School Reengineering and SAT-I Performance: A Case Study

International Journal of Educational Reform

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 148-154

  Bain, Alan ^a   Ross, Kimberly G ^a  

^a Brewster Academy   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250162108     PISSN: 10567879     EISSN: 26319675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/105678790000900206     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bain A., (1994). The School Design Model©’ Future School Institute at Brewster Academy handbook. Wolfeboro, NH: ENDEAVOUR GROUP™.
2. Bain A., (1996). The School Design Model© at Brewster Academy: Technology serving teaching and learning. Technological Horizons in Education, 23(10): 72–79.
3. Bain A., (1997). Curriculum Authoring Tools [Computer Software], Wolfeboro, NH: ENDEAVOUR GROUP™.
4. Bain A., and Palmer L., (5–6 December 1998). Admissions decision making: A collaborative approach. The National Association of Boarding Schools Conference, Washington D.C.
5. Bain A., (1999). A transformational vision. In Hillman T., and Thom C., (Eds.) Oh what a web we weave. Gilman, NH: Avocus Press.
6. Bain A., Fallon M., and Smith D., (1999). Designing the future. In Hillman T., and Thom C., (Eds.) Oh what a web we weave. Gilman, NH: Avocus Press.
7. Bain A., Hess P. T., Jones G., and Berelowitz C., (1999). Gender differences and computer competency: The effects of a high access computer program on the computer competence of young women. International Journal of Educational Technology.
8. Bain A., and Hess P. T., The effects of teamwork and collaboration on faculty culture in a major school reengineering process. (Manuscript in progress).
9. Bain A., and Huss P., (1999). The curriculum authoring tools: Technology enabling school reform. (Manuscript submitted for publication).
10. Bodily S., (1996). Lessons from new American schools development corporation's demonstration phase. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
11. Brosnan M., (1996). Make it new: Brewster Academy reinvents itself. Independent School (Spring): 12–16.
12. CEO Forum (1999). School Technology and Readiness Report. On-line at http://www.ceoforum.org/
13. Cicchinelli L., (1999). “What we know about comprehensive school reform.” McREL. On-line at http://198.17.205.11/resources/noteworthy99/index.asp.
14. College Entrance Examination Board (1988). Guidelines on the use of College Board Test Scores and Related Data. Princeton, NJ: The College Board.
15. College Entrance Examination Board (1999). Reporting your school's aggregate scores. Princeton, NJ: The College Board.
16. Cook T. D., and Campbell D. T., (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field.
17. Elmore R. F., (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1): 1–26.
18. Fetler M. E., (1991). Pitfalls of using the SAT to compare schools. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2): 481–489.
19. Gonder P., “Invigorating education by reinventing staff development.” McREL. On-line at: http://198.17.205.11/resources/note-worthy99/index.asp.
20. Greenwood C. R., and Delquardi J., (1995). Peer tutoring and the prevention of school failure. Preventing School Failure, 39(4): 21–25.
21. Honig B., (1994). “How can Horace best be helped?” Phi Delta Kappan, 75(10): 790–796.
22. Huck R., Meyers R., and Wilson J., (1989). ADAPT: A developmental activity program for teachers. Pittsburgh, PA: Allegheny Intermediate Unit.
23. Idol L., Paolucci-Whitcomb P., and Nevin A., (1986). Collaborative consultation. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
24. McREL (1999). “Noteworthy perspectives on school reform.” On-line at: http://198.17.205.11/resources/noteworthy99/index.asp.
25. McCord M., (1999). Exploring the frontier of technology, education reform. New Hampshire Business Review/Tech Net (12 February): 33–36.
26. Mercer C. D., (1999). Learning Disabilities. In Haring N., and McCormick L., (Eds.), Exceptional children and youth, 5th ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
27. Montague J., (1990). The dangers of using SAT results to compare schools: Beyond the SAT. The American School Board Journal, (June): 31–33.
28. Montague J., (1999). Preparing for the SAT. Slide presentation. Princeton, NJ: The College Board.
29. Office of Research and Development (1999). Coaching and the SAT-I. Research notes RN-06 (April). Princeton, NJ: The College Board.
30. Pogrow S., (1996). Reforming the wannabe reformers: Why education reforms almost always end up making things worse. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(10): 656–63.
31. Rosenshine B., (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43(7): 60–69.
32. Scheerens J., (1992). Research, theory and practice. In Effective Schooling. New York: F. Cassell.
33. Senge P., (1994). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
34. Slavin R. E., (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
35. Smith D., and Bain A., (24–27 February 1999). Creating a School of the Future: Six Years of Progress. Dallas, TX: NAIS, National Conference.
36. Viadero D., (1995). “Mixed record for coalition schools is seen.” On-line at: http://www.edweek.org/htbin/fastweb
37. Weick K. E., (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 1–19.
38. Wenger P., (1999). “Selecting and implementing research-based instruction.” McREL. On-line at: http://198.17.205.11/resources/noteworthy99/index.asp.
39. Wheelock A., (1992). The case for untracking. Educational Leadership, 50(2): 6–10.
40. Wiggins G., (1993). Assessment, authenticity, context and validity. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3): 200–208, 210–214.
41. Wiggins G., (1998). Educative assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.