Can school structures improve teacher-student relationships? The relationship between advisory programs, personalization and students' academic achievement;¿Pueden las estructuras escolares mejorar las relaciones entre estudiantes y docentes? La relación entre los programas de asesoramiento, personalización y el logro académico de los estudiantes

Education Policy Analysis Archives

Volumn 18, Issue , 2010, Pages 1-21

  McClure, Larry ^a   Yonezawa, Susan ^a   Jones, Makeba ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Academic achievement; Advisory; Personalization; School structures

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955491458     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10682341     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v18n17.2010     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alexander, W.M. & Williams, E.L. (1965). Schools for the middle years. Educational Leadership, 23, 217-223.
2. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). (2001). Washington, DC: Author.
3. Blum, R.W., and H. P. Libbey, eds. (2004). School connectedness: Strengthening health and education outcomes for teenagers. Special issue, Journal of School Health, 74(7), 229-99
4. Blum, R.W, McNeely, C.A., & Rinehart, P.M. (2002). Improving the odds: The untapped power of schools to improve the health of teens. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Adolescent Health and Development.
5. Bryk, A.S. & Driscoll, M.E. (1988). The school as community: Theoretical foundations, contextual influences, and consequences for students and teachers. Madison, WI: Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin.
6. Epstein, J. L. & MacIver, D.J. (1990). Education in the middle grades: Overview of national practices and trends. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
7. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C. & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
8. Galassi, J.P., Gulledge, SA. & Cox, N.D. (1997). Middle school advisories: Retrospect and prospect. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 301-338.
9. Gewertz, C. (2007). An advisory advantage. Education Week, 26(26), 22-25.
10. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
11. Hallinan, M.T. (2008). Teacher influences on students' attachment to school. Sociology of Education, 81(July), 271-283.
12. Klem A., & Connell, J. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Philadelphia: Institute for Research and Reform in Education
13. Lee, V.E., Bryk, A.S., Smith. (1993a). The organization of effective high schools. In L. Darling Hammond (Ed.) Review of Research in Education, 19, Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, pp. 171-267.
14. Lee, V.E., Bryk, A.S., & Smith, J. (1993b). The effects of high school organization on teachers and students. Review of Research in Education, 19, 171-268.
15. Lee, V. E. & Smith, J. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement of middle-grade students. Sociology of Education, 66, 164-187).
16. Lee, V. E. & Smith, J. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68, 241-270.
17. Lee, V. E. & Smith, J. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education, 104(2), 103-147.
18. Lee, V. E. & Smith, J. (1997). High school size: Which works best and for whom? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19,(3), 205-227.
19. Lee, V.E., Smith, J. & Croninger, R.G. (1997). How high school organization influences the equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 129-152.
20. Makkonen, R. (2004). Advisory program research and evaluation. CES National Web. Retrieved June 05, 2009 from, http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/345
21. McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
22. McNeely, C.A. & C. Falci (2004) School Connectedness and the Transition Into and Out of Health Risk Behavior among Adolescents: A Comparison of Social Belonging and Teacher Support. Journal of School Health 74(7), 284-292.
23. McNeely, C.A., J.M. Nonnemaker and R.W. Blum (2002) Promoting Student Connectedness to School: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School Health 72(4):138-146.
24. Mosteller, F., Sachs, J., & Light, R. (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 797-828.
25. Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. The Future of Children, 5, 113-127.
26. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. Advances in Contemporary Educational Thought series, vol. 8. New York: Teachers College Press.
27. Raubenheimer, J. E. (2004). An item selection procedure to maximize scale reliability and validity. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30 (4), 59-64.
28. Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. S. (1986). A hierarchical model for studying school effects. Sociology of Education, 59(1), 1-17.
29. School Redesign Network (2000). Redesigning schools: 10 features of effective design. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Redesign Network.
30. Shultz, J. & Cook-Sather, A. (2001). In our own words: Students' perspectives on school. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
31. Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24(4), 323-354.
32. Sizer, T.R. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
33. Steinberg, A. & Allen, L. (2002). From large to small: Strategies for personalizing the high school. Boston: Jobs for the Future.
34. Stiefel, L., Berne, R., Iatarola, P. & Fruchter, N. (2000). "High School Size: The Effects onBudgets and Performance in New York City," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22 (1):27-39.
35. Wallach, C., Ramsey, B. Copland, M. & Lowry, L.K. (2006). Student voice: Tapping the potential of relationships, relevance, and rigor. Seattle, WA: Small Schools Project.
36. Wilson, B. & Corbett, H.D. (2001). Listening to urban kids: School reform and the teachers they want. New York: State University of New York Press.
37. Yonezawa, S. & Jones, M. (2007). Using students' experiences in the classroom to evaluate and inform secondary school reform. In A. Cook-Sather & D. Thiessen (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 691-710). The Netherlands: Springer.