Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 111-126

  Gross, Betheny ^a   Booker, T Kevin ^b   Goldhaber, Dan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Education policy; School reform; Student achievement

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650469830     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0162373709333886     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bifulco, R. (2002). Addressing self-selection bias in quasi-experimental evaluations of whole-school reform: A comparison of methods. Evaluation Review, 26(5), 545-572.
2. Bifulco, R., Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (2005). Does whole-school reform boost student performance? The case of New York City. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24,47-72. (Pubitemid 40019607)
3. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73,125-230. (Pubitemid 37076540)
4. Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2006). School restructuring under No Child Left Behind: What works when? Washington, DC: Learning Point Associates.
5. Committee on Education and Labor. (1990). Chapter 1 survey of the Hawkins-Stafford School Improvement Amendments. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States.
6. Cooper, R., & Jordan, W. J. (2003). Cultural issues in comprehensive school reform. Urban Education, 38, 380-397. (Pubitemid 36837092)
7. Datnow, A. (2000). Implementing an externally developed school restructuring design: Enablers, constraints, and tensions. Teaching and Change, 7(2), 147-171.
8. Datnow, A., Borman, G. D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L. T., & Castellano, M. (2003). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 143-170. (Pubitemid 37311570)
9. Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433-479. (Pubitemid 36121905)
10. Engec, N. (2006). Relationship between mobility and student performance and behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 168.
11. Hamann, E. T., Zuliani, I., & Hudak, M. (2001). English language learners, the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration project, and the role of state departments of education. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.
12. Hartman, C. (2006). Students on the move. Educational Leadership, 63,20-24.
13. Koh, M., & Robertson, J. S. (2003). School reform models and special education. Education and Urban Society, 35,421-442. (Pubitemid 36971178)
14. National Center on Educational Statistics. (2001). Overview of public elementary and secondary schools and districts: School year 1999-2000. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2001/overview/table09.asp
15. Office of Management and Budget. (2002). Detailed information on the comprehensive school reform assessment. Retrieved January 22, 2008, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/ detail/10000184.2002.html
16. Office of Management and Budget. (2008). Budget of the United States government: Fiscal year 2008. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved January 22, 2008, from http:// www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/browse. html
17. Rivkin, S. (2005). Cumulative nature of learning and specification bias in education research. Amherst, MA: Mimeo, Amherst College.
18. Rumberger, R. W. (2003). The causes and consequences of student mobility. Journal of Negro Education, 72(1), 6-21.
19. Slavin, R., & Madden, N. A. (2001). One million children: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
20. Southwest Educational Development Lab. (2003). Follow-up study of schools implementing Comprehensive School Reform in the southwest (Evaluation report). Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved January 22, 2008, from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/ change93/csr-followup-report.pdf
21. Supovitz, J. A., & May, H. (2004). A study of the links between implementation and effectiveness of the America's Choice comprehensive school reform design. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9(4), 389-419.
22. Todd, P. E., & Wolpin, K. I. (2003). On the specification and estimation of the production function for cognitive achievement. The Economic Journal, 113, F3-F33.
23. Tushnet, N. C., Flaherty, J., & Smith, A. (2004). Longitudinal assessment of Comprehensive School Reform program implementation and outcomes: First-year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
24. U.S. Department of Education. (1998-2005). Budget for fiscal years 1998-2005 (Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
25. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Implementation and early outcomes of the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD)program. Washington, DC: Author.
26. U.S. Department of Education. (2007a). Department of Education fiscal year 2008 Congressional action, December 19, 2007. Retrieved January 22,2008, from http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/ budget/tables.html
27. U.S. Department of Education. (2007b). Fiscal year 2008 summary and background information. Washington, DC: Author.
28. Verniez, G., Karam, R., Mariano, L., & DeMartini, C. (2004). Assessing the implementation of Comprehensive School Reform models. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.