Complexity, Accountability, and School Improvement

References

1. Abelman, C., & Elmore, R. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer? (CPRE Research Report Series RR-42). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
2. Adams, J. E., & Kirst, M. (1999). New demands for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In J. Murphey & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 463–489). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. Arthur, W. B. (1989). The economy and complexity. In D. L. Stein (Ed.), Lectures in the sciences of complexity (pp. 713–740). Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
4. Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (1999). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York: Free Press.Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier.
5. Bennett, A. (2001, April). The history, politics and theory of action of the Chicago probation policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
6. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation.
7. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.A theory of performance. Personnel selection in organizations, 35–70.
8. Chicago Public Schools. (2002). Iowa test of basic skills: Citywide results over time, 1997–2002 (Report ITOT-CW-white). Chicago: Author. Available at http://research.cps. k12.il.us/resweb/pdf/itbs_over_read_a.p
9. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 327–345.A revolution in one classroom. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12:327–345.
10. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
11. Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1993). Policy and practice: The relationship between governance and instruction. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 35–95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Policy and practice: The relationship between governance and instruction. Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system, 35–95.
12. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284–295.Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review 9:284–295.
13. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teacher professionalism: Why and how? In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now (pp. 25–50). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.Teacher professionalism: Why and how? Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now, 25–50.
14. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). Restructuring schools for high performance. In S. Fuhrman & J. A. O'Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 144–192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Restructuring schools for high performance. Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work, 144–192.
15. Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991). Creating accountability in big city school systems (Urban Diversity Series No. 102). New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.Creating accountability in big city school systems.
16. DeBray, E., Parson, G., & Woodworth, K. (2001). Patterns of response in four high schools under state accountability policies in Vermont and New York. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 170–192). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with successful educational practices. In S. Fuhrman & J. A. O'Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 294–329). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Getting to scale with successful educational practices. Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work, 294–329.
18. Elmore, R. F. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community District 2. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education and the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
19. Elmore, R. F. (2001, April). Psychiatrists and light bulbs: Educational accountability and the problem of capacity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
20. Elmore R. F., Abelmann, C. H., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65–98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education, 65–98.
21. Evans, L. E., & Wei, H. H. (2001, April). Focusing the work of teachers and schools: The Chicago public schools probation policy. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
22. Finnigan, K., O'Day, J., & Wakelyn, D. (2001). Buddy, can you lend us a hand? The provision of external assistance to Chicago elementary schools on probation. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.Buddy, can you lend us a hand? The provision of external assistance to Chicago elementary schools on probation.
23. Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. M. (2001, April). Teacher motivation and the Chicago probation policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
24. Firestone, W. A., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). Rethinking "high stakes": Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record, 102, 724–749.Rethinking "high stakes": Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record 102:724–749.
25. Fuhrman, S. H. (1999). The new accountability (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB 27). Philadelphia: Consortium on Policy Research in Education.
26. Goertz, M., Floden, R., & O'Day, J. (1995). Studies of education reform: Systemic reform, volume 1. Findings and conclusions. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
27. Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J., & Williamson, S. (2000). Improving student achievement: What state NAEP test scores tell us (Report MR-924-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
28. Gross, B., Wei, H., & O'Day, J. A. (2002). Planning for improvement in Chicago schools on probation. Unpublished report, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
29. Gwynne, J., & Easton, J. Q. (2001, April). Probation, organizational capacity, and student achievement in Chicago elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
30. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education [Electronic version]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Available at http://epaa.asa.edu/epaa/v8n41/
31. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organizational Science, 2, 1, 88–115.Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organizational Science, 2 1:88–115.
32. Kaufmann, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity.
33. Kelley, C., Odden, A, Milanowski, A., & Heneman, H. (2000). The motivational effects of school-based performance awards (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-29). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
34. Kim, T. (2001, November 14). News in brief: Some Baltimore teachers set to receive extra pay [electronic version]. Education Week. Available at http://www.edweek.org/ew/ newstory.cfm?slug=11briefs.h21
35. Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., & Stecher, B. M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Washington, DC: RAND.What do test scores in Texas tell us?.
36. Koretz, D., & Barron, S. (1998). The validity of gains on the Kentucky instructional results information system (Report MR-1014-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
37. Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education, 104, 103–147.Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education 104:103–147.
38. Levinthal, D. A. (1991). Organizational adaptation and environmental selection: Interrelated processes of change. Organizational Science, 2, 140–145.Organizational adaptation and environmental selection: Interrelated processes of change. Organizational Science 2:140–145.
39. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14:319–340.
40. Lewin, R. (1992). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. New York: Macmillan.Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos.
41. Linn, R. L. (1997). Evaluating the validity of assessments: The consequences of use. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 2, 14–16.Evaluating the validity of assessments: The consequences of use. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16 2:14–16.
42. Linn, R. L. (2001). The design and evaluation of educational assessment and accountability systems (CSE Technical Report). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
43. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509–536.The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record 91:509–536.
44. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Schoolteacher: A sociological study.
45. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2(1), 71–87.Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science 2:71–87.
46. March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.A primer on decision making: How decisions happen.
47. Marion, R. (1999). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social systems.
48. McLaughlin, M. (1988) Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171–178.Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9:171–178.
49. McLaughlin, M. W., & Shepard, L. A. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform: A report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Reform. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
50. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, School of Education, Center for Research on the Context of Teaching.
51. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Professional communities and the work of high school teaching.
52. Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. (1996). Motivation for school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & J. A. O'Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 115–143). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Motivation for school reform. Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work, 115–143.
53. National Governors' Association. (1993). The debate on opportunity-to-learn standards: Supporting works. Washington, DC: Author.
54. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995) Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
55. Nolen, S. B., Haladyna, T. M., & Haas, N. (1992). Uses and abuses of achievement test scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(2), 9–15.Uses and abuses of achievement test scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 11:9–15.
56. O'Day, J. A. (1996). Incentives and school improvement. In S. Fuhrman & J. A. O'Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 1–16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Incentives and school improvement. Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work, 1–16.
57. O'Day, J., & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic school reform and educational opportunity. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250–312). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Systemic school reform and educational opportunity. Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system, 250–312.
58. O'Reilly, F. E. (1996). Educational accountability: Current practices and theories in use. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
59. Porter, A., & Brophy, J. (1988). Good teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching. Educational Leadership, 45, 75–84.
60. Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems.
61. Senge, P. M. (1993). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London: Century Business.The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
62. Simon, H. A. (1986). Theories of bounded rationality. In C. B. McGuire & R. Radner (Eds.), Decision and organization: Volume 2 (pp. 161–176). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and organization: Volume 2, 161–176.
63. Siskin, L. S. (in press). The challenge of the high schools. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems. New York: Teachers College Press.
64. Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 231–266.
65. Smith, M. L., & Rottenberg, C. (1991). Unintended consequences of external testing in elementary schools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(4), 7–11.Unintended consequences of external testing in elementary schools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 10:7–11.
66. Spillane, J. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policy-makers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 141–179.Cognition and policy implementation: District policy-makers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction 18:141–179.
67. Spillane, J. (2002). Local theories of teacher change: The pedagogy of district policies and programs. Teachers College Record, 104, 377–420.Local theories of teacher change: The pedagogy of district policies and programs. Teachers College Record 104:377–420.
68. Staw, B. M., Sanderlands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administration Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524.Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administration Science Quarterly 26:501–524.
69. Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos.
70. Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977) Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 171–197.Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review 47:171–197.
71. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 21:1–19.
72. Westat. (2001). Report on the final evaluation of the City-State Partnership. Rockville, MD: Author.