School reform 2007: Transforming education into a scientific enterprise

Annual Review of Sociology

Volumn 33, Issue , 2007, Pages 197-217

  Schneider, Barbara L ^a   Keesler, Venessa A ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehensive school reform; Performance driven reforms; Scientific intellectual movement

Indexed keywords

EID: 34848861361     PISSN: 03600572     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131731     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Am. Educ. Res. Assoc. 2006. Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Washington, DC: Am. Educ. Res. Assoc, http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Opportunities/ StandardsforReportingEmpiricalSocialScience_PDF.pdf
2. Anyon J. 1997. Ghetto Schooling: A Political Economy of Urban Educational Reform, pp. 164-96. New York: Teachers Coll. Press
3. Berends M, Chun J, Schuyler G, Stockly S, Briggs R. 2002. Challenges of Conflicting School Reforms: Effects of New American Schools in a High-Poverty District. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
4. Berends M, Kirby S, Naftel S, McKelvey C. 2001. Implementation and Performance in New American Schools: Three Years into Scale-Up. Santa Monica/Arlington: RAND. (ED 451 204)
5. Bodilly S, Berends M. 1999. Necessary district support for comprehensive school reform. In Hard Work for Good Schools: Facts not Fads in Title I Reform, ed. G Orfield, E DeBray, pp. 111-19. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, Civil Rights Proj. (ED 447 247)
6. Borman GD, Hewes GM. 2003. The long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of Success for All. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 24:243-66
7. Borman GD, Hewes GM, Overman LT, Brown SA 2003. Comprehensive school reform and achievement: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 73 (2): 125-230
8. Brint S. 2006. Schools and Societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. 2nd ed.
9. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
10. Bryk AS, Easton JQ, Kerbow D, Rollow SG, Sebring P. 1998. A View from the Elementary Schools: The State of Reform in Chicago. Chicago: Consort. Chicago Sch. Res.
11. Bryk AS, Lee VE, Holland PE. 1993. Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
12. Bryk AS, Schneider B. 2002. Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New York: Russell Sage Found.
13. Butts RF, Cremin LA. 1953. A History of Education in American Culture. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
14. Cahalan MW, Curtin TR. 2004. A Profile of the Upward Bound Program: 2000-2001. Washington, DC: US Dep. Educ., Off. Postsecondary Educ. Fed. TRIO Programs
15. Carnoy M. 2000. Sustaining Flexibility: Work, Family, and Community in the Information Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
16. Cent. Educ. Policy. 2004. From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 2 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: CEP http://www.cep-dc.org/ pubs/nclby2/cep_nclb_y2_full.pdf
17. Coleman J, Campbell E, Hobson C, McPartland J, Mood A, et al. 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: USGPO
18. Collins R. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
19. Confrey J, Stohl V 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
20. Darling-Hammond L. 2004. Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers Coll. Rec. 106(6):1047-85
21. Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 (1938).
22. Finn C. 2002. No Child Left Behind: What Will It Take? Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Found.
23. Finn JD, Achilles CM. 1999. Tennessee class size study: findings, implications, misconceptions. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 21 (2):97-109
24. Frickel S, Gross N. 2005. A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70:204-32
25. Fukuyama F. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press
26. Glasman NS, Glasman CD. 1990. Evaluation: catalyst for a response to change. In Education Reform, ed. SB Bacharach, pp. 392-99. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
27. Grubb WN, Lazerson M. 2004. The Education Gospel: The Economic Power of Schooling, pp. 1-28, 245-69. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
28. Guthrie JT, Wigfield A. 2005. Roles of motivation and engagement in reading comprehension assessment. In Children's Reading Comprehension and Assessment, ed. S Paris, S Stahl, pp. 187-213. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Assoc.
29. Ham S, Doolittle FC, Holton GI, Ventura A, Jackson R. 2000. Project GRAD Newark: Building the Foundation for Improved Student Performance: The Precurricular Phase of Project GRAD Newark. New York: MDRC
30. Hanushek EA 1999. Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 21(2):143-63
31. Hess F. 1999. Spinning Wheels: The Politics of Urban School Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press
32. Hess F, Finn C. 2006. Leaving No Child Behind? Options for Kids in Failing Schools. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
33. Hill P, Campbell C, Harvey J. 2000. It Takes a City: Getting Serious About Urban School Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press
34. Hofstadter R, Smith W. 1961. American Higher Education: A Documentary History. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
35. Kahne JE, Sporte S, de la Torre M, Easton JQ. 2006. Small Schools on a Larger Scale: The First Three Years of the Chicago High School Redesign Initiative. Chicago: Consort. Chicago Sch. Res.
36. Labaree D. 1997. Public goods, private goods: the American struggle over educational goals. Am. Educ. Res. J. 34(1):39-81
37. Learning Point Assoc. 2005. Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Strategies to Improve High Schools. Washington, DC: US Dep. Educ, Inst. Educ. Sci.
38. Lee J. 2006. Tracking Achievement Gaps and Assessing the Impact of NCLB on the Gaps: An In-Depth Look into National and State Reading and Math Outcome Trends. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Proj. Harvard Univ.
39. Lee VE, Smith JB. 1997. High school size: Which works best and for whom? Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 19(3):205-27
40. Loveless T. 2006. The 2006 Brown Center Report on American Education. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press
41. Luther P, Moss P, eds. 2005. Special issue: a symposium on the implications of the Scientific Research in Education report for qualitative inquiry. Teachers Coll. Rec. Vol. 107(1). New York: Teachers Coll.
42. MostowJ, BeckJ. 2007. When the rubber meets the road: lessons from the in-school adventures of an automated reading tutor that listens. See Schneider & McDonald 2007b, pp. 183-200
43. Murphy J. 1991. Restructuring Schools: Capturing and Assessing the Phenomena. New York: Teacher Coll. Press
44. Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat. 2004. The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004-094). Washington, DC: US Dep. Educ., Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat.
45. Natl. Cent. Educ Stat. 2006. Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006-030). Washington, DC: US Dep. Educ., Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat.
46. Natl. Comm. Excellence Educ. 1983. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: USGPO
47. Natl. Res. Counc. 2004. Implementing Randomized Field Trials in Education: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
48. Nye B, Hedges LV, Konstantopoulos S. 1999. The long-term effects of small classes: a five-year follow-up of the Tennessee class size experiment. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 21(2):127-42
49. O'DayJA, Smith MS. 1993. Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System, ed. SH Fuhrman, pp. 250-312. San Francisco: Jossey Bass (ED 359 626)
50. Ogletree C. 2004. All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: Norton
51. Orfield G. 1996. Turning back to segregation. In Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education, ed. G Orfield, S Eaton, Harvard Proj. Desegreg., pp. 1-22, ED 410 363. New York: New Press
52. Phillips M, Jencks C. 1997. The Black-White Test Score. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press
53. Plank D, Scotch R, Gamble J. 1996. Rethinking progressive school reform: organizational dynamics and educational change. Am. J. Educ. 104(2):79-102
54. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. 1896
55. Popkewitz TS. 2004. Is the National Research Council Committee's report on Scientific Research in Education scientific? On trusting the manifesto. Qual. Inq. 10(1):62-78
56. Ravitch D. 1983. The Troubled Crusade American Education, 1945-1980. New York: Basic Books
57. Rosenbaum J. 2001. Beyond College for All: Career Paths for the Forgotten Half. New York: Russell Sage Found.
58. Russell J. 2004. Evaluating early evidence on the implementation of accountability report cards. Rand Work. Pap. WR-202-EDU, Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA
59. Salomone R. 2000. Visions of Schooling, Conscience, Community, and Common Education. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
60. Schneider B, McDonald SK, eds. 2007a. Scale - Up in Education. Vol. 1: Ideas in Principle. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
61. Schneider B, McDonald SK, eds. 2007b. Scale- Up in Education. Vol. 2: Issues in Practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
62. Schneider B, Kertcher Z, Offer S. 2006. Global trends towards education and science: tension and resistance. In Education Research and Policy: Steering the Knowledge-Based Economy, ed. J Ozga, T Seddon, T Popkewitz, pp. 200-16. New York/London: Taylor & Francis
63. Schneider B, Wyse A Keesler V. 2007. Is small really better? Testing some assumptions of school size. Brookings Pap. Educ. Policy. In press
64. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin
65. Shavelson RJ, Towne L, eds. 2002. Scientific Research in Education. Washington, DC: Natl. Res. Counc., Natl. Acad. Press
66. Slavin RE, Madden NA 2007. Two Million Children: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. In press
67. Stecher BM, Bohrnstedt GW. 2002. Class Size Reduction in California: Findings from 1999-00 and 2000-01. Sacramento: Calif. Dep. Educ.
68. Stevenson D. 2000. The fit and misfit of sociological research and educational policy. In Handbook of the Sociology of Education, ed. MT Hallinan, pp. 547-64. New York: Kluwer Acad.
69. Sunderman G, Kim J. 2004. Inspiring vision, disappointing results: four studies on implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Harvard Civil Rights Proj. http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/esea/nclb. php. Accessed Aug. 15, 2006
70. Swanson CB. 2004. Who Graduates? Who Doesn't? A Statistical Portrait of Public High School Graduation, Class of 2001. Washington, DC: Urban Inst.
71. Toch T. 1991. In the Name of Excellence. New York: Oxford Univ.
72. Towne L, Wise L, Winters T. 2005. Advancing Scientific Research in Education. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad.
73. Tyack D, Cuban L. 1995. Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
74. US Dep. Educ. 2005. Scientifically based evaluation methods (FR Doc. 05-1317). Federal Register 70(Jan. 25):3586-89. http://www.gpo.gov/ su_docs/fedreg/a050125c.html
75. US Dep. Labor. Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). 1991. What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000. Washington, DC: US Dep. Labor
76. Warren JR, Jenkins KN, Kulick R. 2006. High school exit examinations and state-level completion and GED rates, 1975-2002. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 28:131-52