Index [assets.cambridge.org]assets.cambridge.org/97805218/57567/index/9780521857567_index.pdforigin of, 126 as reform framework, 126 research evaluation of, 131, 132 accountability

Index

ABC+ Model for School Diagnosis,Feedback, and Improvement, 180

academic content. See contentacademic mission, 21academic performance, 33academic rewards, 16, 22academic skills

basic (See basic skills)learning (See learning skills)National Assessment of Educational

Progress data on, 161outcomes and CSR, 134professional development focus and,

61socioeconomic level and, 23

academicscontent (See content)as learning focus, 16for linguistic minorities, 28

Accelerated Schoolsorigin of, 126as reform framework, 126research evaluation of, 131, 132

accountabilityas board school reform focus, 42external performance-based, 63framework development for, 62policies and systems as linkages,

187–188policies of state, 95reform and high-stakes requirements,

146

reform implementation and, 146standards implementation snapshot

system, 50of states under No Child Left Behind,

166Zuni school improvement and, 71

accountability systemsalignment, 113–115coordinating, developing, and

managing, 49–51development partnerships, 62districts as mediators of multiple, 193features of, 49Kentucky funding and experts for, 99political alliances and, 191political and organizational contexts

of, 93for school improvement, 64–68state capacity building on alignment

of, 97state rigorous requirements for, 97state support and sanctions, 115–117of states, 112–113student learning and, 119tests (See test(s))validity and translation in, 118

achievement. See also achievement gap;test(s); test scores

accountability data use and, 50AMO measurement of increased

levels of, 167–169civic capacity and, 82

225

© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org

Cambridge University Press0521857562 - Integrating Educational Systems for Successful Reform in Diverse ContextsAmanda Datnow, Sue Lasky, Sam Stringfield and Charles TeddlieIndexMore information

http://www.cambridge.org/0521857562

http://www.cambridge.org


226 Index

achievement (cont.)community capacity and, 71correlates of high, 13CSR and, 128–135CSR model and, 135CSR research, 133data on, 17district-led reforms, 68district level reform and, 35–37district reform efforts and tentative, 69for ELL students, 134equity in, 27evaluation criteria for, 131federal government effort to improve,

170linkage to district action, 67lower expected norms for minority, 46multiple indicators of, 118Philadelphia school poor and

minority, 83proficiency gap elimination, 166quantitative measures of, 180reformed-based professional

development and, 68rural community beliefs and

academic, 86school board focus on, 39school board governance and student,

42school governance and academic, 41school reform, 130school reform models and, 125schoolwide reforms and, 132scores’ effect on curriculum, 115sources of, 6standing of U.S. students, 165state testing focus of, 170studies of, 2systemic reform program and

academic, 55Zuni community and, 89

achievement gapin academics, 166accountability and, 119generalizability of effects and, 174identification of reduction, 174NCLB disaggregated data and, 175professional development and, 61–62social and educational resources and,

71TAAS and NAEP results and, 119

achievement tests. See test(s)ADAM (Academic Data Analysis and

Management System), 180additive effect, 22adequacy

definition for school financing, 106of English language learner

accommodation, 150as funding formula basis, 196of professional development design,

137of state funding, 105of state infrastructure and resource,

102Advancement Via Individual

Determination Center, 125advocacy, 14affluent communities and families

additive effect in, 22baseline conditions in, 25cumulative resources and, 25racially mixed schools and, 110in research studies, 21resource allocation strategy, 64

African American leadersascendancy and public schools, 80problems of, 81socialization of, 80–81

African Americanscommunity interpersonal bonds, 79Mississippi Delta schools and, 87performance tests and, 93–122public-sector employment and, 79school effectiveness research and, 11school reform programs and, 1, 74, 83test results and achievement gaps, 119untracking and, 140

Alaska, 87, 130–131Aldine Independent School District

(Texas), 42, 45allegiances, 190alliances, 190, 193Alvarado, Anthony, 54American Educational Research

Association, 62American Indians. See Native AmericansAnnenberg Challenge, 77Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs),

167–169Annual Yearly Progress reports, 168Appalachian communities, 85–86






Index 227

Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative(ARSI), 85, 86

Arizona Tribal Coalition (ATC), 88assessment

of linguistically and culturally diversestudents, 174

linkage to reform effort, 104tests (See test(s))

assessment systemsaccountability framework, 62state design of, 97

Atlanta (Georgia)low-SES urban schools in, 24public-sector employment and, 79White flight and, 79

ATLAS Communities, 131, 133Audrey Cohen College System of

Educationculturally and linguistically diverse

school student achievement and,134

Limited English Proficiency and, 138AVID reform

implementation, 140state administration and legislation

priority and, 149state funding for, 148

Baltimore (Maryland)public-sector employment and, 79test scores and Calvert School model,

147White flight and, 79

basic skillsacquisition emphasis, 13intellectually challenging content and,

111low-SES school curriculum and, 22reform design team accommodations

for acquisition of, 148testing and, 99

beliefsembedded in education policies, 95policy mandate exercise and, 64of teachers on challenging content, 111on teaching diverse students, 187

best evidence syntheses, 131biases. See also ideology; racism

of superintendents, 46bilingual education

Core Knowledge topics and, 138

district resources and, 146funding in Georgia, 108requirement for Zuni, 90superintendent biases and, 46teaching methods for, 155

Black Americans. See African AmericansBorman, S., 129, 132–133Brown University, 125Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

(Kansas), 157Bulloch County (Georgia), 46Bush, George W., 165business community

Philadelphia reform agendas of, 75Philadelphia reform linkages with,

76tribal community school partnerships,

89Vermont partnership linkage of, 108

California. See also Chula VistaElementary School District(California); Los Angeles UnifiedSchool District (California); OxnardElementary School District(California); Sacramento CityUnified School District (California);San Francisco (California)

AVID untracking programimplementation, 140

Carnegie Middle Grades Schools StatePolicy Initiatives and, 109

elementary school study, 20underperforming school aid in, 107political climate in, 96, 97professional development support,

100Program Quality Review professional

development support program, 100school improvement study, 24state CSR in, 149teacher development in mathematics,

101Title I accountability and, 113

Calvert School model, 147Campbell, Donald T., 175capacity. See also civic capacity

to build internal, 122for capacity building, 99challenges to developing, 55–56community (See community capacity)






228 Index

capacity (cont.)as core notion, 93development by districts, 69development for policy domains and

sanctions, 65district (See district capacity)improvement and funding, 195for internal professional development,

59as key to reform, 187of Mississippi Delta, 87Philadelphia reform effort and, 46political (See political capacity)for reform implementation, 187schools (See school capacity)for state-level reform, 97–103of states to facilitate standards-based

reform, 102–103capacity building

for accountability systems, 49by design teams, 152differential resource allocation and, 52district-principal linking and, 47for district problem solving, 62district strategy for, 44by Kentucky, 99by North Carolina and Kentucky, 115political alliances and, 191political will continuity and, 96privatization and, 68required at state level, 97resource allocation for internal, 51in reward and sanction systems,

196–197state framework as student

performance standardsinterpretation, 51

at the state level, 120–121state’s efforts at, 98strategies and linkage, 68teacher leaders and, 48teacher understanding of strategy for,

55career and technical education, 6, 171Carnegie Corporation of New York

education reform and, 159Middle Grades Schools State Policy

Initiative, 96, 109partnership with Texas Education

Agency’s Gifted and Talented office,106

Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching, 110

case studiesdata sampling and, 68as district-level research method,

35–37of district reform preconditions, 39as effective school evidence, 13evidence-based research and, 176trustworthiness and transferability

issues, 182use of best practices development,

174Center for Research on Education,

Diversity and Excellence (CREDE)district improvement strategy, 55linguistically and culturally diverse

students and, 173NAEP data analysis, 161Standards for Effective Pedagogy, 54,

89central office

data use in decision making, 65professional development for, 58reculturing and restructuring of, 58staff role in reform implementation, 44

changeadaptive approach to, 20decisions on units of, 45facilitator styles of principals, 21as nonlinear, 9pressure and opportunities for, 47at school and classroom level, 29–31theory and resource allocation, 52as uncoordinated policy, 43

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (NorthCarolina)

case study, 39funding sources, 40superintendent selection by, 40teacher site-level assistance, 59

charter schools, 169Chicago (Illinois)

accountability system of, 60, 66–67reform focus of, 53school support evaluation, 65–67Title I accountability and, 113

Children Achievingcommunity participation in, 77funding confrontation, 76interpretation of, 75–78






Index 229

Philadelphia superintendent risktaking, 78

Chula Vista Elementary School District(California), 42, 45

Cincinnati (Ohio), 142civic capacity. See also community

capacitycommunity linkage and, 90definition, 73importance of, 74linkage importance to, 82

classroomchange and professional development

content hours, 102change research on schools and, 29–31equity research, 31–34as level, 29practices as reform principle, 54researcher observations, 30

classroom teaching. See teachingCo-Nect, 131coalition(s), 73, 95Coalition of Essential Schools

Brown reform design team, 125culturally and linguistically diverse

student achievement and, 134ELL student achievement and, 134origin of, 126as reform framework, 126research evaluation of, 131school leadership requirements and,

137Coalition of Evidence-Based Policy

(CEBP), 176Colorado. See also Denver (Colorado)

accountability policies and, 95professional development support,

100students in, 6

Comer School Development Programculturally and linguistically diverse

student achievement and, 134ELL student achievement and, 134origin of, 126as reform framework, 126research evaluation of, 131, 132Yale reform design team, 125

communicationacross policy domains, 195among design team, district, and

school personnel, 144, 146

among partners, 66as design team reports and support,

137district coordination of, 43district role in coordinating,

69of high expectations, 17level on reform designs, 136

community(-ies)affluent (See affluent communities and

families)Appalachian (See Appalachian

communities)civic capacity and, 73context importance, 82cumulative resources and, 25diverse students education reform

and, 92educational deficiency compensation,

25educational reform political will of,

186engagement in Philadelphia Children

Achieving, 75, 77financial and material resources in,

186low-SES (See low-SES communities)member linkages, 74, 82middle-SES (See middle-SES

communities)participation in Philadelphia Children

Achieving, 77perceptions as change support

precondition, 41reform efforts, 71–92reform leadership requirements and,

185–195relationship with partners and school

system, 72restructuring programs in low SES,

24role of, 71rural (See rural areas)support and superintendent political

engagement, 78community capacity

civic (See civic capacity)student achievement and, 71urban reform and, 74–79

community development, 79community groups, 64






230 Index

community involvementcivic capacity and, 90Native Americans and, 87Zuni district reform and, 55, 89–90

community linkageChildren Achieving and, 77civic capacity and, 90between community members, 74government and, 71by school boards with local

stakeholders, 40urban reform and, 73–74

community schools, 88, 89compensatory development, 25complexity theory, 9comprehensive school reform (CSR)

Core Knowledge Sequence design andimplementation researchgeneralizability, 182

design components, 150design team connections to school

reform, 124district-level implementation, 141–146effective ELL and, 134–135federal funding initiatives, 170funding, 127grants and reform motivation and

sustainability, 149growth of, 127implementation, 154–155, 178LEP student performance and, 179linguistic and cultural diversity,

137–141model development, 123–155models and achievement research, 128models for, 128movement as model, 125school-level results, 135–141state-level implementation of, 146–152student achievement research and, 133whole-school research and, 131

Comprehensive School ReformDemonstration Program, 107,127–128

Congress, 159Connecticut, 108, 150consultants, 19. See also experts; outside

expertscontent. See also curriculum

changes implementation and districtpersonnel, 51

disadvantaged students andintellectually challenging, 111

knowledge of teachers, 55professional development hours and,

102teacher skills and academic, 65

contexteducation research and, 20in reform studies, 9school effectiveness research and, 177

contextually sensitive studies, 19. See alsocase studies

contingency theory, 20continuous improvement

leadership sharing and, 48as policy adaptation, 43reform plans and, 189

coordination, 96Core Knowledge Foundation, 125Core Knowledge Sequence

culturally and linguistically diverseschool student achievement and,134

as curricula reform design, 126ELL student achievement and, 134language differences and, 138research evaluation of, 131

correlates of effective schools, 14, 17courts, 6CREDE. See Center for Research on

Education, Diversity and Excellence(CREDE)

cultural diversity. See diversitycultural groups, 33culturally and linguistically diverse

studentsassessment of, 174belief about teaching, 187best practices research for educating,

174interventions for, 176learning environments for, 11in low-SES schools, 15multiple outcome measures for,

179–181practices beneficial for, 173practices for, 29reform evaluation at schools serving,

179reform focus on, 186–187research methods and, 183






Index 231

research on, 172–183school-level factors affecting, 11validity of studies of, 181–183

culturecurricula relevance of, 87, 89of diverse communities, 32of improvement, 24

culture wars, 176cumulative resource effects, 25curriculum

culturally appropriate and sensitive,89

culturally relevant, 87district role in adapting, 51educators on rigorous, 111as effective school process, 16emphasis on, 22guidance by California officials, 96in high-SES schools, 23home and community conflicts with

school, 85in low-SES schools, 23narrowing and testing, 115, 188of Pima tribe in science, 88professional development and, 61reform design basis, 126relevance to Native Americans, 88sanction effectiveness and, 196at schools serving disadvantaged

students, 16science education and, 51–53standards-based math and science use

by Native American communityschools, 89

standards development and, 51–52state design of, 97student achievement scores and, 116

Dade County (Florida), 6, 143data. See also disaggregated data

analyses of disaggregated, 172availability on district-led reform, 68for central office decision making, 65collection on education, 160decision making as problem solving

use of, 50district use of, 39gathering under National Assessment

of Educational Progress, 161in policy decision making, 188–189on reform outcomes, 129

on school-level implementation, 50on student achievement and program

assessment, 17use in developing accountability

systems, 62decision making

accountability data and, 50accountability systems and, 188central office data use and, 65centralization and community leader

participation, 77data use in policy, 188–189district skills development in, 51on reform plans without information,

132reform stakeholder participation, 40state-local authority and, 84

Delaware, 129Denver (Colorado), 6Department of Agriculture, 160Department of Education, 5, 159Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare, US, 82Department of Health and Human

Services, 5, 160design team

accommodation of state and districtrequirements, 148

adaptations and reformimplementation process change,152–154

changes to program, 152communications with, 137, 144, 146connections to school reform, 124CSR implementation and, 154description, 123–125growth and capacities of, 153implementation measurement, 178reform and implementation support

by, 137as service providers or assistance

organizations, 152Detroit (Michigan)

public schools as black agency in, 79public-sector employment and, 79white flight and school politics in,

79Direct Instruction

ELL and, 155research evaluation and replicability,

131






232 Index

Direct Instruction (cont.)research evaluation of, 132student achievement and, 132

disadvantaged studentscurriculum and, 16development of effective schools for,

24–25educational challenges of, 13effective schools strategies, 19–25experimental research and, 176intellectually challenging content and,

111reform evaluation factors and, 179school-classroom linkage and, 30school improvement factors, 23Title I federal aid program for, 159well-defined goals for, 15

disaggregated dataanalysis by subgroups, 174problems with, 175research requirement, 174use of, 174

discipline. See order in schoolsdistrict(s), 6

accountability linkages and, 187–188Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative

and, 86capacity-building strategy of, 44capacity of, 70characteristics, 38–39CSR and linguistic and cultural

diversity, 145–146CSR implementation and, 154design team accommodation of,

148design team communications and,

144, 146diversity of local school, 6educational reform and, 35–70financial partnerships and, 63functions of, 37instructional improvement strategy of,

43leadership reform support, 185linkage to stakeholders, 57–68local economy and, 79, 194as mediators of federal and state

policies, 193–194NAS designs implementation

difficulty, 143organizational-level capacity, 98

policy domain role, 37as policy mediators, 43proactive school reform directions, 69problem-solving partnerships and, 192professional development and, 57–61,

192reform capacity of, 187reform funding adequacy, 186reform preconditions and, 39role of, 37–39school leadership partnership with, 47school reform and, 36school transfer options for parents, 169state accountability standards and, 193state capacity and, 98state capacity for professional

development in, 100–103superintendent capacity to change, 45teacher perception of initiatives by, 190urban linkages with state

governments, 76district administrators, 58district capacity

to affect learning outcome, 37continuous improvement

assumptions and, 43development for reform, 70material level for, 52for reform, 43–56reform development, 56for systemwide reform, 38

district leaderschallenges of, 56ideological linkages and, 190NAS reform implementation and, 141problem-solving partnership creation,

61resource development strategies of, 52skills of, 47student learning and, 68

district-levelCSR implementation, 141–146political and organizational

preconditions, 39district-level linkages

with outside stakeholders, 52with principals, 47to schools, 38

district-level reform effortlikelihood of, 55preconditions for, 39–41






Index 233

in school reform effort, 35–70state allies and, 141student achievement and, 68tentative student impact and, 69

District of Columbiapublic-sector employment and, 79school reform in, 129White flight, 79

district personnel, 51district policies, 68district standards, 50diverse schools, 134, 186diverse students. See also culturally and

linguistically diverse studentscommunity role in education for, 92detracking reform implementation,

141equity and education of racially,

157group similarities and, 11as reform focus, 186resource requirements of, 186school-classroom linkage research

and, 31diversity

of America, 156CSR and linguistic and cultural,

137–141district CSR and linguistic and,

145–146linguistic and racial, 2state CSR and linguistic and cultural,

150–152Duval County (Florida), 50

Early Childhood and AcademicAssistance Act, 110

economic changes, 79economic development, 79economic divestment, 194economic movements, 95Edison Project, 125education, 106, 173education expenditures, 82. See also

adequacy; financial resourceseducation theories, 45educational cartel

African American leaders and, 81as community context and systemic

linkages, 82of Whites, 80–81

educational effectiveness, 18educational failure, 29, 31–32

see also school failureeducational funding. See financial

resources; funding; state fundingeducational organizations, 7educational reform. See also reform;

school improvement; school reform;whole-school reforms

as co-constructed process, 8criteria for evaluating studies of,

180formal structures and, 5as innovation, 1key factors in, 185–187linkage to social reconstruction, 194school involvement and, 12

educational system, 188Effective Schooling Practices: A Research

Synthesis, 26, 32–34effective schools

case study evidence, 13characteristics of, 13for disadvantaged students, 24–25district-university partnership, 54initial research focus of, 173middle- and low-SES differences,

21–23monitoring of student progress and,

17process and equity issues and, 28process subcomponents at, 18processes of, 13–19strategies for creating, 19–25subcomponent processes, 14teaching in differentially, 30teaching processes at, 17

effective schools research, 3, 14effectiveness research

pragmatist philosophical foundationof, 173

on school-classroom linkage, 30Eisenhower, Dwight, 157Elementary and Secondary Education

Act (ESEA), 2, 159Title I accountability and

low-performing schools under, 114elementary schools

as research concentration, 14school improvement in, 56studies of, 20






234 Index

ELL. See English language learners(ELLs)

employability, 144employment opportunities, 83English, 28English as Second Language, 139English language learners (ELLs). See

also Limited English Proficient(LEP) students

achievement scores of, 118CSR and, 150–152, 155CSR implementation and, 138CSR research on, 134–135district reform and, 145–146No Child Left Behind requirements,

169San Diego school reform and, 64standardized tests and, 90state level knowledge of, 151test scores of, 118

equitable outcomes, 166equity

classroom level research and, 31–34creation of, 11in effective schools research, 14as funding formula basis, 196in learning opportunities and

outcomes, 27linguistically and culturally diverse

student education research and,172

mean masking and, 17school level research, 26–29socioeconomic status and, 33standards-based reform and, 52

equity-based reforms, 64equity research, 173ethics, 65ethnographic studies, 2, 173evaluation design, 179evidence

from case studies on effective schools,13

on effective schooling, 13review rule and inclusion, 2school reform research review, 131

evidence-based educationNCLB use, 175

Exito Para Todos, 135expectations. See high expectations

Expeditionary Learning, 131, 132experimental controls, 176experimental research

emphasis on, 176as gold standard, 175methodological concerns about,

176–177validity of, 182

experts. See also outside expertsfor professional development, 99state professional development

networks and, 101external groups, 101. See also outside

experts; outside stakeholders;partnerships; vendors

external management, 169external partners, 191. See also outside

expertscommunity participation and support

from, 41financial resources realignment and,

63improvement effort role funds, 191problem-solving partnerships with,

62professional development focus of,

61trust of, 66

extracurricular activities, 18

faculty. See teacher(s)Fashola, O., 131federal funds. See also grants

CSR and, 127education aid program, 160ineffective state-federal stream of,

195–196for NCLB, 166, 171state reliance on, 108

federal governmentaccountability linkages and, 187–188districts as mediators of policies of,

193–194districts as policy mediators with, 43education aid program, 160history of education role of, 157–160ineffective funding stream linkage of,

195–196local education agency transparency

and, 167






Index 235

reform efforts role, 156–171school reform initiatives funding,

170student achievement improvement

effort, 170urban school reform and, 83

federal guidelines, 169financial resources. See also adequacy;

funding; grants; school financing;state finance systems; state funding

across policy domains, 192for break-the-mold schools, 127of community, 186external funding partners and, 107for external partners for improvement

efforts, 191partnerships and, 62Philadelphia dispute over, 76political fight over, 76professional development strategic

allocation of, 59quality education requirements for,

104–106Florida. See also Duval County (Florida)

CSR funding motivation, 149failing school principals’ perceptions,

115professional development support,

100reform and high-stakes accountability,

146state CSR in, 149

Florida Comprehensive AssessmentTest, 115

for-profit organizations, 125free or reduced-price lunch, 133funding. See also state funding

adequacy by states and districts, 186Children Achieving battle for, 76district increase of, 40effectiveness of, 195under Elementary and Secondary

Education Act, 159for federal Title I program, 159functional and market-based

approaches to, 106ineffective state-federal stream of,

195–196for NCLB, 166partnerships and Vermont reform, 107

realignment for improvement efforts,63

tribal community schools and, 89

Gardner, John, 157Gary (Indiana), 79generalizability, 176, 182geographic isolation, 85Georgia. See also Bulloch County

(Georgia)bilingual education partnership and

program, 110bilingual program funding allocation,

108Georgia Project, 46Gila River Indians, 88goals

annual strategic, 50of community and educational reform

responsiveness, 89creation of common, 75ideological divergence and, 76as well-defined for disadvantaged

students, 15governance

level for schools with poor-performing students, 114

race and economic changeconsequences for school, 79

school board effectiveness in, 41–42of U.S. schools, 6

governors, 95Philadelphia reform conflict with, 76state policy and, 96vetoes of California assessment plan,

96grants

for Comprehensive School ReformDemonstration, 107

for CSR, 149educational complexity and federal, 5for improvement efforts, 195in-kind by Intel for local partnerships,

85for math and science education in

isolated areas, 85for Vermont education reform, 89

Haitian Creole students, 139Hawaii, 6






236 Index

Head Start program, 5, 160Herman, R., 129, 131–132high expectations

promotion of, 21for students, 17superintendents norms and, 46

high-needs studentsacademic performance of, 33instructional needs of, 32–33practices for, 29providing programs/support to help,

26–27social and academic resiliency of, 33social support for, 33time and instructional needs, 32–33

high schoolsAVID implementation in, 140exit exams development by states, 112Maine reform grant eligibility and, 107minority students and school test

scores, 119Pima tribe students preparation for, 88unique challenges of, 56

High Schools That Work, 132high-SES schools, 23high-stakes accountability and testing

Florida reform and, 146Maryland reform and, 146reform and, 146system implementation by states, 113Tennessee reform and, 146test-preparation efforts impact, 147Texas reform and, 146validity of, 117–119

Hispanic students. See also Latinostudents

reform adaptations and, 140test results and achievement gaps, 119Texas Assessment of Academic Skills

test, 118home-school relations, 25. See also

parentsHouston Independent School District

(HISD) (Texas), 39, 40, 82

Idaho, 6, 130IDEA. See Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA)ideology

Children Achieving struggle over, 76influence in CSR implementation, 140

linkage among teacher leaders, 49linkages and, 4linkages and state reforms, 110–111linkages of, 63–64as stakeholder linkages, 189–190of state governments as anti-urban,

84IES. See Institute of Education Sciences

(IES)Illinois, 97, 109. See also Chicago (Illinois)implementation

of CSR at district level, 141–145of CSR at state level, 146–152CSR model and, 135data on school level, 50degrees for reform design, 152design teams and, 152–154design teams and reform, 152–154of districtwide reform, 55factors leading to poor, 178–179ideology and educator resistance to

CSR, 140information flow during, 144initiation process planning, 185measurement of, 178mixed-method research on, 181models of, 75–76power and perspective shaping of, 9principals’ responsibility for reform,

47process, 8of reform, 183of reform by states, 96relational linkages and, 190research design use of mixed methods

approach, 181research methodology, 183resistance to AVID, 140school economic role and reform, 194of school reform, 8state capacity building on

development of reform plans, 97state education department role in

reform, 98–99success requirements for design, 154support by NAS design teams,

153–154Improving America’s School Act (IASA),

99in-services courses. See professional

development






Index 237

incentives, 115Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA), 159, 171industry. See business communityinformation

currency and continual improvement,189

flow during implementation, 144gathering and district leader

awareness, 50integration by teachers, 143National Center for Education

Statistics, 160policy level information access,

114reform decisions made without,

132on reforms details, 129sharing by state education agencies in,

100sources on reform and English

language learners, 144on student performance for decision

making, 188initiators, 21innovation

by California, 96measurement of, 178–179reform as an, 1

Institute for Learning (IFL), 54, 55Institute of Education Sciences (IES),

160, 170instructional improvement, 38, 43, 52instructional needs, 32–33instructional reform, 56instructional support, 48Intel Corporation, 89Intel Partnership Project, 89intellectually rigorous curriculum,

111International Handbook of School

Effectiveness Research, 14Internet, 89intervention research, 32intervention strategies

in Chicago accountability system, 66,67

for high-poverty rural schools, 85for linguistically and culturally

diverse students, 176state takeover as, 116

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), 60isolation, 85, 87

jobseducation system creation of, 194protection in education politics, 79public school systems as important

source of, 83Johns Hopkins University, 125Johnson, Lyndon, 157

Kent County Public Schools (Maryland),42, 45

KentuckyAVID untracking program

implementation, 140capacity building by, 99elementary principals leadership in,

48professional development support,

100rural systemic initiatives for, 85school governance and accountability,

114state education department role in, 98statewide capacity building by, 115superintendent design

implementation role, 142Title I accountability and, 113

Kentucky Department of Education, 109Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA)

elementary principal leadership in, 48politics and standards of learning, 86state policy linkage and, 109

language(s), 156. See also bilingualeducation; culturally andlinguistically diverse students;English language learners (ELLs);Limited English Proficient (LEP)students

language minority students, 28. See alsoEnglish language learners (ELLs);Limited English proficient (LEP)students

language skills, 28, 96Latino community, 64Latino students, 119. See also Hispanic

studentsleaders. See principals; state leaders;

teacher leaders






238 Index

leadershipBlack ascendance and public schools,

80capacity in teaching improvement, 49distribution and performance

improvement, 44district efforts to foster teacher, 48–49district efforts to improve school, 47district stability in, 38lack of state-level, 96multiple level support requirement,

185planning of transitions in, 154problem-solving capacity, 46processes of effective, 15for reform at the school level, 136–137in reform efforts, 44–49sharing and continuous improvement,

48subcomponents of, 15superintendent level reform efforts, 44of superintendents, 44–46

leadership styleof effective principals, 21as precondition, 78of principals, 23

leadership teams, 15learners. See student(s)learning

accountability systems and, 113adult responsibility for, 188district capacity of effect, 37district characteristics and, 38–39district improvement of, 193district role in, 69environments for culturally and

linguistically diverse students, 11equity in, 27improvement and funding, 195improvement and school board role,

42organizational-level capacities for, 98outcomes and accountability, 65pervasive focus on, 16problem prevention, 29professional development and

increase in, 61sanction effectiveness and, 196state policy for redesign of, 97

Learning Network, 133

learning partnershipsdistrict capacity development and,

57–61effectiveness of, 195professional development and, 192

learning skills, 16. See also basic skillslegislation. See also specific legislation

California assessment system and, 96state response to requirements, 99

levels in education reform. See alsodistrict-level; linkage; school-level;state-level

as context of change, 9formal structures linking, 5–9linkages between, 4

Limited English Proficient (LEP)students

Audrey Cohen College System ofEducation and, 138

CSR effectiveness and, 179effective schooling for, 3reform models and, 155research applicable, 3Success for All, 139

linguistic diversity. See also culturallyand linguistically diverse students

molding of reform models to fit, 155state accountability test and, 117

linguistic minorities, 28. See also EnglishLanguage Learners (ELLs); LimitedEnglish Proficient (LEP) students

linkageaccountability and, 187–188of accountability systems and

standards, 64–65characterization of, 4community (See community linkage)data use and, 189district (See district-level linkages)of district and state standards, 50as formal and informal, 5as funding streams, 195–196ideological, 63–64ideological divergence and, 76importance of, 82ineffective or counterproductive,

195–197between levels, 4levels of education and formal, 5–9limited opportunities for urban, 81






Index 239

of local policy makers and outsideexperts, 51

of poverty and urban school reform,83

as professional relationships, 190–191between reform and student

achievement, 67reform preconditions and, 40in reform programs, 69of reform stakeholders, 42as research area, 92as resource partnerships, 62school and, 11school-classroom (See

school-classroom link)in school reform, 187–194between stakeholders and districts,

57–68of standards of districts and states, 50state (See state linkages)teacher leader ideological, 49teacher leadership development and,

48unsustainable school reform and,

195–197literacy, 45literacy coordinators, 60local economy

school district role in, 194schools in, 79schools in urban, 194shifts in Philadelphia’s, 77urban reform and race and, 79–84

local education authorities (LEAs). Seealso district(s)

mathematics and science educationaid, 157

Michigan mathematics and sciencereform implementation, 51

transparency requirements, 167Los Angeles Unified School District

(California), 6Louisiana, 24Louisiana School Effectiveness Study, 20,

23low-acheiving students, 113, 114low-income students

CSR and, 128school reform effects on, 137

low-performing schools

accountability and Title I, 114Chicago support for, 65financial adequacy and identification

of, 106identification under NCLB, 115political alliances and, 191privatization by state, 68resource allocation and, 52sanctions as warning to, 196state accountability and linking, 115state linking capacity development

for, 122as Title I schools by states, 114

low-SES areas, 24. See also poverty areaslow-SES communities, 25low-SES schools

academic rewards in, 22basic skills in effective, 22educational expectations in, 21effectiveness differential, 23effectiveness research and, 11experienced teachers at, 22improvement in, 24parental involvement at, 22parents in effective, 18research focused on, 15staff role success at, 24stages in changes at, 25

low-SES students, 19–25

Maine, 107, 150Maryland

accountability policies and, 95education outcome reporting by,

166underperforming schools in, 108professional development support,


146research evaluation, 131school accountability and

performance, 114school reform in, 129test scores and Calvert School model,

147Marzano monitoring system, 180Massachusetts, 97, 150matched-control criterion, 131material capacity, 93






240 Index

mathematicsCalifornia governor support for, 96California teacher development in, 101curricula reform and knowledge of, 51federal aid to education in, 157NAEP data on, 161state assessments and achievement in,

112test and wording sensitivity, 117

mayors, 78–79mean masking, 17measurement

of innovation, 178–179student achievement quantification

and, 180Memphis City Schools (Tennessee), 136Memphis (Tennessee)

CSR models of, 125reform implementation and test scores

in, 147superintendent design

implementation role, 142mentors, 192methodology

of contextual sensitive studies, 20deficiencies, 13systematic integration as, 172–183for systematic integration studies,

172–183Miami (Florida), 125Michigan, 51, 100.. See also Detroit

(Michigan)middle class, 110middle school, 56, 96

LEP student implementation inPhiladelphia, 139

middle-SES communities, 25middle-SES schools

academic rewards in, 22educational expectations in, 21expanded curriculum of, 22experienced teachers and, 22parental involvement in, 22

migrant education, 155Minneapolis (Minnesota), 42, 45Minnesota, 100minority students

academic achievement gapelimination, 166

academics and English language skillsfor linguistic, 28

lower expected norms for, 46school reform effects on, 137school reform linkages and, 184Texas Assessment of Academic Skills

test and, 119Mississippi Delta, 85, 86–87mixed-methods research

design for reform implementation, 181multiethnic settings and, 178need for, 175–178of school reform, 177use in multicultural/multiethnic

setting, 178use of, 172validity issues in, 181

Modern Red Schoolhouseculturally and linguistically diverse

school student achievement and,134

as curricula reform design, 126English as Second Language and, 146research evaluation of, 131, 132

Modern Red Schoolhouse Institute, 125monitoring

of student progress, 17, 21system data elements, 180

Montana, 6, 130Montessori, 133multicultural education

equity issues and, 28respect promotion and, 33in school life, 27–28

multicultural settingskey reform factors in, 185–187mixed method research and, 178as reform focus, 2

multiethnic settingsreform implementation studies in, 183

multilingual settingskey reform factors in, 185–187as reform focus, 2reform implementation studies in, 183

muticulturally diverse students. Seeculturally and linguistically diversestudents

NAEP. See National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP)

Nation At Risk, A, 2National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), 160, 161–165






Index 241

achievement gap and, 119data use of, 161exam results in California, 96international study of U.S. students,

165NCLB connection, 170score averages, 165

National Center for Education Statistics(NCES), 160

National Council on Measurement inEducation, 62

national defense, 157National Science Foundation (NSF)

grants for Vermont, 107Mississippi Delta reform suitability

finding, 87Rural Systemic Reform Initiatives, 85statewide systemic initiatives, 96

Native Americans. See also Gila RiverIndians; Pima tribe; Zuni

performance tests and, 117rural systemic reform initiatives for, 85school sustained improvement efforts

in, 87–90NCLB. See No Child Left Behind Act; No

Child Left Behind (NCLB)New American Schools (NAS)

design implementation districtcharacteristics, 142

designs and professionaldevelopment, 143

grants for Vermont, 107reform research design, 131reforms supported by districts, 141role of, 127school level leadership and, 136school low reform implementation

levels, 137New American Schools (NAS)

Development Corporation, 125New Hampshire, 150New Jersey, 97, 129, 148. See also Newark

(New Jersey)New Mexico. See Zuni Public School

District (New Mexico)New Mexico Rural Systemic Initiative

(UCAN RSI), 88New York City, 6, 59, 113, 150New York City Chancellor’s District, 39New York District #2

differential resource allocation in, 52

district improvement strategy, 55district-principal negotiation, 47instructional equity in, 52learning and teacher professional

development, 61professional development in, 58reform efforts in, 45reform principles of, 54student achievement and, 68superintendent risk taking by, 78

Newark (New Jersey)patronage politics in, 81–82political corruption and, 81public schools as Black agency in, 79

No Child Left Behind Act, 165–170disaggregated data analysis and, 173state implementation role challenges

of, 97No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

disaggregated data analysis from, 175guideline modification, 169low-performing schools identification

under, 115NAEP connection, 170professional development and, 186programs complexity, 5ratcheting up of federal involvement,

171scientifically based research, 175state restructuring for, 122testing requirement outcomes, 167

nonprofit organizations, 125norms

stakeholder linkage for new, 40standardized testing of Zuni and, 90of states, 95of superintendents, 45of White educational cartel, 80

North Carolina, 115, 140. See alsoCharlotte-Mecklenburg Schools(North Carolina)

Northwest Regional EducationalLaboratory (NWREL), 129

equity practices areas, 26reform research performed by, 130report of, 11, 26, 32

NSF. See National Science Foundation(NSF)

Obey-Porter initiative, 127–128Ohio. See Cincinnati (Ohio)






242 Index

order in schools, 16Oregon, 130organizational context, 93organizational-level capacity, 98outcomes. See also test scores

curriculum narrowing and student,188

district capacity to affect learning, 37measurement and reform

implementation, 180measurement of linguistically and

culturally diverse students, 179–181policy level interactions and, 8school reform, 129state AMO expectations for student,

167–168outside experts. See also external partners

district curricula reform and, 52low-capacity districts and schools

and, 53presentations by, 19problem-solving partnerships with, 62reform stakeholder support and, 40state capacity building on

development of, 98outside stakeholders, 52Outward Bound, 131, 132Oxnard Elementary School District

(California), 54–55

Packard Foundation, 59Paideia, 131, 133paradigm wars, 176parents

involvement at low-SES schools, 22involvement at middle-SES schools, 22involvement differentials, 23involvement of, 18school transfer options, 169

partners, 66, 72. See also external partnerspartnerships. See also resource

partnershipsdevelopment in Kentucky, 86development of, 109of district and school leaders, 47between districts and universities, 54lacking in Mississippi Delta, 87as linkage for reform, 69for problem-solving, 61resource allocation and, 108–110of schools with universities, 54

stakeholder linkages and, 57state agency capacity and, 108state capacity building for

development of, 98between tribal community schools

and industry, 89in Vermont reform financing, 107Zuni-University of California Santa

Cruz, 89–90Peer Examination, Evaluation, and

Redesign (PEER) committees, 40Pennsylvania. See also Philadelphia

(Pennsylvania); Pittsburgh(Pennsylvania)

governor versus Philadelphia leaderagendas, 76

school reform in, 129performance-based accountability and

assessmentCalifornia governor veto of, 96shared values and, 189

personal monitoring, 15Philadelphia (Pennsylvania)

accountability system partnership, 62Children Achieving effort, 75–78leadership problem-solving capacity,

46middle school LEP student

implementation, 139poor and minority student

achievement in, 83reform focus, 53struggle for financial support for

schools, 76student achievement and, 68superintendent reform design

implementation role, 143superintendent risk taking by, 78

pilot programs, 170Pima tribe, 88Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania), 143policy

as board school reform focus, 42capacity and, 93change and political arrangements, 80coalitions and political context of, 95inconsistencies of state and federal

governments, 43interaction outcomes, 8levels and accountability systems,

113–115






Index 243

making in multilevel structures, 74mayor leadership in school, 78–79schools as domain focus of, 38

policy domainscommunication across, 195district as pivotal, 37linkages across, 4state linkage and, 103–119

political agendas, 76, 108political allegiances, 108–110political alliances

African American reform leaders and,81

as linkages for resource alignment, 191as research area, 92

political capacityfor affecting school improvement, 91building of, 40resource reallocation and, 82

political climatecontinuity in, 96middle school reform, 97

political contextschool improvement and, 120of state improvement and

accountability, 93of state-level reform, 95–97

political economyschool system place in, 91school system role in local, 79

political leadership, 97political movements, 95political policy, 37political positions, 120political will

continuity in, 96for education reform, 186stakeholder alliances and, 191

politicsdistrict-level reform preconditions

and, 39job protection and education, 79as local context, 71in Newark (New Jersey) public

schools, 82policy change and, 80school local economy and, 79superintendents’ engagement in, 78

poor schoolsresources into, 64state exit exams and, 113

positive reinforcement, 16poverty

academic achievement gapelimination, 166

civic capacity and, 90CSR and, 128financial partnerships and, 63free lunch an indicator of, 133intervention in rural areas, 85reform effort and, 92resource allocation and, 52in rural and urban areas, 71school reform difficulty of, 81urban schools and resource linkages,

83poverty areas, 196. See also low-SES

areaspoverty districts, 191power

of districts, 37policies embedded in contexts of, 95in reform efforts, 9

pragmatism, 173principals

leadership differences, 23leadership style effectiveness, 21parent involvement use by, 18professional development models for,

58as reform effort leaders, 185reform implementation role, 44school reform implementation and,

136in schools serving disadvantaged

students, 15systemic reform roles, 47–48

privatization, 68probation, 66problem-solving

approach by school board members,42

capacity of leadership, 46district partnership creation for, 61–62partnerships in systemic reform

efforts, 192–193by school boards and

superintendents, 40by state officials, 97

process-product studies, 20processes of effective schools, 13–19,

177






244 Index

professional developmentacademically challenging content

instruction and, 111capacity building on, 98content area hours, 102on cultural diversity, 32design team, 137district approach to, 58district capacity development for, 57focus on skills testing, 61in-service course effectiveness as, 19Kentucky funding and experts for, 99learning partnerships and, 192in mathematics by California, 102multiple level requirements for, 185NAS implementation and, 143providers partnership as linkage, 108quality and external groups, 101resource allocation and, 52state capacity for, 100–103state capacity for supporting, 99–100state education agency internal

requirements, 100state external assistance infrastructure

development and, 101student achievement and

reform-based, 68teacher beliefs about diverse students,

187for teacher leaders, 48teacher leaders and, 49time requirements for, 61types of, 58–59

professional support networking, 104proficiency

definition variability, 112expectations under No Child Left

Behind, 168Promising Futures, 107property taxes, 196Providence (Rhode Island), 42, 45, 54psychological research, 20public reporting, 166public schools

as Black agency, 79Black employment opportunities and,

83number of, 6as symbolic, 80Zuni and, 90

public-sector employment, 79

punishment, 16pupils. See student(s)

qualitative research, 182quantitative research, 176, 177

race. See also specific raceeconomic change and, 79middle-class White fears, 110as Mississippi Delta issue, 85NAEP data by, 161Philadelphia reform effort, 75in Philadelphia reform effort, 76state-local decision making and, 84urban policy and, 80urban reform and local economies

and, 79–84urban structural problems and, 81, 91

racial segregation, 86–87racism, 64reading, 126reading achievement, 161recruiting, 15reduced-price and free lunch, 133reform. See also educational reform;

research-based reform; schoolimprovement; school reform;whole-school reforms

board priorities for, 39capacity for (See capacity)change versus continuous

improvement in, 43complexity of, 5districts negative role in, 37focus on culturally and linguistically

diverse students, 186–187frameworks for, 126implementation of (See

implementation)leadership roles, 44–49range of, 125research (See research)resource allocation for, 52–53rural communities and, 84–90social and human capital in

systemwide, 54sustainability, 142, 189, 195–197test scores and, 147type of, 53–55

reform designadaptation of, 148






Index 245

as prescriptive, 126school achievement of external, 37school implementation authority, 137school improvement role, 123–155teacher implementation role in, 136

reform design teams. See design teamreform efforts

in communities, 71–92Philadelphia Children Achieving

implementation model, 75–76poverty areas and, 92state assessment and professional

support, 104state-level, 93–122

reform failurerestructuring for annual yearly

progress failure, 169school improvement failure additional

steps, 169in urban areas, 74

reform foci, 53–55reform leaders, 76reform models

adoption of research-based, 127background of, 126–127of Memphis (Tennessee), 125of Miami (Florida), 125of San Antonio (Texas), 125school leadership requirements, 136

reform processeslinkages in, 103professional development in, 60state linkages and, 121–122

reform strategies, 50relational linkages, 190–191research. See also case studies;

effectiveness research; equityresearch; ethnographic studies;experimental research;mixed-methods research; schooleffectiveness research (SER); schoolimprovement research; teachereffectiveness research (TER)

on classroom equity, 31–34disaggregated data requirement, 174district-level case studies as method

of, 35–37district use of, 39effects generalization, 174equity in effective school and, 14ethnographic as qualitative, 2

methodological issues in reform,172–183

multicultural/multiethnic settings for,178

NCLB scientifically based, 175review evidence and inclusion rule,

2on school and classroom level change,

29–31on school board effectiveness, 41school-classroom level linkage, 31on school equity, 26–29on school level factor, 11on state capacity build and linkage

formation, 93on state-level capacity building

domain, 97studies on “ what works,” 170validity and culturally diverse

students, 181–183research and development centers, 160research-based knowledge, 170research-based reform, 54, 55resource allocation, 45, 104–105resource partnerships, 62–63, 191resources

achievement gap and, 71allocation for reform, 52availability for professional

development, 60district-effectiveness and, 38partnerships and additional, 191political alliances and allocation of,

191required to support reform, 186teachers’ perceptions of the adequacy

of, 137respect, 33–34responders, 21restructuring models, 24, 145retention in-grade, 29rewards, 22, 196–197. See also academic

rewardsRhode Island, 6, 42, 150. See also

Providence (Rhode Island)Roots and Wings, 131, 132, 147rural areas

low-SES school improvement, 24reform and, 84–90reform as reconstruction of, 194school reform in, 71






246 Index

rural districts, 84–85rural reform, 91–92

Sacramento City Unified School District(California), 39, 40, 59

sampling issues, 172–175San Antonio (Texas)

CSR models of, 125NAS design implementation, 143–144state testing and reform

implementation, 147superintendent design

implementation role, 142San Diego (California)

central office professionaldevelopment, 58

differential resource allocation, 64district improvement strategy, 55district-led reform in, 68instructional equity in, 52norm expectation and beliefs in, 45reform principles of, 54superintendent risk taking by, 78

San Francisco (California), 58, 113sanctions. See also probation; school

reconstitution; state takeoversaccountability and state support,

115–117annual yearly progress and, 169effectiveness of, 196–197imposition by districts, 65Kentucky movement from, 99political alliances and, 191school improvement failure additional

steps, 169vendor teaching capacity

improvement and, 60school(s). See also elementary schools;

high-SES schools; low-SES schools;middle school; middle-SES schools;specific types

accountability linkages and, 187–188annual yearly progress achievement

failure sanctions, 169as central office and board focus, 40classification as effective, 17communication with design team and

district, 146CSR incentives for, 149disadvantaged students and, 16

district power in, 37district reform achievement by, 37equity issue research, 26–29financial realignment and, 63improvement research, 23–24learning focus of, 16low-SES student research, 173problem-solving partnerships and, 192reform role of, 37relationship with partners and

community, 72as research focus, 3rural community beliefs and, 86sanctions in Chicago accountability

system, 66–67serving disadvantaged students and

leadership, 15state capacity for professional

development in, 100–103subgroup annual progress failures,

169superintendent beliefs and, 45transfer options for parents, 169as unit of change, 172

school board(s)creation of, 40diagnosis of situation by, 40educational reform and, 35effective governance practices of, 42reform preconditions and, 69role of, 41–43shakeup of, 39standards-based reform and, 41

school board membersproblem-solving approach of, 42reform implementation role, 44reform leadership requirements and,

185reform-oriention, 39

school capacityfor change, 20differential resource allocation and, 52for reform, 187resource allocation by, 52teacher and staff turnover and, 117

school changeclassroom level research, 29–31design teams theories of, 126effects generalization, 174process of, 8






Index 247

school-classroom linkareas of, 31research, 30

school cultureimprovement and restructuring

programs, 24leadership by principles and, 15producing a positive, 16in reform design, 126

school districts. See district(s); specificdistrict

school effectivenessassessment of, 17characteristics, 21focus of, 15multiple criteria for, 179research areas, 29staff skills development and, 18

school effectiveness research (SER), 3best practices for gathering multiple

outcome measures, 180–181contextually sensitive, 19–21contextually sensitive research, 173equity-oriented, 172expectations for students and, 17review, 34student responsibilities and rights

and, 18teacher effectiveness research context

and, 30use of composite scores, 180

school environmentcreating an orderly, 16school effectiveness and, 21

school failure. See also educational failureannual yearly progress requirements

and, 169perceptions of principal, 115school improvement failure additional

steps, 169school financing

adequacy, 105school improvement

district role in, 38district’s capacity for, 44Mississippi Delta problems of, 87Native American communities and,

87parent involvement in, 18reform design teams in, 123–155

school and classroom level researchon, 29

state aid strategies for, 99state role in, 93–122

school improvement effortsfinancial resources for, 63resource partnerships and, 191resources to support, 62

school improvement policiespolitical and organizational contexts

of, 93school improvement research, 23–24, 34school leaders, 136.. See also principals;

school board members;superintendents; teacher(s)

school leadership. See principals; teacherleaders

school-level, 29comprehension school reform results,

135–141data disaggregation of, 172disaggregated data analysis, 172factors affecting diverse students at, 11involvement in education reform, 12leadership for reform at, 136–137linkages and, 11organizational-level capacity, 98reform design support and, 154as reform policy focus, 38state facilitating capacity building on,

98surveillance and resource allocation,

52school life

multicultural activity in, 27–28school personnel

communication by design team andschool personnel, 144

school reconstitutionfor annual yearly progress failure, 169eligibility and reform implementation,

147results of, 197by state, 116

school reform. See also educationalreform; whole-school reforms

African American economicopportunities and, 83

civic capacity for, 90civic capacity importance to, 74






248 Index

school reform (cont.)constraints on, 8CSR design team connects to, 124design implementation authority, 137differential treatment of subgroups in,

180district involvement and connections

to, 36at district level, 35–70districts in standards-based, 35fundamental elements of, 25implementation in the Sunland

County, 138implementation measurement, 178implementation of comprehensive,

154linkages and sustainability of, 142,

189, 195–197mixed method research approach to,

177models background, 126–127plausible components of, 8seed money for, 196state political and capacity for urban,

95student achievement and models for,

125systematic linkages in, 184systemic linkages in, 187–194teacher leadership, 15

school staff. See also principals; teacher(s)CSR implementation and, 154cultural diversity training and, 32development effectiveness, 19development of low-SES schools, 22at low-SES school successes, 24professional development for, 58restructuring for annual yearly

progress failure, 169selection and replacement, 15state school reconstitution and, 116

school systems. See also district(s); specificsystem

geographic size of, 6as major employers, 79political economic plans of, 91

school takeoversresults, 197as state intervention, 116

school-to-work educational programsas restructuring models, 145

science educationcurricula reform and knowledge,

51–53curriculum of Pima tribe, 88federal aid to, 157Native American culturally relevant

lessons, 88scientifically based research. See also

experimental researchquantitative experimental method

emphasis of, 176SEA. See state education agencies (SEA)seed money, 196SES. See socioeconomic status (SES)skills. See also academic skills; basic

skills; language skills; learning skillsacademic content and teacher, 65in decision making by districts, 51development assistance needs, 53of district leaders, 47of effective teachers, 18high-stakes testing and, 147of principals in staffing, 15, 18superintendent political, 45for teacher leadership, 49testing and curriculum narrowing,

115testing skills instruction, 147

Slavin, R. E., 129, 130social class, 119social conditions, 71social context, 24social justice, 174social reconstruction, 194social reform, 84social structures, 8society, 106socioeconomic status (SES). See also

povertyclass as predictor, 119effective schools research studies and,

11levels of, 21research and, 14school effective research and low, 15school effectiveness research and,

173school resources and, 25student respect promotion and, 33students with low, 19–25

South, 85






Index 249

South Carolina, 111Soviet Union, 157Spanish

Core Knowledge reform in, 138Success for All version in, 135

special educationfederal aid to, 159federal courts on, 6NCLB and federal support for, 171

stakeholders. See also outsidestakeholders

co-construction of actual reforms, 8ideological linkage, 64ideological linkages of, 189–190ideologies, 4linkage of school districts with local,

40linkage to districts, 57–68linkages among, 42Philadelphia Children Achieving in

interpretations, 75reform implementation role, 44share vision of reform, 63shared vision creation by, 40trust and cooperation of, 39in urban school reform, 74–75working relationship of, 41

standardized tests. See test(s)standards-based math and science

curriculum, 89standards-based reform

accountability systems and, 49California and, 96district role in, 35–37finance challenges, 105instruction equity and, 52school board role in, 41state facilitation of, 93state implementation capacity to

facilitate, 102–103state officials and, 97state restructuring for, 122

Standards Implementation SnapshotSystem, 50

standards of learning. See also test(s)accountability systems and, 64–68alignment between districts and state,

193curriculum and development of, 51–52implementation and data collection,

50

Kentucky education reform and, 86state capacity building on

development of, 97state design of rigorous, 97state variability in, 112

state(s). See also specific stateAMO progress requirements for,

167–168annual improvement schedules for,

168Carnegie Middle Grades Schools State

Policy Initiatives and, 109CSR, linguistic and cultural diversity,

and, 150–152CSR and, 148CSR implementation and, 154CSR implementation effort, 146–152differences of, 95district standards alignment with, 193exit exam requirements, 113linking (See state linkages)No Child Left Behind fiscal and

accountability requirements, 166organizational-level capacity

requirements of, 98political context of, 95–97reform efforts, 93–122reform implementation and testing

initiatives, 147reform implementation by, 96restructuring strategies of, 120rural education reform and, 86

state boards of education, 95state capacity

development, 122to facilitate standards-based reforms,

102–103for linkage building, 98for professional development at

districts and schools, 100–103for professional learning support,

99–100for reform, 97–103, 187for Title I and low performing schools

improvement, 114state chief school officers, 95state departments of education

California task forces of, 96meaning of, 6restructuring of, 97role of reform, 98–99






250 Index

state departments of education (cont.)standards-based reform

implementation and, 97teaching and learning redesign policy

promotion by, 97state education agencies (SEAs)

CSR design market influence of, 151IASA requirement response by, 99–100information sharing and management

of, 100internal capacity building by, 99management of, 100professional development efforts by,

192state employees, 99state finance systems

as aging structures in need ofrenovation, 105

restructuring of, 97state funding

governor’s vetoes of, 96ineffective funding stream linkages of,

195–196linkages, 195–196of quality education requirements,

104–106of reform, 186reform in states, 106–108reform of, 106–108sanctions accompany accountability

and, 115–117state governments

of anti-urban ideology, 84districts as policy mediators with, 43legislative requirement response of,

99linkage with urban districts, 76Pennsylvania funding formula and, 76policy stability and, 95structure of, 6urban school reform and, 83

state leaders. See also governorsideological linkages and, 190reform implementation role, 44

state levelcapacity building at, 93, 120–121ideological linkages at, 110–111policy domain linkage and, 103–119problem-solving partnerships and, 192reform leadership at, 185

state linkagesaccountability and, 187–188accountability systems as, 112–113capacity building for, 98creation of, 93in funding stream, 195–196grant program lateral communication

and, 151with other policy domains, 103–119in reform, 94with urban districts, 76

state officials. See also governorsCalifornia curriculum guidance by, 96official learning opportunities and, 120standards-based reform at, 97

state policiesdistricts as mediators of, 193–194educator response to more rigorous,

111as linkage in reform, 103stability of, 95sustainability of, 189Turning Points reform political

climates, 97state reconstitution

for annual yearly progress failure, 169eligibility and reform implementation,

147as intervention strategy, 116results of, 197

state revenues, 104state standards

alignment with district, 50design team accommodation of, 148district curricula adaptation to, 51reform implementation and, 146systemwide curriculum ties to, 39

state takeoversresults of, 197as state intervention, 116

states reporting, 166statistics, 160. See also datastudent(s)

differential expectations of, 23high expectations for, 17hostile cultures and disadvantaged, 16LEP attainment guidelines, 169local school populations, 6low-SES urban and, 11numbers of, 6






Index 251

pedagogical standards on equity,31–32

performance expectations of, 63potential influences on, 7research on historically undeserved,

172respect among diverse, 33–34responsibilities and rights of, 19social economic status and school

resources, 25sources of influence on, 6superintendent beliefs and, 45teacher beliefs about abilities of, 187

student learning. See learningstudent performance

assessment validity, 117data utilization, 188instructional leadership and, 44monitoring, 21

subgroups. See also cultural groups;culturally and linguistically diversestudents; disadvantaged students;diverse students; minority students

academic achievement progressrequirement, 169

attitudinal and behavioral indices ofreform and, 180

data analyses disaggregated by, 172disaggregated data on, 174equity-related research and increase

of, 173problems with disaggregated data on,

175suburbanization, 81Success for All, 129

culturally and linguistically diverseschool student achievement and,134

ELLs and, 134, 155Johns Hopkins reform design team,

125LEP students and, 139origin of, 126as prescriptive school reform design,

126research evaluation of, 131, 132school leadership requirements and,

136student achievement and, 132test scores and implementation of, 147

Sunland CountyCSR implementation and, 138district and linguistic diversity in,

145–146district reform implementation,

144–145reform implementation taken, 138research generalizability, 182

superintendentsaccountability, 42capacity for district level change by, 45choice of reform-oriented, 40goal setting by, 46leadership, 44–46problem-solving strategies of, 40reform implementation role, 44role of design implementation,

142–143as short-term position, 78urban reform, 78

supplemental services, 169sustainable improvement

problem-solving partnerships and, 192reform plans and, 189state policies and, 95

systematic integration, 172–183systemic-school-teacher space, 5

TAAS. See Texas Assessment ofAcademic Skills (TAAS)

teacher(s)accountability demands and, 147beliefs and reform implementation,

111California mathematics instructional

development, 101consistency of, 31experience level of, 22–23high expectation communications by,

17improvement reforms, 53isolation of Alaskan, 88knowledge reform and, 55leadership development by districts,

48–49pedagogical standards on equity, 32perception of district initiatives, 190professional development for, 58, 60,

143qualification level reporting, 167






252 Index

teacher(s) (cont.)recruiting of, 15reform design and, 136, 148, 154as reform effort leaders, 185reform implementation and, 44, 136,

185reforms and work of, 9state professional development

networks and, 101Success for All adaptation for LEP

students, 139Zuni and non-Native, White, 90

teacher coaches, 59teacher effectiveness research (TER)

effective schools and, 17effectiveness research areas, 29reviews of, 18in SER context, 30

teacher leadersdistrict leadership chain and, 48as professional development resource,

60reform implementation role, 44

teachingat-risk students and, 31–32capacity building for improved, 51in differentially effective schools, 30district characteristics and, 38–39district improvement of, 193improvement and funding, 195improvement and poverty, 52improvement and school board role,

42knowledge of teachers, 65literature on effective, 18organizational-level capacities for,

98processes of effective, 17quality improvement emphasis, 45sanction effectiveness and, 196state policy for redesign of, 97

teaching practicesprofessional development methods

and, 60in reform design, 126time for changing, 61

technical and career education, 6, 171Tennessee, 146TER. See teacher effectiveness research

(TER)

test(s). See also assessment; Iowa Tests ofBasic Skills (ITBS); TexasAssessment of Academic Skills(TAAS)

development for accountability, 188ELL achievement assessment and

standardized, 134ELLs and standardized achievement,

90focus of state achievement, 170Kentucky development of, 99No Child Left Behind requirements,

167question wording on state

accountability, 117social class as performance predictor

on, 119standards as accountability

framework, 62use for school scores studies, 20validity of, 117–119

test preparationcurriculum replacement with

materials for, 116high-stakes testing program and, 147

test scores. See also outcomesdistrict reform plans and, 67financial rewards for increased, 115governmental pressure to raise, 166improvement and time constraints, 66improvement in Philadelphia, 83professional developer focus on, 60–61on state achievement tests under No

Child Left Behind, 170state professional development aid

and, 101Texas. See also Aldine Independent

School District (Texas); HoustonIndependent School District (HISD)(Texas)


political climates in, 97professional development support,


146state CSR in, 149

Texas Assessment of Academic Skills(TAAS)






Index 253

achievement gap and, 119Hispanic students and, 118Latino participation and, 119reform implementation and, 147teaching and, 144

Texas Education Agency’s Gifted andTalented, 107

Third International Math and ScienceStudy, 165

time, 16, 21Title I

analysis of accountability under, 113disadvantaged child education aid

program, 159funds use for CSR, 127levels under, 159programs complexity, 5regulations CSR, 127–128schools and state-identified

low-performing schools, 114state accountability and linking, 115

Title VII, 155training. See professional developmenttransformative-emancipatory

orientation, 173tribal schools. See also specific tribe

partnerships and funding, 89practice of, 88

Turning Points, 96, 110turnover, 117

union leadersreform implementation role, 44

universities. See also specific universityeffective school reforms and, 54pilot programs of, 170reform design team, 125Vermont partnership linkage with

state, 108University of California Santa Cruz,

89–90University of Michigan Evaluation

Center, 85urban areas. See also specific area

education reform and renewal of, 194educational-social reform symbiosis,

84effective school research focus, 173reform as reconstruction of

communities in, 194

reform failure and, 74school reform and, 91school reform in, 71state government ideology of anti-, 84state political and capacity of reform

in, 95urban policy, 80urban schools

civic capacity and reform of, 82community capacity and reform of,

74–79community linkages and reform of,

73–74effective schools research studies in, 11local economies and race in, 79–84local economy and resource linkages,

83low-SES school improvement, 24reform and poverty, 91reform implementation, 80state exit exams and, 113superintendent role in reform of, 78

valuesof community and educational reform

responsiveness, 89embedded in education policies, 95external accountability and, 63in Philadelphia reform effort, 76in racially mixed schools, 110of reform stakeholders, 189in reform superintendent search, 39of White educational cartel, 80

vendors, 60Vermont


ELL and comprehensive reform in, 150political climates in, 97state education department role in, 98

Vermont Department of Education, 107,108

Vermont Restructuring Corps, 108Virginia, 140vision

creation of shared, 40linkage in shared, 63school achievement of external, 37

vocational education. See career andtechnical education






254 Index

Wang, Margaret, 129Washington, DC. See District of

ColumbiaWashington State, 130–131“what works”

research and, 174What Works Clearinghouse, 170White(s)

educational cartel of, 80–81Mississippi Delta schools and, 87racial fears of, 110teachers and Zuni, 90

White flightpublic school systems and, 79school systems local political economy

after, 79structural legacy of, 80urban resources and, 81

whole-school reformsas comprehensive improvement

program, 150

ELLs and, 151evidence on, 131New Jersey and, 148No Child Left Behind test score data

and, 167review of, 130, 131specific characteristics of,

130test scores and implementation of,

147Wyoming, 6

Yale University, 125

Zunicommunity involvement and, 55school reform at, 90University of Santa Cruz partnership

with, 89–90Zuni Public School District (New

Mexico), 54, 89–90






Documents

Index [assets.cambridge.org]assets.cambridge.org/97805218/57567/index/9780521857567_index.pdforigin of, 126 as reform framework, 126 research evaluation of, 131, 132 accountability