"External" organizations and the politics of urban educational leadership: The case of new small autonomous schools initiatives

Peabody Journal of Education

Volumn 84, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 394-413

  Honig, Meredith I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 75249084494     PISSN: 0161956X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01619560902973613     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Barley, S. R. (1996). Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 404-441.
3. Bay Area Coalition for Equitable Schools. (2007). History. Retrieved on February 12, 2009, from http://www.bayces.org/article.php/history
4. Coburn, C. E. (2005). The role of non-system actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23-52.
5. Davidson, J. (2002). Oakland's community propels change for equity: The Small Schools Initiative [Electronic version]. Horace, 18. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/267
6. Firestone, W. A. (1989). Education policy as an ecology of games. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 18-24.
7. Gallucci, C., Boatright, B., Lysne, D., & Swinnerton, J. (2006, April). District reform as teaching and learning: How the system "learns" to improve instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
8. Gammon, R. (2007). Eli's experiment [Electronic version]. East Bay Express. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/eli_s_experiment/Content?oid=518210.
9. Hess, F. (Ed.). (2005).With the best intentions: How philanthropy is reshaping K-12 education. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Honig, M. I. (2004a). District central office-community partnerships: From contracts to collaboration to control. In W. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 59-90). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
11. Honig, M. I. (2004b). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65-87.
12. Honig, M. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1-24). Albany: The State University of New York Press.
13. Honig, M. I. (2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of New Small Autonomous Schools Initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 387-422.
14. Honig, M. I., & Ikemoto, G. S. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 328-363.
15. Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (1991). The choice of target populations. Administration and Society, 23(3), 333-356.
16. Malen, B. (2006). Revisiting policy implementation as a political phenomenon: The case of reconstitution policies. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 83-104). Albany: The State University of New York Press.
17. March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making. New York: The Free Press.
18. Marsh, J. A. (2007). Democratic dilemmas. Albany: The State University of New York Press.
19. Mediratta, K., Fruchter, N., Branch, E., Gross, B., Hirota, J., McBride, Y., et al. (2004). Constituents of change: Community organizations and public education reform. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University.
20. Mediratta, K., Shah, S., & McAlister, S. (2008). Organized communities, stronger schools: A preview of research findings. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University.
21. Northouse, P. G. (2006). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Oakland Unified School District. (2002). Request for proposals [New Small Autonomous Schools Initiative]. Oakland, CA: Author.
23. Oakland Unified School District. (2007). Expect success: Making education work for every Oakland student. Oakland, CA: Author.
24. Rowan, B. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283-314.
25. Shipps, D. (2003). Pulling together: Civic capacity and urban school reform. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 841-878.
26. Stone, C. N. (2001). Civic capacity and urban education. Urban Affairs Review, 36(5), 595-619.