Toward addressing the issues of site selection in district effectiveness research: A two-level hierarchical linear growth model

Educational Administration Quarterly

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 395-425

  Bowers, Alex J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

District effectiveness research; Growth modeling; Hierarchical linear modeling; School districts; School effectiveness research

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954629675     PISSN: 0013161X     EISSN: 15523519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013161X10375271     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Aitkin, M., & Longford, N. (1986). Statistical modelling issues in school effectiveness studies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 149, 1-43.
2. Bowers, A.J. (2008). Promoting excellence: Good to great, NYC's District 2, and the case of a high performing school district. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7, 154-177.
3. Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1988). Toward a more appropriate conceptualization of research on school effects: A three-level hierarchical linear model. American Journal of Education, 97, 65-108.
4. Clark, D.L., Lotto, L.S., & Astuto, T.A. (1984). Effective schools and school improvement: A comparative analysis of two lines of inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 41-68.
5. Coe, R., & Taylor-Fitz-Gibbon, C. (1998). School effectiveness research: criticisms and recommendations. Oxford Review of Education, 24, 421-438.
6. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobsen, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity survey. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
7. Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2006). Critical analysis of the current approaches to modeling educational effectiveness: The importance of establishing a dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 347-366.
8. Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54, 129-151.
9. Cuban, L. (2003). Why is it so hard to get good schools? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
10. Cuban, L., & Usdan, M. (2003). Fast and top-down: Systemic reform and student achievement in San Diego city schools. In L. Cuban & M. Usdan (Eds.), Powerful reforms with shallow roots (pp. 77-95). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
11. Dailey, D., Fleischman, S., Gil, L., Holtzman, D., O'Day, J.A., & Vosmer, C. (2005). Toward more effective school districts: A review of the knowledge base. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
12. Dyer, H.S., Linn, R.L., & Patton, M.J. (1969). A comparison of four methods of obtaining discrepancy measures based on observed and predicted school system means on achievement tests. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 591-605.
13. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 31, 15-24.
14. Elmore, R.F. (2003). Accountability and capacity. In M. Carnoy, R. Elmore, & L. S. Sisken (Eds.), The new accountability: High schools and high stakes testing (pp. 195-209). New York, NY: Routledge.
15. Elmore, R.F., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263-291). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16. Finn, J.D., & Achilles, C.M. (1999). Tennessee's class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 97-109.
17. Firestone, W.A., Mangin, M.M., Martinez, M.C., & Polovsky, T. (2005). Leading coherent professional development: A comparison of three districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 413-448.
18. Floden, R.E., Porter, A.C., Alford, L.E., Freeman, D.J., Irwin, S., & Schmidt, W.H. (1988). Instructional leadership at the district level: A closer look at autonomy and control. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 96-124.
19. Gibson, A., & Asthana, S. (1998). School performance, school effectiveness and the 1997 white paper. Oxford Review of Education, 24, 195-210.
20. Goldstein, H. (1997). Methods in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 369-395.
21. Goldstein, H., & Woodhouse, G. (2000). School effectiveness research and educational policy. Oxford Review of Education, 26, 353-363.
22. Guskey, T.R. (2007). Multiple sources of evidence: An analysis of stakeholder perceptions of various indicators of student learning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26, 19-27.
23. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 329-352.
24. Hannaway, J., & Stanislawski, M. (2005). Flip-flops in school reform: An evolutionary theory of decentralization. In F. M. Hess (Ed.), Urban school reform: Lessons from San Diego (pp. 53-70). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
25. Hanushek, E.A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 141-164.
26. Hanushek, E.A. (1999). Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 143-163.
27. Hanushek, E.A. (2003). The failure of input-based school policies. Economic Journal, 113(485), F64-F98.
28. Harker, R., & Nash, R. (1996). Academic outcomes and school effectiveness: Type A and Type B effects. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 32, 143-170.
29. Hentschke, G.C., Nayfack, M.B., & Wohlstetter, P. (2009). Exploring superintendent leadership smaller urban districts: Does district size influence superintendent behavior. Education and Urban Society, 41, 317-337.
30. Hightower, A.M., Knapp, M.S., Marsh, J.A., & McLaughlin, M.W. (2002). The district role in instructional renewal: Setting the stage for dialogue. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 1-6). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
31. Hightower, A.M., & McLaughlin, M.W. (2005). Building and sustaining an infrastructure for learning. In F. M. Hess (Ed.), Urban school reform: Lessons from San Diego (pp. 71-92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
32. Hill, P.T. (1994). Reinventing public education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
33. Honig, M.I., & Coburn, C.E. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices. Educational Policy, 22, 578-608.
34. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Ikemoto, G.S., & Marsh, J.A. (2007). Cutting through the data-driven mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making. In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making: The 106th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1 (pp. 105-131). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
36. Kerbow, D. (1996). Patterns of urban student mobility and local school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1, 147-170.
37. Klitgaard, R.E., & Hall, G.R. (1975). Are there unusually effective schools? Journal of Human Resources, 10, 90-106.
38. Luyten, H., Visscher, A., & Witziers, B. (2005). School effectiveness research: From a review of the criticism to recommendations for further development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 249-279.
39. Marco, G.L., Murphy, R.T., & Quirk, T.J. (1976). A classification of methods using student data to assess school effectiveness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 13, 243-252.
40. Marks, H.M., & Printy, S.M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
41. Marsh, J.A., Kerr, K.A., Ikemoto, G.S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R.W., & Barney, H. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the institute for learning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
42. McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (2002). Reforming districts. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 193-202). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
43. Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas-A review of research evidence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 149-175.
44. Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school districts. Journal of Educational Research, 81, 175-181.
45. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., Peterson, K.D., & Lotto, L.S. (1987). The administrative control of principals in effective school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 25, 161-192.
46. Murphy, J., Peterson, K.D., & Hallinger, P. (1986). The administrative control of principals in effective school districts: The supervision and evaluation functions. Urban Review, 18, 149-175.
47. No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
48. Odden, A.R., Goertz, M.E., & Picus, L.O. (2008). Using available evidence to estimate the cost of educational adequacy. Education Finance and Policy, 3, 374-397.
49. Ogbu, J.U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50. Ohio Department of Education. (2008). Office of data services. Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.oh.us.
51. Opfer, V.D., Henry, G.T., & Mashburn, A.J. (2008). The district effect: Systemic responses to high stakes accountability policies in six southern states. American Journal of Education, 114, 299-332.
52. Petersen, G.J. (1999). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: An examination of five California superintendents. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(18), 1-24.
53. Peterson, K.D., Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1987). Superintendents' perceptions of the control and coordination of the technical core in effective school districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(1), 79-95.
54. Printy, S.M., & Marks, H.M. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning. Theory Into Practice, 45, 125-132.
55. Purkey, S.C., & Marshall, S.S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 426-452.
56. Purkey, S.C., & Smith, M.S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective schools literature. Elementary School Journal, 85, 352-389.
57. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58. Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S., Cheong, Y.F., Congdon, R., & duToit, M. (2007). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
59. Raudenbush, S.W., & Chan, W.-S. (1993). Application of a hierarchical linear model to the study of adolescent deviance in an overlapping cohort design. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 941-951.
60. Raudenbush, S.W., & Willms, D.J. (1995). The estimation of school effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20, 307-335.
61. Reynolds, D., Hopkins, D., & Stoll, L. (1993). Linking school effectiveness knowledge and school improvement practice: Towards a synergy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4, 37-58.
62. Reynolds, D., Teddlie, C., Creemers, B.P.M., Scheerens, J., & Townsend, T. (2000). An introduction to school effectiveness research. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 3-25). New York, NY: Falmer.
63. Rorrer, A.K., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J.J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 307-357.
64. Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the Black-White achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
65. Rowan, B., Bossert, S.T., & Dwyer, D.C. (1983). Research on effective schools: A cautionary note. Educational Researcher, 12(4), 24-31.
66. Rumberger, R.W., & Larson, K.A. (1998). Student mobility and the increased risk of high school dropout. American Journal of Education, 107, 1-35.
67. Rumberger, R.W., & Palardy, G.J. (2005). Test scores, dropout rates, and transfer rates as alternative indicators of high school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 3-42.
68. Singer, J.D., & Willet, J.B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
69. Sirin, S.R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417-453.
70. SPSS Inc. (2006). SPSS (Version 15.0) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Author.
71. Stein, M.K., & D'Amico, L. (2002). Inquiry at the crossroads of policy and learning: A study of a district-wide literacy initiative. Teachers College Record, 104, 1313-1344.
72. Stringfield, S. (1994). Outlier studies of school effectiveness. In D. Reynolds, B. P. M. Creemers, P. S. Nesselrodt, E. C. Schaffer, S. Stringfield, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Advances in school effectiveness research and practice (pp. 73-84). Tarrytown, NY: Elsevier.
73. Supovitz, J.A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
74. Taylor, D.L., & Bogotch, I.E. (1994). School-level effects of teachers' participation in decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 302-319.
75. Teddlie, C. (1994). The integration of classroom and school process data in school effectiveness research. In D. Reynolds, B. P. M. Creemers, P. S. Nesselrodt, E. C. Schaffer, S. Stringfield, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Advances in school effectiveness research and practice (pp. 111-132). Tarrytown, NY: Elsevier.
76. Teddlie, C., Reynolds, D., & Sammons, P. (2000). The methodology and scientific properties of school effectiveness research. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 55-134). New York, NY: Falmer.
77. Thrupp, M. (2001). Recent school effectiveness counter-critiques: Problems and possibilities. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 443-457.
78. Todd, P.E., & Wolpin, K.I. (2003). On the specification and estimation of the production function for cognitive achievement. Economic Journal, 113(485), F3-F33.
79. Togneri, W., & Anderson, S.E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance and Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
80. Wayman, J.C., Cho, V., & Johnston, M.T. (2007). The data-informed district: A district-wide evaluation of data use in the Natrona county school district. Austin: University of Texas at Austin.
81. Wayne, A.J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89-122.
82. Willms, J.D., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1989). A longitudinal hierarchical linear model for estimating school effects and their stability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 209-232.