School governance: Research on educational and management issues

International Education Journal

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 139-151

  Ainley, John ^a   McKenzie, Phillip ^a  

^a Australian Council for Educational Research   (Australia)

Author keywords

Academic achievement; Decentralisation; Educational administration; Government school relationship; Outcomes of education

Indexed keywords

EID: 28644434032     PISSN: 14431475     EISSN: 14431475     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Bottani, N. (2000). Autonomy and decentralisation: between hopes and illusions. A comparative study of reforms in five European countries. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, New Orleans.
2. Brown, N. (1990). Decentralisation and School Based Management. Bristol, Falmer.
3. Bryk, A. (1998). Chicago school reform: Linkages between local control, educational supports and student achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
4. Caldwell, B. (1998). Self-managing Schools and Improved Learning Outcomes. Canberra, DETYA.
5. Chubb, J. and Moe, T. (1990). Politics, Markets and America's Schools. Brookings Institute, Washington.
6. Coleman, J. and Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and Private Schools: The Impact of Communities. New York, Basic Books.
7. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F and York, R (1966) Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC, US Department Health, Education and Welfare.
8. Coleman, J., Hoffer, T and Kilgore, S. (1982). High School Achievement: Public Catholic and Private Schools Compared. New York, Basic Books.
9. Evans, W. and Schwab, R (1995). Finishing high school and starting: Do Catholic schools make a difference? Quarterly Journal of Economics, November.
10. Finn, C., Vanourek, G., Manno, B. and Bierlen, L (1997). Charter Schools in Action, Final Report. [Online] http://www.edexcellence.net/chart/chart5.html [2000, August]
11. Gannicott, K. (1998). School Autonomy and Academic Performance. Canberra, DETYA.
12. Graetz, B. (1990). Private schools and educational attainment: cohort and generational effects. Australian Journal of Education, 34 (2).
13. Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J. and Williamson, S. (2000). Improving Student Achievement: What NAEP State Test Scores Tell Us. Santa Monica, Rand Corporation. [Online] http://www.rand.org [2000, August]
14. Herman, J and herman, J. (1993). School-based Management: Current Thinking and Practice. Springfield, Thomas.
15. Hoffer, T., Greeley, A. and Coleman, J. (1985). Achievement growth in public and Catholic high schools. Sociology of Education, 58 (1).
16. Hofman, R. (1995). Contextual influences on school effectiveness: the role of school boards. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6 (2), 308-331.
17. Kelley, J. and Evans, M. (1999) Non-Catholic private schools and educational success. Australian Social Monitor, 2, 1-4.
18. Lee, V., Bryk, A. and Smith, J. (1993) Organisation of effective secondary schools, in: L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.) Review of Research in Education, 19, pp. 171-267.
19. Leithwood, K. and Menzies, T. (1998). A review of research concerning the implementation of site-based management. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9 (3), 233-285.
20. Levacic, R. and Hardman, J. (1999). The performance of grant maintained schools in England: an experiment in autonomy. Journal of Educational Policy, 14 (1), 185-212.
21. Long, M., Carpenter, P. and Hayden, M. (1999) Participation in Education: 1980-1994. Melbourne, ACER.
22. Madaus, G., Airasan, P., and Kellaghan, T. (1980) School Effectiveness: A Reassessment of the Evidence. New York, NY, Free Press.
23. Madaus, G., Airasan, P., and Kellaghan, T. (1980) School Effectiveness: A Reassessment of the Evidence. New York, NY, Free Press.
24. Malen, B., Ogawa, R. and Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about site-based management: a case study of the literature. In W. Clune and J. Witte (Eds) Choice and Control in American Education Volume 2: The Practice of Choice and School Restructuring. London, Falmer.
25. McGaw, B., Piper, K., Banks, D., and Evans, B. (1992) Making Schools More Effective. Melbourne, ACER.
26. McPherson, A. and Willms, J. D. (1986). Certification, class conflict, religion and community: an explanation of the effectiveness of contemporary schools, in A. Kerkchoff (ed) Research in Sociology of Education and Socialisation, 6, 227-302.
27. OECD (1995). Decision Making in 14 OECD Education Systems. Paris: OECD.
28. OECD (1998). Education at a Glance. OECD Indicators 1998. Paris:OECD.
29. OECD (2000). Education at a Glance. OECD Indicators 2000. Paris:OECD.
30. Phillips, V. (1997) The role of accountability in student achievement. Paper presented to a seminar at Melbourne University.
31. Rowan, B. Raudenbush, S. and Kang, S. (1991). Organisational design in high schools: a multilevel analysis. American Journal of Education, 99, 238-266.
32. Scheerens, J. and Bosker, R. (1997). The Foundations of Educational Effectiveness. London, Pergamon.
33. Schmidt, W. and Prawat, R. (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.
34. Sturman, A. (1989). Decentralisation and the Curriculum: Effects of the Decentralisation of Curriculum Decision Making in Australia. ACER Research Monograph No. 35. Melbourne: ACER.
35. Summers, A. and Johnson, A. (1996). The effects of school-based management plans. In E. Hanushek and D. Jorgenson (Eds) Improving America's Schools: The Role of Incentives. Washington, National Academy Press, pp 75-96.
36. Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (2000). The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research. London, Falmer.
37. Teddlie, C. Kirby, P. and Stringfield, S. (1989) Effective versus ineffective schools: Observable differences in the classroom. American Journal of Education, 97, pp. 221-236.
38. Toma, E. (1996) Public funding and private schooling across countries. Journal of Law and Economics, 39 (1).
39. Van Cuyck-Rejmissen, A. and Donkers, J (1990). Catholic and Protestant schools, a better choice in the Netherlands? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1 (3), 211-220.
40. Walberg, H., Paik, S., Komukai, A. and Freeman, K. (2000). Decentralization: An international perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, New Orleans.
41. Whitty, G., Power, S. and Halpin, D. (1998) Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
42. Wong, K. (2000). Chicago school reform: From decentralisation to integrated governance. Journal of Educational Change, 1 (1), 97-105.
43. Wylie, C. (1995). Site-based management: Some lessons from New Zealand. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, San Francisco.