Does whole-school reform boost student performance? The case of New York City

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 47-72

  Bifulco, Robert ^a   Duncombe, William ^b   Yinger, John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 10944220633     PISSN: 02768739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pam.20069     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Barnett, W.S. (1996). Economics of school reform: Three promising models. In H.F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
2. Bifulco, R. (2002). Addressing selection bias in quasi-experimental evaluations of whole-school reform: A comparison of methods. Evaluation Review, 26(5), 544-571.
3. Bifulco, R., Bordeaux, C., Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (2002). Do whole-school reform programs boost student performance? The case of New York City. (Final Report Submitted to the Smith-Richardson Foundation). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Center for Policy Research.
4. Bloom, H.S., Ham, S., Melton, L., & O'Brien, L. (2001). Evaluating the accelerated schools approach: A look at early implementation and impacts on student achievement in eight elementary schools. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
5. Bound, J., Jaeger, D.A., & Baker, R.M. (1995). Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 443-450.
6. Cobb-Clark, D.A., & Crossley, T. (2003). Econometrics for evaluations: An introduction to recent developments. The Economic Record, 79 (December), 491-511.
7. Comer, J.P., Haynes, N.M., & Joyner, E.T. (1996). The school development program. In J.P. Comer, N.M. Haynes, E.T. Joyner, and M. Ben-Avie (Eds.), Rallying the whole village: The Comer process for reforming education. New York: Teachers College Press.
8. Cook, T.D., Habib, F., Phillips, M., Settersten, R., Shagle, S.C., & Degirmencioglu, S.M. (1999). Comer's school development program in Prince George's County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. American Education Research Journal, 36(3), 543-597.
9. Cook, T.D., Hunt, H.D., & Murphy, R.F. (1998). Comer's School Development Program in Chicago: A theory-based evaluation. WP-98-24. Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.
10. Emmons, C. (1999). School development program implementation report for New York community school district number 13. New Haven, CT: Child Study Center School Development Program, Yale University.
11. Ferguson, R., & Ladd, H.F. (1996). How and why money matters: A production function analysis of Alabama schools. In H.F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 265-298). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
12. Goertz, M.E., & Duffy, M.C. (with K.C. Le Floch). (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 states: 1999-2000. (Consortium for Policy Research in Education CPRE Research Report Series RR 046, March 2001). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
13. Goertz, M.E., & Edwards, M. (1999). In search of excellence for all: The courts and New Jersey school finance reform. Journal of Education Finance 25(1), 5-31.
14. Greene, W.H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15. Heckman, J.J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1), 153-161.
16. Heckman, J.J., LaLonde, R.J., & Smith, J.A. (1999). The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In A. Ashenfelter and D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics, (Volume 3A, pp. 1865-2097). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
17. Herman, R., Aladjam, D., McMahon, P., Masem, E., Mulligan, I., Smith, O., O'Malley, A., Quinones, S., Reeve, A., & Woodruff, D. (1999). An educator's guide to school wide reform. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
18. Ladd, H.F., & Hansen, J.S. (1999). Making money matter: Financing America's school. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
19. Millsap, M.A., Chase, A., Obiedallah, D., & Perez-Smith, A. (2001), Evaluation of the Comer School Development Program in Detroit, 1994-1999: Methods and results. (Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management). Washington, DC.
20. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL). (1998). Catalog of school reform models (1st ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
21. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
22. RMC Research Corporation (RMC). (1976). Interpreting NCEs. (Technical Paper No. 2). Mountain View, CA: RMCC Research Corporation Mountain View.
23. Rouse, C.E. (1998). Private school vouchers and student achievement of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113 (2), 553-602.
24. Schwartz, A.E., Stiefel, L.S., & Kim, D.Y. (2004). The impact of school reform on student performance: Evidence from the New York Network for School Renewal Project. Journal of Human Resources, 39 (2), 500-522.
25. Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Dolan, L.J., & Wasik, B.A. (1996). Every child, every school: Success for all. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
26. Stata Corporation. (2003). Stata user's guide, release 8. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
27. Viadero, D. (2001). Memphis scraps redesign models in all its schools. Education Week, 20(42), 1-19.
28. Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.