A case study of the Partnership Schools Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) model

Elementary School Journal

Volumn 106, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 151-170

  Epstein, Joyce L ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27744522752     PISSN: 00135984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/499196     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Berends, M., Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S. N., & McKelvey, C. (2001). Implementation and performance in New American Schools: Three years into scale up. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
4. Borman, J., Hewes, G., Overman, L., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125-230.
5. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.
6. Catsambis, S. (2002). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children's secondary education: Connections with high school seniors' academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 149-177.
7. Catsambis, S., & Beveridge, A. A. (2001). Does neighborhood matter? Family, neighborhood, and school influences on eighth grade mathematics achievement. Sociological Focus, 34, 435-457.
8. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of whole school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 357-374.
9. Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers' responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 775-799.
10. Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72, 433-479.
11. Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelman, F. Kaufmann, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121-136). New York: DeGruyter.
12. Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.
13. Epstein, J. L., Salinas, K. C., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) manuals and prototype activities in language arts, science, and math (print and CDs) for the elementary and middle grades. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships.
14. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (2d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
15. Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 308-318.
16. Epstein, J. L., Simon, B. S., & Salinas, K. C. (1997). Effects of Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) language arts interactive homework in the middle grades. Research Bulletin, 18. (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa, Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research)
17. Fitzgerald, E. (1999a, September 7). The goal: A model education. News-Times (Danbury, CT), pp. B1-B3.
18. Fitzgerald, E. (1999b, October 26). A true neighborhood school thrives in the city. News-Times (Danbury, CT), pp. B1-B3.
19. Fullan, M. (2001a). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20. Fullan, M. (2001b). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
21. Goldring, E., Crowson, R., Laird, D., & Berk, R. (2003). Transition leadership in a shifting policy environment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 473-488.
22. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
23. Herman, R., Aladjem, D., McMahon, P., Masem, E., Mulligan, I., Smith-O Malley, A., Quinones, S., Reeve, A., & Woodruff, D. (1999). An educator's guide to schoolwide reform. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
24. Ho, E. S., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126-141.
25. Lee, S. (1994). Family-school connections and students' education: Continuity and change of family involvement from the middle grades to high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
26. Leon, J. (2000). Connections day picnic starts the school year. Type 2, 8, 7. (Newsletter of the National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University)
27. Murphy, J. (Ed.). (2002). The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (101st Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. National Network of Partnership Schools. (2002). Summary of 2002 Partnership School Award winners [On-line]. Available: http://www.csos. jhu.edu/p2000/partnership_awards/2002/ parkAve.htm.
29. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2002). Catalogue of school reform models [Online]. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/ catalogue/index.shtml.
30. Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). Reallocating resources: How to boost students' achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
31. Porter, A. G. (1994). National standards and school improvements in the 1990s: Issues and promise: American Journal of Education, 102, 421-449.
32. 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, 95-124.
33. Salinas, K. C., & Jansorn, N. R. (2001). Reach out and touch someone: Neighborhood representative program. Promising Partnership Practices 2001 (pp. 20-21). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships.
34. Sanders, M. G. (1999). Schools' programs and progress in the National Network of Partnership Schools. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 220-229.
35. Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104, 1345-1368.
36. Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (2002). A comparison of program development at elementary, middle, and high schools in the National Network of Partnership Schools. School Community Journal, 12, 7-27.
37. Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in urban elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. Urban Review, 35, 149-165.
38. Sheldon, S. B. (2005). Testing a structural equation model of partnership program implementation and parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 106, 171-187.
39. Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and discipline with family and community involvement. Education in Urban Society, 35, 4-26.
40. Sheldon, S. B., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2004). Partnership programs in U.S. schools: Their development and relationship to family involvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 125-148.
41. Simon, B. S. (2004). High school outreach and family involvement. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 185-209.
42. Stringfield, S., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. (Eds.). (1996). Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools designs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Tools for schools. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement .
44. U. S. Department of Education. (2002). Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program guidance [On-line]. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/ programs/compreform/guidance/page_pg3. html.
45. Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in the middle grades: Effects on family involvement and science achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 323-338.
46. Van Voorhis, F. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002, April). Five-year study: Developing quality partnership programs in schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
47. Van Voorhis, F. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (in press). Principals' roles in the development of U. S. programs of school, family, and community partnerships. International Journal of Educational Research.