The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of Clifornia schools

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 319-352

  Mintrop, Heinrich ^a   Trujillo, Tina ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

School effectiveness; School improvement; School quality; State accountability systems

Indexed keywords

EID: 36849083474     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0162373707309219     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14.
2. Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455.
3. Ashton, P., & Webb, R. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
4. Baker, E., & Linn, R. (2004). Validity issues for accountability systems. In S. Furhman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 47-72). New York: Teachers College Press.
5. Baker, E., Goldschmidt, P., Martinez, F., & Swigert, S. (2002). In search of school quality and accountability: Moving beyond the California Performance Index (API). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
6. Blankstein, A. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
7. Bomotti, S., Ginsberg, R., & Cobb, B. (2002, April). Different teachers, different stakes? Determinants of attitudes toward high-stakes testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
8. California Department of Education. (2005). California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS). Available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/ cb/
9. California Department of Education. (2006). API description: Overview of the Academic Performance Index (API). Available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ ta/ac/ap/apidescription.asp
10. Carlson, D. (2006). Focusing state educational accountability systems: Four methods of judging school quality and progress. Dover, NH: Center for Assessment.
11. Carter, S. (2001). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
12. Consortium on Chicago School Research. (2003a). Survey of Chicago public school students, spring 2003, elementary student edition. Chicago: Author.
13. Consortium on Chicago School Research. (2003b). Survey of Chicago public school teachers, spring 2003, elementary teacher edition. Chicago: Author.
14. Council of Chief State School Officers, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, & Learning Point Associates. (2003). Surveys of enacted curriculum. Washington, DC: Author.
15. Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1991). The principal's role in shaping school culture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement Programs for the Improvement of Practice.
16. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
17. EdSource. (2003). California's lowest performing schools: Who they are, the challenges they face, and how they're improving. Mountain View, CA: Author.
18. Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
19. Fitz-Gibbon, C., & Kochan, S. (2000). School effectiveness and education indicators. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 257-282). London: Falmer.
20. Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
21. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
22. Goe, L. (2004). An evaluation of California's immediate intervention/underperforming schools program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
23. Goe, L. (2006, April). An evaluation of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools (II/USP): 1999-2004. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
24. Gray, J. (2001). Building for improvement and sustaining change in schools serving disadvantaged communities. In M. Maden (Ed.), Success against the odds, five years on: Revisiting effective schools in disadvantaged areas (pp. 1-39). London: Routledge Falmer.
25. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Re-assessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of the empirical research, 1980-95. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
26. Hannaway, J., & Chaplin, D. (1994). Breaking the cycle: Instructional efficacy and teachers of "at-risk" students. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
27. Hanushek, E. (1994). Making schools work: Improving performance and controlling costs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
28. Haycock, K. (1999). Dispelling the myth: High poverty schools exceeding expectations. Washington, DC: EdTrust.
29. Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2002). The district role in instructional renewal: Making sense and taking action. In A. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh, & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 193-201). New York: Teachers College Press.
30. Hill, R. (2001). The reliability of California's API. Dover, NH: The Center for Assessment.
31. Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
32. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2003). TIMSS 2003 main survey, student questionnaire, Grade 4. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Author.
33. Kane, T., & Staiger, D. (2002). Volatility in school test scores: Implications for test-based accountability systems. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
34. LeCompte, M., & Dworkin, A. (1991). Giving up on school: Student dropouts and teacher burnouts. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
35. Linn, R., Baker, E., & Betebenner, D. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-16.
36. Little, J. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.
37. Louis, K., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). Statemandated accountability in high schools: Teachers' interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 177-204.
38. Louis, K., & Kruse, S. (1998). Creating community in reform: Images of organizational learning in inner-city schools. In K. Leithwood & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Organizational learning in schools (pp. 17-46). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
39. Malen, B., & Muncey, D. (2000). Creating "a new set of givens"? The impact of state activism on school autonomy. In N. D. Theobald & B. Malen (Eds.), Balancing local control and state responsibility for K-12 education (pp.199-244). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
40. McBeath, J., & Mortimore, P. (Eds.). (2001). Improving school effectiveness. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
41. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation's educational goals. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
42. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Mintrop, H. (2003). The limits of sanctions in low-performing schools: A study of Maryland and Kentucky schools on probation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(3). Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n3.html
45. Mintrop, H. (2004). Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn't work). New York: Teachers College Press.
46. Mintrop, H., & MacLellan, A. (2002). School improvement plans in elementary and middle schools on probation. Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 275-300.
47. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2005). Corrective action in low-performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from state and district strategies in first-generation accountability systems. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, /3(48). Available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n48.html
48. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2007). School improvement under test-driven accountability: A comparison of high and low performing middle schools in California (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 717). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
49. Newmann, F., Bryk, A., & Nagaoka, S. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
50. Newmann, F., Secada, W., & Wehlage, G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, and scoring. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
51. Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297-321.
52. Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
53. O'Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Education Review, 72(3), 293-329.
54. Odden, A., & Kelley, C. (1997). Paying teachers for what they know and do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
55. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris: Author.
56. Reeves, D. (2000). Accountability in action: A blue-print for learning organizations. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
57. Rogosa, D. (2003). Confusions and consistency in improvement. Retrieved March 13, 2007, from http://www-stat.stanford.edu/%7Erag/api/consist. pdf
58. Rogosa, D., & Haertel, D. (2003). Deceived and confused: An attempt to reconcile the numbers in the public forum on school accountability report, "A better student data system for California." Available at http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~rag/api/Deceive.pdf
59. Rowan, B., Chiang, F., & Miller, R. (1997). Using research on employees' performance to study the effects of teachers on student's achievement. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 256-284.
60. Russell, M. (2002). California's accountability system and the API, expert witness report for Eliezer Williams et al. v. State of California. Available at http://www.decentschools.org/expert_reports/russell_report.pdf
61. Sammons, P. (1999). School effectiveness: Coming of age in the twenty-first century. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
62. Scheerens, J. (1992). Effective schooling: Research, theory and practice. London: Cassell.
63. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
64. Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
65. Springboard Schools. (2005). Challenged schools, remarkable results: Three lessons from California's highest achieving high schools. San Francisco: Author.
66. SRI International, Policy Studies Associates, & Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (2003). Evaluation of Title I accountability systems and school improvement efforts (TASSIE), 2002-03. Menlo Park, CA: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service.
67. Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1998). The cruising school: The unidentified ineffective school. In L. Stoll & K. Myers (Eds.), No quick fixes: Perspectives on schools in difficulty (pp. 189-206). London: Falmer.
68. Taylor, B. (2003). School change classroom observation manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
69. Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Falmer.
70. Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools do make a difference: Lessons learned from a ten-year study of school effects. New York: Teachers College Press.
71. WestEd. (2005). Schools moving up. San Francisco: Author.
72. Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do better? A large scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
73. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.