The reincarnation of the effective schools research: Rethinking the literature on district effectiveness

Journal of Educational Administration

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 426-452

  Daly, Alan J ^a   Finnigan, Kara S ^a   Trujillo, Tina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

District effectiveness; Educational administration; Educational policy; Research work; School effectiveness; Schools; Urban areas; Urban educational reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993012266     PISSN: 09578234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/09578231311325640     Document Type: Article

References (155)

1. American Federation of Teachers (2000), Doing What Works: Improving Big City School Districts, American Federation of Teachers, Washington, DC.
2. American Institutes for Research (2005), Toward More Effective School Districts: A Review of the Knowledge Base, American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC.
3. Anderson, S. (2006), “The school district's role in educational change”, International Journal of Educational Reform, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 13-37.
4. Anderson, S. and Rodway-Macri, J. (2009), “District administrator perspectives on student learning in an era of standards and accountability: a collective frame analysis”, Canadian Journal of Education, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 192-221.
5. Ball, S. (1998), “Educational studies, policy entrepreurship, and social theory”, in Slee, R., Weiner, G. and Tomlinson, S. (Eds), School Effectiveness for Whom? Challenges to the School Effectiveness and School Improvement Movements, RoutledgeFalmer Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp. 70-83.
6. Bowers, A. (2010), “Toward addressing the issues of site selection in district effectiveness research: a two-level hierarchical linear growth model”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 395-425.
7. Brookover, W. and Lezotte, L. (1979), Changes in School Characteristics Coincident With Changes in Student Achievement, Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
8. Brookover, W. and Schneider, J. (1975), “Academic environments and elementary school achievement”, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 82-91.
9. Brookover, W., Beady, C., Flood, P. and Schweitzer, J. (1979), School Systems and Student Achievement: Schools Can Make a Difference, Praeger, New York, NY.
10. Cawelti, G. (2001), “Six districts, One goal of excellence”, Journal of Staff Development, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 31-35.
11. Cawelti, G. and Protheroe, N. (2001), High Student Achievement: How Six School Districts Changed into High-Performance Systems, Educational Research Service, Arlington, VA.
12. Childress, S., Johnson, S., Grossman, A. and Elmore, R. (Eds) (2007), Managing School Districts for High Performance: Cases in Public Education Leadership, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA.
13. Coburn, C.E., Toure, J. and Yamashita, M. (2009), “Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: instructional decision making in the district central office”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 111 No. 4, pp. 1115-1161.
14. Coleman, J. (1966), Equality of Educational Opportunity (Report No. OE-3800), National Center for Educational Statistics, Washington, DC.
15. Creemers, B. (1991), “Review of effective teaching: current research”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 256-260.
16. Cuban, L. (1984), “Transforming the frog into a prince: effective schools research, policy, and practice at the district level”, Harvard Education Review, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 129-151.
17. Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A., Husbands, J., LaFors, J., Young, V. and Christopher, C. (2005), Instructional Leadership for Systemic Change: The Story of San Diego's Reform, ScarecrowEducation, Lanham, MD.
18. Datnow, A. (2000), “Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 357-374.
19. David, J. (1989), “Synthesis of research on school-based management”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 47, May, pp. 45-53.
20. Doyle, D. and Finn, C. (1984), “American schools and the future of local control”, Public Interest, Vol. 77, Fall, pp. 77-95.
21. Edmonds, R. (1979a), “Effective schools for the urban poor”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 15-24.
22. Edmonds, R. (1979b), “Some schools work and more can”, Social Policy, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 28-32.
23. Elmore, R. (1993), “The role of local school districts in instructional improvement”, in Fuhrman, S. (Ed.), Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System, 1st ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 96-124.
24. Elmore, R. and Burney, D. (1997), Investing in Teacher Learning: Staff Development and Instructional Improvement in Community School District #2, New York City, National Commission on Teaching and America's Future and the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, New York, NY.
25. Fink, E. and Resnick, L. (2011), “Developing principals as instructional leaders”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 82 No. 8, pp. 598-606.
26. Floden, R., Porter, A., Alford, L., Freeman, D., Irwin, S., Schmidt, W. and Schwille, J. (1988), “Instructional leadership at the district level: a closer look at autonomy and control”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 96-124.
27. Florian, J. (2000), Sustaining Education Reform: Influential Factors, Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, Aurora, CO.
28. Florian, J., Hange, J. and Copland, G. (2000), “The phantom mandate: district capacity for reform”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
29. Fuhrman, S. (1993), Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System, 1st ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
30. Good, T. and Brophy, J. (1986), “School effects”, in Wittrock, M. (Ed.), Third Handbook of Research on Teaching, Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 570-602.
31. Haycock, K., Jerald, C. and Huang, S. (2001), Closing the Gap: Done in a Decade, The Education Trust, Washington, DC.
32. Hightower, A. (2002), “San Diego's big boom: systemic instructional change in the central office and schools”, in Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J. and McLaughlin, M. (Eds), School Districts and Instructional Renewal, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, pp. 76-93.
33. Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J. and McLaughlin, M. (2002), “The district role in instructional renewal: making sense and taking action”, in Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J. and McLaughlin, M. (Eds), School Districts and Instructional Renewal, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, pp. 193-201.
34. Hill, P. (1999), Supplying Effective Public Schools in Big Cities, Brookings Papers on Education Policy 1999, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
35. Honig, M. (2003), “Building policy from practice: district central office administrators’ roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 292-338.
36. Honig, M. (2004), “The new middle management: intermediary organizations in education policy implementation”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 65-87.
37. Honig, M. (2009), “External’ organizations and the politics of urban educational leadership: the case of new small autonomous schools initiatives”, Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 394-413.
38. Honig, M., Copland, M., Rainey, L., Lorton, J. and Newton, M. (2010), School District Central Office Transformation for Teaching and Learning Improvement. A Report to the Wallace Foundation, Center for the Study of Teaching and Learning, Seattle, WA.
39. Iatarola, P. and Fruchter, N. (2004), “District effectiveness: a study of investment strategies in New York city public schools and districts”, Educational Policy, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 491-512.
40. Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M.J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B. and Michelson, S. (1972), Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effects of Family and Schooling in America, Basic Books, New York, NY.
41. Klitgaard, R. and Hall, G. (1974), “Are there unusually effective schools?”, Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 90-106.
42. Koschoreck, J. (2001), “Accountability and educational equity in the transformation of an urban district”, Education and Urban Society, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 284-314.
43. Labaree, D. (2007), Education, Markets, and the Public Good: Selected Works of David F. Labaree (In Series: Routledge World Library of Educationalists), Routledge, London.
44. LaRocque, L. and Coleman, P. (1990), “Quality control: school accountability and district ethos”, in Holmes, M., Leithwood, K. and Musella, D. (Eds), Educational Policy for Effective Schools, OISE Press, Toronto, ON, pp. 168-191.
45. Leithwood, K. (1995), Effective School District Leadership: Transforming Politics into Education, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
46. Leithwood, K. (2010), “Characteristics of school districts that are exceptionally effective in closing the achievement gap”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 245-291.
47. Lezotte, L., Edmonds, R. and Ratner, G. (1974), A Final Report: Remedy for School Failure to Equitably Deliver Basic School Skills, Department of Urban and Metropolitan Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
48. Lubienski, C., Scott, J. and DeBray, E. (2011), “The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy”, Teachers College Record.
49. McDonnell, L. (2000), “Defining democratic purposes”, in McDonnell, L., Timpane, P. and Benjamin, R. (Eds), Rediscovering the Democratic Purposes of Education, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS, pp. 1-20.
50. McFadden, L. (2009), “District learning tied to student learning, in districts that work: the broad prize for urban education identifies districts that meet the needs of challenging populations”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 90 No. 8, pp. 544-553.
51. McLaughlin, M. and Talbert, J. (1993), Contexts that Matter for Teaching and Learning: Strategic Opportunities for Meeting the Nation's Educational Goals, Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching, Stanford, CA.
52. McLaughlin, M. and Talbert, J. (2003), Reforming Districts: How Districts Support School Reform, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
53. Maguire, P. (2003), District Practices and Student Achievement: Lessons from Alberta, Society for Advancement of Excellence in Education, Kelowna, BC.
54. Marsh, J. (2007), Democratic Dilemmas: Joint Work, Education Politics, and Community, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
55. Marshall, J., Pritchard, R. and Gunderson, B. (2004), “The relation among school district health, total quality principles for school organization and student achievement”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 175-190.
56. Massell, D. and Goertz, M. (2002), “District strategies for building instructional capacity”, in Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J. and McLaughlin, M. (Eds), School Districts and Instructional Renewal, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, pp. 173-192.
57. Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
58. Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. and Ecob, R. (1988), School Matters: The Junior Years, Open Books, Wells, ME.
59. Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (1988), “Characteristics of instructionally effective districts”, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 175-181.
60. New York State Department of Education (1974), School Factors Influencing Reading Achievement: A Case Study of Two Inner City Schools, Office of Education Performance Review, Albany, NY.
61. Oakes, J. (1992), “Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 12-21.
62. Oakes, J., Welner, K., Yonezawa, S. and Allen, R.L. (1998), “Norms and politics of equity-minded change: researching the zone of mediation”, in Fullan, M. (Ed.), The International Handbook of Educational Change, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp. 952-975.
63. O'Day, J. and Bitter, C. (2003), Evaluation Study of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999, American Institutes of Research, Sacramento, CA.
64. Opfer, V., Henry, G. and Mashburn, A. (2008), “The district effect: systemic responses to high stakes accountability policies in six southern states”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. 299-332.
65. Ouchi, W. (2003), Making Schools Work: A Revolutionary Plan to Get Your Children the Education They Need, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
66. Purkey, S. and Smith, M. (1983), “Effective schools: a review”, Elementary School Journal, Vol. 83, pp. 426-452.
67. Purkey, S. and Smith, M. (1985), “Effective schools: a review”, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 353-389.
68. Ragland, M., Asera, R. and Johnson, J. (1999), Urgency, Responsibility, Efficacy: Preliminary Findings of a Study of High-Performing Texas School Districts, Charles A. Dana Center, Austin, TX.
69. Resnick, L. and Harwell, M. (2000), Instructional Variation and Student Achievement in a Standards-Based Education District, CSE Technical Report 522, Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Los Angeles, CA.
70. Rose, M. (1995), Possible Lives: The Promise of Public Education in America, Penguin Books, New York, NY.
71. Ross, J., Hannay, L. and Brydges, B. (1998), “District-level support for site-based renewal: a case study of secondary school reform”, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 349-365.
72. Rutter, M. (1983), “School effects on pupil progress-findings and policy implications”, Child Development, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 1-29.
73. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimer, P. and Ouston, J. (1979), Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and Their Effects on Children, Open Books, London.
74. Sammons, P. (1999), School Effectiveness: Coming of Age in the Twenty-First Century, Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse.
75. Sandoval-Hernandez, A. (2008), “School effectiveness research: a review of criticisms and some proposals to address them”, Educate, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 31-44.
76. Sarason, S. (1990), The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change Course Before It's Too Late? Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
77. Scheerens, J. (1992), Effective Schooling: Research, Theory and Practice, Cassell, London.
78. Scott, J. (2009), “The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy”, Educational Policy, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 106-136.
79. Simmons, J. and Codding, J. (2006), Breaking Through: Transforming Urban School Districts, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
80. Skrla, L. and Scheurich, J. (2003), “Displacing deficit thinking in school district leadership”, in Skrla, L. and Scheurich, J. (Eds), Educational Equity and Accountability: Paradigms, Policies, and Politics, RutledgeFalmer, New York, NY, pp. 109-132.
81. Slee, R., Weiner, G. and Tomlinson, S. (1998), School Effectiveness for Whom? Challenges to the School Effectiveness and School Improvement Movements, RoutledgeFalmer Taylor and Francis Group, London.
82. Smith, M. and O'Day, J. (1991), “Systemic school reform”, in Fuhrman, S. and Malen, B. (Eds), The Politics of Curriculum and Testing, Falmer Press, Bristol, PA, pp. 233-267.
83. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F. and Herlihy, C. (2002), Foundations for Success: Case Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve Student Achievement, MDRC for the Council of Great City Schools, Washington, DC.
84. Spartz, J. (1977), Delaware Educational Accountability System Case Studies: Elementary Schools Grades 1-4, Delaware Department of Public Instruction, Dover, DE.
85. Spillane, J. (1996), “School districts matter: local educational authorities and state instructional policy”, Educational Policy, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 63-87.
86. Spillane, J. (1998), “State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: organizational and professional considerations”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 33-63.
87. Spillane, J. and Jennings, N. (1997), “Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 449-481.
88. Spillane, J. and Thompson, C. (1997), “Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: the local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 185-203.
89. Stein, M. and D'Amico, L. (2002), “Inquiry at the crossroads of policy and learning: a study of a district-wide literacy initiative”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 104 No. 7, pp. 1313-1344.
90. Stringfield, S. and Yakimowski-Srebnick, M. (2005), “Promise, progress, problems, and paradoxes of three phases of accountability: a longitudinal case study of the Baltimore City Public Schools”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 43-75.
91. Supovitz, J. (2006), The Case for District-Based Reform: Leading, Building, and Sustaining School Improvement, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA.
92. Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (2000), The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research, Falmer Press, London.
93. Teddlie, C. and Stringfield, S. (1993), Schools do Make a Difference: Lessons Learned From a Ten-Year Study of School Effects, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
94. Thrupp, M. (1999), Schools Making a Difference: Let's be Realistic! Open University Press, Buckingham.
95. Thrupp, M. and Willmott, R. (2003), Education Management in Managerialist Times: Beyond the Textual Apologists, Open University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
96. Togneri, W. and Anderson, S. (2003), Beyond Islands of Excellence: What Districts Can Do To Improve Instruction and Achievement in All Schools, The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Washington, DC.
97. Trujillo, T. (2013a), “The disproportionate erosion of local control: urban school boards, high-stakes accountability, and democracy”, Educational Policy, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 334-359, available at: http://epx.sagepub.com/content/27/2/334.full.pdf+html (accessed June 1, 2012).
98. Trujillo, T. (2013b), “The politics of district instructional policy formation: compromising equity and rigor”, Educational Policy, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 531-559, available at: http://epx.sagepub.com/content/27/3/531.full.pdf+html (accessed June 1, 2012).
99. Trujillo, T. and Renée, M. (2012), “Democratic school turnarounds: pursuing equity and learning from evidence”, Legislative research brief, National Education Policy Center, Boulder, CO, available at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/democratic-school-turnarounds (accessed June 1, 2012).
100. Trujillo, T. and Woulfin, S. (under review), “Equity-oriented instructional leadership: turning up the volume for English learners”, in Katz, M. and Rose, M. (Eds), Public Education Under Siege, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 148-157.
101. Vinovskis, M. (1996), “An analysis of the concept and uses of systemic educational reform”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 53-85.
102. Waters, J. and Marzano, R. (2006), School District Leadership That Works: The Effect of Superintendent Leaderhip on Student Achievement, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL), Denver, CO.
103. Weinbaum, E. (2005), “Stuck in the middle with you: district responses to state accountability”, in Gross, B. and Goertz, M. (Eds), Holding High Hopes: How High Schools Respond to State Accountability Policies, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia, PA.
104. Welner, K. (2001), Legal Rights, Local Wrongs: When Community Control Collides With Educational Equity, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
105. WestEd (2002), Improving Districts: Systems That Support Learning, WestEd, San Francisco, CA.
106. American Federation of Teachers (2000), Doing What Works: Improving Big City School Districts, American Federation of Teachers, Washington, DC.
107. Allen, L., Osthoff, E., White, P. and Swanson, J. (2005), A Delicate Balance: District Policies and Classroom Practice, Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform, Chicago, IL.
108. Cawelti, G. (2001), “Six districts, one goal of excellence”, Journal of Staff Development, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 31-35.
109. Cawelti, G. and Protheroe, N. (2001), High Student Achievement: How Six School Districts Changed into High-Performance Systems, Educational Research Service, Arlington, VA.
110. Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S. and Belcher, C. (2001), “The district role in instructional improvement”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 78-84.
111. D'Amico, L., Harwell, M., Stein, M. and Van de Heuvel, J. (2001), “Examining the implementation and effectiveness of a district-wide instructional improvement effort”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
112. Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A., Husbands, J., LaFors, J., Young, V. and Christopher, C. (2005), Instructional Leadership for Systemic Change: The Story of San Diego's Reform, ScarecrowEducation, Lanham, MD.
113. Elmore, R. and Burney, D. (1997), Investing in Teacher Learning: Staff Development and Instructional Improvement in Community School District #2, New York City, National Commission on Teaching and America's Future and the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, New York, NY.
114. Elmore, R. and Burney, D. (1998), Continuous Improvement in Community District #2, University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, New York, NY.
115. Fink, E. and Resnick, L. (2011), “Developing principals as instructional leaders”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 82 No. 8, pp. 598-606.
116. Florian, J. (2000), Sustaining Education Reform: Influential Factors, Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, Aurora, CO.
117. Florian, J., Hange, J. and Copland, G. (2000), “The phantom mandate: district capacity for reform”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
118. Haycock, K., Jerald, C. and Huang, S. (2001), Closing the Gap: Done in a Decade, The Education Trust, Washington, DC.
119. Hightower, A. (2002), “San Diego's big boom: systemic instructional change in the central office and schools”, in Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J. and McLaughlin, M. (Eds), School Districts and Instructional Renewal, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, pp. 76-93.
120. Honig, M., Copland, M., Rainey, L., Lorton, J. and Newton, M. (2010), School District Central Office Transformation for Teaching and Learning Improvement. A Report to the Wallace Foundation, Center for the Study of Teaching and Learning, Seattle, WA.
121. Iatarola, P. and Fruchter, N. (2004), “District effectiveness: a study of investment strategies in New York city public schools and districts”, Educational Policy, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 491-512.
122. Koschoreck, J. (2001), “Accountability and educational equity in the transformation of an urban district”, Education and Urban Society, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 284-314.
123. LaRocque, L. and Coleman, P. (1990), “Quality control: school accountability and district ethos”, in Holmes, M., Leithwood, K. and Musella, D. (Eds), Educational Policy for Effective Schools, OISE Press, Toronto, ON, pp. 168-191.
124. McFadden, L. (2009), “District learning tied to student learning, in districts that work: the Broad prize for urban education identifies districts that meet the needs of challenging populations”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 90 No. 8, pp. 544-553.
125. McFadden, L. (2009b), “Miami's ‘Zone’ teaches lessons about low-performing schools, in districts that work: the Broad prize for urban education identifies districts that meet the needs of challenging populations”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 90 No. 8, pp. 557-562.
126. McLaughlin, M. and Talbert, J. (2003), Reforming Districts: How Districts Support School Reform, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
127. Maguire, P. (2003), District Practices and Student Achievement: Lessons from Alberta, Society for Advancement of Excellence in Education, Kelowna, BC.
128. Marshall, J., Pritchard, R. and Gunderson, B. (2004), “The relation among school district health, total quality principles for school organization and student achievement”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 175-190.
129. Massell, D. and Goertz, M. (2002), “District strategies for building instructional capacity”, in Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J. and McLaughlin, M. (Eds), School Districts and Instructional Renewal, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, pp. 173-192.
130. Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (1988), “Characteristics of instructionally effective districts”, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 175-181.
131. O'Day, J. and Bitter, C. (2003), Evaluation Study of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999, American Institutes of Research, Sacramento, CA.
132. Opfer, V., Henry, G. and Mashburn, A. (2008), “The district effect: systemic responses to high stakes accountability policies in six southern states”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. 299-332.
133. Phenix, D., Siegel, D., Zaltsman, A. and Fruchter, N. (2005), “A forced march for failing schools: lessons from the New York city chancellor's district”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol 13 No. 40.
134. Pritchard, R. and Marshall, J. (2002), “Professional development in ‘Healthy’ vs ‘Unhealthy’ districts: top 10 characteristics based on research”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 113-141.
135. Ragland, M., Asera, R. and Johnson, J. (1999), Urgency, Responsibility, Efficacy: Preliminary Findings of a Study of High-Performing Texas School Districts, Charles A. Dana Center, Austin, TX.
136. Resnick, L. and Harwell, M. (2000), Instructional Variation and Student Achievement in a Standards-Based Education District, CSE Technical Report 522, Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Los Angeles, CA.
137. Ross, J., Hannay, L. and Brydges, B. (1998), “District-level support for site-based renewal: a case study of secondary school reform”, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 349-365.
138. Simmons, J. and Codding, J. (2006), Breaking Through: Transforming Urban School Districts, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
139. Sims, D. (2008), “Strategic responses to school accountability measures: it's all in the timing”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 58-68.
140. Skrla, L. and Scheurich, J. (2003), “Displacing deficit thinking in school district leadership”, in Skrla, L. and Scheurich, J. (Eds), Educational Equity and Accountability: Paradigms, Policies, and Politics, RutledgeFalmer, New York, NY, pp. 109-132.
141. Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. and Johnson, J. (2000), Equity-Driven, Achievement-Focused School Districts, Charles A. Dana Center, Austin, TX.
142. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F. and Herlihy, C. (2002), Foundations for Success: Case Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve Student Achievement, MDRC for the Council of Great City Schools, Washington, DC.
143. Snyder, J. (2001), “The New Haven Unified School District: a teaching quality system for excellence and equity”, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 61-81.
144. Spillane, J. and Jennings, N. (1997), “Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 449-481.
145. Springboard Schools (2006), Minding the Gap: New Roles for School Districts in the Age of Accountability. A Study of High-Performing, High-Poverty School Districts in California, Springboard Schools, San Francisco, CA.
146. Stein, M. and D'Amico, L. (2002), “Inquiry at the crossroads of policy and learning: a study of a district-wide literacy initiative”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 104 No. 7, pp. 1313-1344.
147. Stein, M., Harwell, M. and D'Amico, L. (1999), Toward Closing the Gap in Literacy Achievement: High Performance Learning Communities Project Community School District #2, Learning Research and Development Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
148. Stringfield, S. and Yakimowski-Srebnick, M. (2005), “Promise, progress, problems, and paradoxes of three phases of accountability: a longitudinal case study of the Baltimore City Public Schools”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 43-75.
149. Supovitz, J. (2006), The Case for District-Based Reform: Leading, Building, and Sustaining School Improvement, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA.
150. Supovitz, J. and Taylor, B. (2005), “Systemic education evaluation: evaluating the impact of systemwide reform in education”, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 204-230.
151. Togneri, W. and Anderson, S. (2003), Beyond Islands of Excellence: What Districts Can Do To Improve Instruction and Achievement in All Schools, The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Washington, DC.
152. Tupa, M. and McFadden, L. (2009a), “District, know thyself, in districts that work: the broad prize for urban education identifies districts that meet the needs of challenging populations”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 90 No. 8, pp. 563-566.
153. Tupa, M. and McFadden, L. (2009b), “‘Excellence is never an accident’, ‘Districts that work: the Broad prize for urban education identifies districts that meet the needs of challenging populations’”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 90 No. 8, pp. 554-556.
154. Waters, J. and Marzano, R. (2006), School District Leadership That Works: The Effect of Superintendent Leaderhip on Student Achievement, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL), Denver, CO.
155. WestEd (2002), Improving Districts: Systems That Support Learning, WestEd, San Francisco, CA.