Breaking loose: Principal autonomy in charter and public schools

Educational Policy

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 783-804

  Gawlik, Marytza A ^a  

^a WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Charter schools; Education policy; Organizational theory; Principals; Professional autonomy

Indexed keywords

EID: 53349160030     PISSN: 08959048     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0895904807307058     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P.B., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J.Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change. Boulder, CO: Westview.
2. Buhler, P. (1995). Leaders vs. managers. Supervision, 56, 24.
3. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
4. Center for Education Reform. (2006). Charter highlights and statistics. Washington, DC: Center for Educational Reform. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from http://www.edreform.com
5. Chubb, J.E., & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
6. Collard, J.L. (2001). Leadership and gender: An Australian perspective. Educational Management & Administration, 29 (3). 342-355.
7. Crawford, J.R. (2001). Teacher autonomy and accountability in charter schools. Education and Urban Society, 33 (2). 186-200.
8. Drake, T.L., & Roe, W.H. (1999). The principalship (D. Stollenwerk, Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9. Forsyth, P.B., & Danisiewicz, T.J. (1985). Toward a theory of professionalization. Work and Occupations, 12 (1). 59-76.
10. Fuller, B. (2000). Inside charter schools: The paradox of radical decentralization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Hannan, M.T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149-164.
12. Hannaway, J. (1993). Political pressure and decentralization in institutional organizations: The case of school districts. Sociology of Education, 66, 147-163.
13. Herman, J., & Yeh, J. (1983). Some effects of parent involvement in schools. The Urban Review, 15, 11-17.
14. Huber, G.P., Sutcliffe, K.M., Miller, C.C., & Glick, W.H. (1995). Understanding and predicting organizational change. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign (pp. 215-268). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
15. Lee, V.E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teacher attitudes and students' achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (1). 3-31.
16. Liebler, C. (2001). How race and gender affect journalists'autonomy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
17. Luthans, F. (1992). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
18. Malen, B., & Ogawa, R.T. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site-based governance councils: A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10 (4). 251-270.
19. Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
20. Millot, M.D. (1994). Autonomy, accountability and the values of public education: A current assessment of charter school state statutes leading to model legislation (DRU-930-LE/IET). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
21. Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2002). What's public about charter schools: Lessons learned about choice and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
22. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1999). Public Charter School Principal Questionnaire: Schools and staffing survey 1999-2000 school year. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
23. National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Revenues, expenditures, poverty rate, and Title I allocations of public school districts enrolling more than 15,000 students, by state: 2002-0. Digest of Education Statistics.
24. Olson, L. (2000). Redefining public schools: Charter and voucher programs bring lots of choices, little consensus. Education Week, 19 (33). 1-24.
25. Perez, A.L., Milstein, M.M., Wood, C.J., & Jacquez, D. (1999). How to turn a school around: What principals can do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
26. Rofes, E. (1998). How are school districts responding to charter laws and charter schools? Berkeley: University of California, Policy Analysis for California Education.
27. Smulyan, L. (2000). Balancing acts: Women principals at work. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
28. Smylie, M.A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of school-based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18 (3). 181-198.
29. Stevenson, D.L., & Schiller, K.S. (1999). State education policies and changing school practices: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Schools, 1980-1993. American Journal of Education, 107 (4). 261-288.
30. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
31. Wells, A.S. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten California school districts. Los Angeles: UCLA Charter School Study.
32. Wells, A.S., Grutzik, C., Carnochan, S., Slayton, J., & Vasudeva, A. (1999). Underlying policy assumptions of charter school reform: The multiple meanings of a movement. Teachers College Record, 100 (3). 513-535.
33. Wohlstetter, P., & Mohrman, S.A. (1993). School-based management: Strategies for success. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
34. Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K.L. (1995). Charter schools in the United States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9 (4). 331-358.