K.J. Klein & S.W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extension, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
35. Lee, V.E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 125-141.
36. Lee, V.E., & Loeb, S. (1995). Where do Head Start attendees end up? One reason why preschool effects fade out. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 62-82.
37. Levine, D.U. (1992). An interpretive review of U.S. research and practice dealing with unusually effective schools. In D. Reynolds & P. Cuttance (Eds.), School effectiveness: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 25-47). London: Cassell.
38. Lindell, M.K., & Futch, C.J. (1996, April). Measuring inter-rater agreement using rwg(j). Paper presented at the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology meeting, San Diego, CA.
39. Linn, R.L., & Baker, E.L. (1995). What do international assessments imply for world-class standards? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(4), 405-418.
40. Loehlin, J.C., Lindsay, G., & Spuhler, J. (1975). Race differences in intelligence. New York: Freeman.
41. Malen, B., & Fuhrman, S.H. (1991). The politics of curriculum and testing: Introduction and overview. In S.H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 1-9). London: Falmer.
42. McGraw, K.O., & Wong, S.P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 1(1), 30-46.
43. Milcarek, B.I., & Link, B.G. (1981). Handling problems of ecological fallacy in program planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 4, 23-28.
44. Moos, R.H. (1974). The social climate scales: An overview. Palto Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
45. Moritz, S.E., & Watson, C.B. (1998). Levels of analysis issues in group psychology using efficacy as an example of a multilevel model. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice, 2(4), 285-298.
46. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J., & Urbina S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101.
47. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1988). Creating responsible and responsive accountability systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
48. Opdenakker, M.-C., & van Damme, J. (2000). The importance of identifying levels in multilevel analysis: An illustration of the effects of ignoring the top or intermediate levels in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 103-130.
49. Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level of analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963-974.
50. Ostroff, C., & Schmitt, N. (1993). Configurations of organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1345-1361.
51. Phillips, M. (1997). What makes schools effective? A comparison of the relationships of communitarian climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 633-662.
52. Phillips, G.W., & Adcock, E.P. (1997, March). Measuring school effects with hierarchical linear modeling: Data handling and modeling issues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
53. Pipho, C. (1999). Public opinion and public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 565-566.
54. Quinn, R.E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.
55. Reynolds, D., & Cuttance, P. (Eds.). (1992). School effectiveness: Research, policy, and practice. London: Cassell.
56. Robinson, W.S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behaviour of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351-357.
57. Roeser, R.W., Eccles, J.S., & Sameroff, A.J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents' academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 443-471.
58. Rose, L.C., & Gallup, A.M. (1998). The thirtieth annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(1), 41-56.
59. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R.L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
60. Rothstein, R. (2000). Toward a composite index of school performance. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 409-441.
61. Rousseau, D.M., & House, R.J. (1994). Meso organizational behavior: Avoiding three fundamental biases. In C.L. Cooper & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 13-30). London: Wiley.
62. Sammons, P. (1999). School effectiveness: Coming of age in the twenty-first century. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
63. Sammons, P., Thomas, S., & Mortime, P. (1997). Forging links: Effective departments and effective schools. London: Paul Chapman.
64. Saunders, W.L. (1998). Value-added assessment. School Administrator, 11(55), 24-27.
65. Saunders, W.L., Saxton, A.M., & Horn, S.P. (1997). The Tennessee value-added assessment system: A quantitative, outcomes-based approach to educational assessment. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? (pp. 137-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
66. Scientific Software International. (2000). HLM 5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago, IL: Author.
67. Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPPS). (1999). SPSS base 9.0: User's guide. Chicago, IL: Author.
68. Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape the intellectual identities and performance of women and African Americans. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.
69. Stockard, J., & Mayberry, M. (1992). Effective educational environments. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
70. Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The new international handbook of school effectiveness research. Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.
71. Thum, Y.M., & Bryk, A.S. (1997). Value-added productivity indicators: The Dallas system. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? (pp. 100-109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
72. Verdugo, R.R., & Schneider, J.M. (1999). Quality schools, safe schools: A theoretical and empirical discussion. Education and Urban Society, 31(3), 286-308.
73. Webster, W.J., & Mendro, R.L. (1997). The Dallas value-added accountability system. In J. Millman (Ed.), An application of hierarchical linear modeling to the estimation of school and teacher effect (pp. 81-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
74. Webster, W.J., Mendro, R.L., Orsak, T.H., & Weerasinghe, D. (1998, April). An application of hierarchical linear modeling to the estimation of school and teacher effect. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
75. Weick, K.E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.
76. Weick, K.E. (1982). Administering education in loosely coupled schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(10), 673-676.
77. Yammarino, F.J., & Markham, S.E. (1992). On the application of within and between analysis: Are absence and affect really group-based phenomena? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 168-176.