Student achievement outcomes comprehensive school reform: A canadian case study

Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 105, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 123-133

  Ross, John A ^a   Scott, Garth ^b   Sibbald, Timothy M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board   (Canada)

^c Thames Valley District School Board   (Canada)

Author keywords

comprehensive school reform; reading grade 3 achievement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856889738     PISSN: 00220671     EISSN: 19400675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2010.532835     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, Principles, Policies & Practices, 5, 7-74.
2. Bloom, H. S. (2009). Paper 2: How should we calculate effect sizes? What are common mistakes in the calculation of effect sizes? How does research design influence the calculation of effect sizes? Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs. gov/programs/opre/other-resrch/effect-sizes/pres-papers/bloom.html
3. Bloom, H. S., Richburg-Hayes, L., & Black, A. R. (2007). Using covariates to improve precision for studies that randomize schools to evaluate educational intentions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 30-59.
4. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas Accountability System. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
5. Borman, G. D., & D'Agostino, J. (1996). Title I and student achievement: A meta-analysis of federal evaluation results. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 309-326.
6. Borman, G. D., Dowling, N. M., & Schneck, C. (2008). A multisite cluster randomized field trial of Open Court Reading. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 389-407.
7. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement:Ameta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125-230.
8. Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A. C. K., Chamberlain, A. M., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success For All. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 701-731.
9. Boruch, R. (2007). Encouraging the flight of error: Ethical standards, evidence standards and randomized trials. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 55-74.
10. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A crossstate analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
11. Chapman, C., & Allen, T. (2006). Collaborative reform for schools in difficulty. Improving Schools, 9, 291-301.
12. Chapman, C., & Harris, A. (2004). Improving schools in difficult and challenging contexts: Strategies for improvement. Educational Research, 46, 219-228.
13. Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers' social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203-235.
14. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294-343.
15. Correnti, R. (2007). An empirical investigation of professional development effects on literacy instruction using daily logs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 262-295.
16. Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of externally developed school reforms in changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 121-153.
17. Education Department of Western Australia. (2003). First steps reading developmental continuum. Retrieved from http://www.myread.org/monitoring first.htm
18. Dunn, J., Childs, R., Cleland, P., Pang, X., & Saunders, K. (2004, April). Isolating item and rater variance in the Grade 3 Assessment of Reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
19. Epstein, J. L. (2005). A case study of the Partnership Schools Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) model. Elementary School Journal, 106, 151-170.
20. Fullan, M. G. (2002). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21. Fullan, M. G. (2005). Turnaround leadership. Educational Forum, 69, 174-181.
22. Fullan, M. G. (2006). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 113-122.
23. Fullan, M. G., & Campbell, C. (2007, April). The Ontario literacy and numeracy strategy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
24. Garet, M., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F.,&Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945.
25. Good, T., Burross, H. L., & McCaslin, M. (2005) Comprehensive school reform:Alongitudinal study of school improvement in one state. Teachers College Record, 107, 2205-2226.
26. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 24, 297-327.
27. Harris, A., Chapman, C., Muijs, D., Russ, J., & Stoll, L. (2006). Improving schools in challenging contexts: Exploring the possible. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 40-424.
28. Harris, D. N. (2009). Toward policy-relevant benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes: Combining effects with costs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 3-29.
29. Heck, D. J., Banilower, E. R., Weiss, I. R., & Rosenberg, S. L. (2008). Studying the effects of professional development: The case of the NSF's systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 113-152.
30. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
31. Heilig, J. V., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texasstyle: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a highstakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 75-110.
32. Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M.W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 171-177.
33. Johnson, D. R. (2005). Signposts of success: Interpreting Ontario's elementary school test scores. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: C. D. Howe Institute.
34. Lee, J. (2008). Is test-driven external accountability effective? Synthesizing the evidence from cross-state causal-correlational studies. Review of Educational Research, 78, 608-644.
35. Linn, R. L., & Haug, C. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 29-36.
36. Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work and student experience in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106, 532-575.
37. Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in socio-economically disadvantaged areas: A review of research evidence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 149-175.
38. Reezigt, G., & Creemers, B. (2005). A comprehensive framework for effective school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 407-424.
39. Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Research on teaching (Vol. 7, pp. 49-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
40. Ross, J. A. (2004). Effects of running records assessment on early literacy achievement: Results of a controlled experiment. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 186-194.
41. Ross, J. A.,&Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 1-25.
42. Ross, J. A., & Sibbald, T. (2010). The role of external diagnosis in school improvement in an Ontario school district. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56, 403-418.
43. Rowan, B., Barnes, C.,&Camburn, E. (2004). Benefiting from comprehensive school reform: A review of research on CSR implementation. In C. T. Cross (Ed.), Putting the pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school reform research (pp. 1-52).Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.
44. Scheirer, M. A. (2005). Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 320-347.
45. Skindrud, K., & Gersten, R. (2006). An evaluation of two contrasting approaches for improving reading achievement in a large urban district. Elementary School Journal, 106, 389-408.
46. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221-258.
47. Usher, E. L.,&Pajares, F. (2005, April). Inviting confidence in school: Sources and effects of academic and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
48. Vincent, A. A., Patterson, F., Buehler, A., & Gearity, B. (2006). School improvement planning in east Tennessee middle schools: A content analysis and perceptions study. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 277-300.
49. Watson, N., Fullan, M., & Kilcher, A. (2000, April). The role of the district: Professional learning and district reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
50. Wilson, M. (2004). Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
51. Wolfe, R., Childs, R., & Elgie, S. (2004). Ensuring quality assessments: A project to refine and affirm assessment processes. Final report of the external assessment of EQAO's assessment processes. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: OISE/UT.
52. Yap, K. (2005, April). Turning low performing schools into high performing learning communities: Critical lessons in school reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
53. Yin, R. K., & Davis, D. (2007). Adding new dimensions to case study evaluations: The case of evaluating comprehensive reforms. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 75-94.