NCLB and the complexity of school improvement

No Child Left Behind and the Reduction of the Achievement Gap: Sociological Perspectives on Federal Educational Policy

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 25-52

  O'Day, Jennifer A ^a  

^a San Diego City Schools ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925778694     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203941256     Document Type: Chapter

References (73)

1. Adams, J. E. and M. Kirst. 1999. New demands for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In Handbook of research in educational administration, 2nd ed., ed. J. Murphey and K. S. Louis, 463-89. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Arthur, W. B. 1989. The economy and complexity. In Lectures in the sciences of complexity, ed. D. L. Stein, 713-40. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Axelrod, R. and M. D. Cohen.1999. Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York: Free Press.
4. Bennett, A. 2001. The history, politics and theory of action of the Chicago probation policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, Seattle, WA.
5. Berman, P. and M. McLaughlin. 1978. Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Vol. 7 of Federal programs supporting educational change. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
6. Campbell, J. P., R. A. McCloy, S. H. Oppler, and C. E. Sager. 1993. A theory of performance. In Personnel selection in organizations, ed. N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, and Associates, 35-70. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
7. Enter on Education Policy. 2002. From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy.
8. Center on Education Policy, March 2006. From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy
9. Chicago Public Schools.2002. Iowa test of basic skills: Citywide results over time, 1997-2002 (Report: ITOT-CW-white). Chicago: Author. Available: http://research.cps.k12.il.us/resweb/pdf/ itbs_over_read_a.pdf
10. Cohen, D. K. and D. L. Ball. 1999. Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
11. Daft, R. L. and K. E. Weick. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review 9:284-95.
12. Darling-Hammond, L. 1990. Teacher professionalism: Why and how? In Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now, ed. A. Lieberman, 25-50. Bristol, PA: Palmer Press.
13. Darling-Hammond, L. 1996. Restructuring schools for high performance. In Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work, ed. S. Fuhrman and J. A. O'Day, 144-92. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14. Darling-Hammond, L. 1997. The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
15. Darling-Hammond, L. and C. Ascher. 1991. Creating accountability in big city school systems. Urban Diversity Series No. 102. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
16. DeBray, E., G. Parson, and K.Woodworth. 2001. Patterns of response in four high schools under state accountability policies in Vermont and New York. In From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states, ed. S. Fuhrman, 170-92. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Elmore, R. F. 1996. Getting to scale with successful educational practices. In Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work, ed. S. Fuhrman and J. A. O'Day, 294-329. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
18. Elmore, R. F.1997. Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community District Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education and the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
19. Elmore, R. F.. 2001. Psychiatrists and light bulbs: Educational accountability and the problem of capacity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
20. Elmore, R. F., C. H Abelmann, and S. H. Fuhrman. 1996. The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education, ed. H. F. Ladd, 65-98. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
21. Evans, L. E. and H. H. Wei. 2001. Focusing the work of teachers and schools: The Chicago public schools probation policy. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
22. Finnigan, K. S. and B. M. Gross. 2001. Teacher motivation and the Chicago probation policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
23. Finnigan, K., J. O'Day, and D. Wakelyn. Forthcoming. External support to schools on probation: Getting a leg up? Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education and Consortium on Chicago School Research.
24. Firestone, W. A. and D. Mayrowetz. 2000. Rethinking "high stakes": Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record 102:724-49.
25. Fuhrman, S. H. 1999. The new accountability. (CPRE Policy BriefNo. RB 27). Philadelphia: Consortium on Policy Research in Education.
26. Goertz, M., R. Floden, and J. O'Day. 1995. Findings and conclusions, Vol. 1 of Studies of education reform: Systemic reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
27. Grissmer, D., A. Flanagan, J. Kawata, and S. Williamson. 2000. Improving student achievement: What state NAEP test scores tell us (MR-924-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
28. Gross, B., H. Wei, and J. A. O'Day.2002. Planning for improvement in Chicago schools on probation. Unpublished Report, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
29. Gwynne, J. and J. Q. Easton. 2001. Probation, organizational capacity, and student achievement in Chicago elementary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
30. Haney, W 2000. The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8:41.
31. Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organizational Science 2 (1):88-115.
32. Kaufmann, S. 1995. At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
33. Kelley, C., A. Odden, A. Milanowski, and H. Heneman. 2000. The motivational effects of school-based performance awards (CPRE Policy BriefNo. RB-29). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
34. Klein, S. P., L. S. Hamilton, D. F. McCaffrey, and B. M. Stecher. What do test scores in Texas tell us' Washington, D.C.: RAND.
35. Koretz, D., and S. Barron. 1998. The validity of gains on the Kentucky instructional results information system (MR-1014-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
36. LeFloch, K. C., F. Martinez, J. O'Day, B. Stecher, and J. Taylor. 2006. Increasing accountability for all students: Early implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
37. Lee, V. and J. Smith. 1996. Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education 104:103-47.
38. Levinthal, D. A. 1991. Organizational adaptation and environmental selection: Interrelated processes of change. Organizational Science 2 (1): 140-45.
39. Levitt, B., and J. G. March. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14:319-40.
40. Lewin, R. 1992. Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. New York: Macmillan.
41. Linn, R. L. 1997. Evaluating the Validity of Assessments: The consequences of use. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 16(2):14-16.
42. Linn, R. LLinn, R. L. 2001. The design and evaluation of educational assessment and accountability systems. CSE Technical Report. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California, Los Angeles.
43. Little, J. W. 1990. The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record 91:509-36.
44. Lortie, D. C. 1975. Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science 2(1):71-87.
46. March, J. G. 1994. A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.
47. Marion, R. 1999. The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. McLaughlin, M. 1987. Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9(2):171-78.
49. McLaughlin, M. W. and L. A. Shepard, with J. A. O'Day. 1995. Improving education through standards- based reform: A report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Reform. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
50. McLaughlin, M. W. and J. E. Talbert. 1993. Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, School of Education, Center for Research on the Context of Teaching.
51. McLaughlin, M. W. and J. E. Talbert. 2001. Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52. McNeil, L. and Valenzuela, A. 2000. The harmful impact of the TASS system of testing inTexas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In G. Orfield & M. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers: Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education (pp. 127 -150). Cambridge. MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project.
53. Mohrman, S. A. and E. E. Lawler. 1996. Motivation for school reform. In Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work, ed. S. H. Fuhrman and J. A. O'Day, 115-43. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
54. National Governors' Association. 1993. The debate on opportunity-to-learn standards: Supporting works. Washington, D.C.: Author.
55. Newmann, F. M. and G. G. Wehlage. 1995. Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
56. News in Brief. 2001. Education Week, November 14. http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory. cfm ?slug= 11 briefs.h21.
57. Nolen, S. B., T. M. Haladyna, and N. Haas. 1992. Uses and abuses of achievement test scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 11(2): 9-15.
58. O'Day, J. A. 1996. Incentives and school improvement. In Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work, ed. S. Fuhrman & J. A. O'Day, 1-16. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
59. O'Day, J. A. 2002. Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review 72 (3): 293-329.
60. O'Day, J. A. M. S. Smith. 1993. Systemic school reform and educational opportunity. In Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system, ed. S. H. Fuhrman, 250-312. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
61. O'Reilly, F. E. 1996. Educational accountability: Current practices and theories in use. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
62. Porter, A. and J. Brophy. 1988. Good teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching. Educational leadership 45:75-84.
63. Scott, W. R. 1998. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
64. Simon, H. A. 1986. Theories of bounded rationality. In Decision and organization. Vol. 2, ed. C. B. McGuire and R. Radner, 161-76. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
65. Siskin, L. S. 2004. The challenge of the high schools. InS. H. Fuhrman and R. F. Elmore (Eds.) Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York: Teachers College Press.
66. Sitkin, S. B. 1992. Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Research in Organizational Behavior 14:231-66.
67. Smith, M. L. and C. Rottenberg. 1991. Unintended consequences of external testing in elementary schools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 1 0(4):7 -11.
68. Spillane, J. 2000. Cognition and policy implementation: District policy-makers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction 18:141-79.
69. Staw, B. M., L. E. Sanderlands, and J. E. Dutton. 1981. Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administration Science Quarterly 26:501-24.
70. Waldrop, M. M. 1992. Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster.
71. Weatherly, R. and M. Lipsky. 1977. Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review 47: 171-97.
72. Weick, K. 1976. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 21: 1-19.
73. Westat 2001. Report on the final evaluation of the city-state partnership. Rockville, MD: Author.