TEACHERS COLLEGE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EDPA 4013: Education Policy and the Management of Instruction Spring 2012 CRN 51950, 3 credits Course Syllabus – Updated 2-2-12 Instructor: Dr. Carolyn Riehl Associate Professor Department of Education Policy and Social Analysis 210B Zankel Building 212-678-3728 [email protected]Office Hours: By appointment; please email the instructor to schedule a visit Class Dates/Times: Mondays, 3:00 – 4:40 pm All class sessions meet in 279 Grace Dodge Hall. Overview: In this course, we will explore current ideas about desirable goals for student learning and development in K-12 education and will use a backward mapping approach to consider how curriculum and instruction, classroom and school environments, organizational strategies, and leadership practices can facilitate progress toward those goals, and how local, state, and federal education policies can and do intervene all along the pathway, with varying results. This will help us answer three important questions: In what ways, if any, can education policy make positive contributions to the management of instruction? How can the domains of policy and practice work together to support instructional improvement and student learning? How can we prevent policy from undermining the best efforts of practitioners?
Transcript
TEACHERS COLLEGECOLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
EDPA 4013: Education Policy and the Management of InstructionSpring 2012
CRN 51950, 3 credits
Course Syllabus – Updated 2-2-12
Instructor:Dr. Carolyn RiehlAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Education Policy and Social Analysis210B Zankel Building 212-678-3728 [email protected]
Office Hours:By appointment; please email the instructor to schedule a visit
Class Dates/Times:Mondays, 3:00 – 4:40 pmAll class sessions meet in 279 Grace Dodge Hall.
Overview:In this course, we will explore current ideas about desirable goals for student learning and development in K-12 education and will use a backward mapping approach to consider how curriculum and instruction, classroom and school environments, organizational strategies, and leadership practices can facilitate progress toward those goals, and how local, state, and federal education policies can and do intervene all along the pathway, with varying results. This will help us answer three important questions: In what ways, if any, can education policy make positive contributions to the management of instruction? How can the domains of policy and practice work together to support instructional improvement and student learning? How can we prevent policy from undermining the best efforts of practitioners?
The course is intended to help students develop, articulate, and evaluate ambitious theories of action for school improvement and the management of instruction through policy. Knowledge and skills developed through this course can be useful in future endeavors as education policy makers or analysts, academic researchers, or as school or district leaders.
In our work together, we will honor two different, but related, forms of knowledge: the wisdom of practice, and knowledge derived from theory-based empirical research. We will draw upon both kinds of knowledge as we explore ideas and consider real-life applications.
Class Structure:The course will meet weekly. Readings should be completed before the class session and students should please bring them to class so we can refer to them. Most readings will be on E-
Reserves through the TC Library. Some will be available directly from various websites. Our work together will be facilitated by the Moodle online learning platform. Whenever possible, I will help scaffold your work by providing introductions to the readings, detailed annotations, and links to other useful resources on Moodle. Students will also have a quick questionnaire to answer each week; this must be completed by 5 pm on the Sunday before the class session.
During the class meetings, we will discuss the readings using a question-driven format. That is, we will focus on student-generated and instructor-generated questions about the readings. We will relate what we are learning to current challenges of education policy and instructionally-related practice. To facilitate this, each week a team of students will be responsible for elaborating on the theme of the session by pulling into the discussion examples and evidence from the education policy arena and/or instructional practice.
Attendance Policy:Because our time together is brief each week, prompt attendance for all sessions is expected. This means being present for the entire class session, from start to finish. If you know you will be absent, please let me know in advance via email so that I have a paper trail (you can also phone me if you need to talk about something).
Assignments and Grading:There will be three written assignments for the term. All assignments for this course must be turned in on time; no late papers will be accepted except in extremely unusual circumstances and with advance approval.
Grades will be assigned as follows:Assignment 1 (learning goal speech and appendix): 20%Assignment 2 (instruction/learning environment memo or leadership/organization action plan): 30%Assignment 3 (policy analysis): 35%Class Participation (including policy team work, attendance, and active participation in class sessions): 15%
Please note: I am fairly conservative about using the grade of A and reserve it for work that is very, very strong. While my grading rubrics attempt to reduce the level of uncertainty and inference surrounding the grading process, there still remains a level of subjective judgment that I reserve the right to exercise. The distance between an A and an A- in my grading tends to be greater than, for example, the distance between an A- and a B+. Students are free to discuss grades with me, and you always have the option to revise and resubmit your work (though this does not always guarantee a higher grade).
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING TEACHERS COLLEGE POLICIES:
Services for Students with Disabilities. The College will make reasonable accommodations for persons with documented disabilities. Students are encouraged to contact the Office of Access and Services for Individuals with Disabilities (OASID) for information about registering with the office. You can reach OASID by email at [email protected], stop by 163 Thorndike Hall, or call 212-678-3689. Services are
available only to students who are registered and submit appropriate documentation. As your instructor, I am happy to discuss specific needs with you as well. Religious Holidays:It is the policy of Teachers College to respect its members’ observance of their major religious holidays. Students should notify instructors at the beginning of the semester about their wishes to observe holidays on days when class sessions are scheduled. Where academic scheduling conflicts prove unavoidable, no student will be penalized for absence due to religious reasons, and alternative means will be sought for satisfying the academic requirements involved. If a suitable arrangement cannot be worked out between the student and the instructor, students and instructors should consult the appropriate department chair or director. If an additional appeal is needed, it may be taken to the Provost.
IN Incomplete. The grade of Incomplete will be assigned only when the course attendance requirement has been met but, for reasons satisfactory to the instructor, the granting of a final grade has been postponed because certain course assignments are outstanding. If the outstanding assignments are completed within one calendar year from the date of the close of term in which the grade of Incomplete was received and a final grade submitted, the final grade will be recorded on the permanent transcript, replacing the grade of Incomplete, with a transcript notation indicating the date that the grade of Incomplete was replaced by a final grade. If the outstanding work is not completed within one calendar year from the date of the close of term in which the grade of Incomplete was received, the grade will remain as a permanent Incomplete on the transcript. In such instances, if the course is a required course or part of an approved program of study, students will be required to re-enroll in the course including repayment of all tuition and fee charges for the new registration and satisfactorily complete all course requirements. If the required course is not offered in subsequent terms, the student should speak with the faculty advisor or Program Coordinator about their options for fulfilling the degree requirement. Doctoral students with six or more credits with grades of Incomplete included on their program of study will not be allowed to sit for the certification exam.
Academic Honesty. Students who intentionally submit work either not their own or without clear attribution to the original source, fabricate data or other information, engage in cheating, or misrepresentation of academic records may be subject to charges. Sanctions may include dismissal from the College for violation of the TC principles of academic and professional integrity fundamental to the purpose of the College. Please see the instructor if you have any questions at all about issues related to academic honesty.
Columbia Email Activation for Receiving Important Information. Teachers College students have the responsibility for activating their Columbia University Network ID (UNI), which includes a free Columbia email account. As official communications from the College – e.g., information on graduation, announcements of closing due to severe storm, flu epidemic, transportation disruption, etc. – will be sent to the student’s Columbia email account, students are responsible for either reading email there, or for
3
utilizing the mail forwarding option to forward mail from their Columbia account to an email address which they will monitor.
4
EDPA 4013: Education Policy and the Management of InstructionWeekly Schedule
Unit 1: Frameworks for Understanding the Connections Between Policy and Practice; Using Education Policy as a Lever to Motivate and Support ChangeKey questions:
What should policymakers know about educational practice, especially the practices of leadership and teaching? How can knowledge of practice be used to ensure that policies are responsive to the needs and interests of practitioners?
What should educational practitioners know about policy, so they can navigate the boundaries and intersections of policy, organization, and practice to support teaching, learning, and development in their schools?
How do policies “work” to influence practice? What happens to policies when they are implemented, and why? What characteristics of policies and policy making can help ensure that there is a strong,
two-way connection between policy and practice?
Week 1 (January 23): The relationships between policy and practice; cautionary notes about policyReadings: Cohen, David K., Moffitt, Susan L., & Goldin, Simona. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113, 515-548.
Elmore, Richard F. (1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601-616.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/proof-there-is-no-proof-for-education-reforms/2011/11/13/gIQAAeVWJN_blog.html - blog from Carol Burris, principal and TC alum
Week 2 (January 30): Classic readings on educational policy; possibilities and limitations of policy as a resource for instructional management Readings:Smith, M., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). New York: Taylor and Francis, 233-267.
McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.
Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.); Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 204–239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, C. H. (1995). The four "I's" of school reform: How interests, ideology, information, and institution affect teachers and principals. Harvard Educational Review, 65(4), 571-592.
Spillane, J. (2005). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Policy Brief RB-43. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from: http://www.cpre.org/Publications/Publications.htm.
Shaver, A., Cuevas, P., Lee, O., & Avalos, M. (2007). Teachers' perceptions of policy influences on science instruction with culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 725-746.
Casto, Hope G., & Sipple, John W. (2011). Who and what influences school leaders’ decisions: An institutional analysis of the implementation of universal prekindergarten. Educational Policy, 25(1), 134-166.
Kalifeh, P., Cohen-Vogel, L., & Grass, S. (2011). The federal role in early childhood education: Evolution in the goals, governance, and policy instruments of Project Head Start. Educational Policy, 25(1), 36-64.
Unit Two: Goals for Student Learning and Development Key questions:
What should students learn in school? What should they know and be able to do as a result of their experiences in schools?
What goals for healthy student development should schools help foster? Is it possible that schools are being asked to do too much? How can schools and school systems balance the values of equity and excellence as they
define and pursue their goals? Who gets to decide these things, and why?
Week 3 (February 6): Goals for education, and articulating a persuasive messageReadings: Rothstein, R., & Jacobsen, R. (2006). The goals of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 264-272.
Benson, Peter L., Scales, Peter C., Hamilton, Stephen F., & Sesma, Arturo, Jr., with Hong, Kathryn L. & Roehlkepartain, Eugene C. (2006). Positive youth development so far: Core hypotheses and their implications for policy and practice. Search Institute Insights & Evidence, 3(1), 1-13. Available on the web at: http://www.search-institute.org/research/assets/background.
Search Institute. “40 Developmental Assets for Adolescents” and “The Five Action Strategies.” Available on the web at http://www.search-institute.org/assets/. Click on “Downloads” to get the publications.
In addition, please identify one reading (article or book) that addresses or exemplifies a goal for student learning that is especially meaningful to you. Try to be creative and significant; don’t
stick to just reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic if you can help it. Bring the reading to class and be prepared to discuss it.
If you need some ideas, check the recommended reading list at the end of this syllabus for some articles that would be appropriate to bring to class. For example, you could select the following reading on using mathematics to help students become agents for social justice:
Gutstein, Eric (Rico). (2007). “And that’s just how it starts”: Teaching mathematics and developing student agency. Teachers College Record, 109(2), 420-448.
Feel free to choose another article or book that you have found on your own.
Readings on crafting and expressing a persuasive message:Mendonca, Lenny T., & Miller, Matt. (2007, November). Crafting a message that sticks: An interview with Chip Heath. The McKinsey Quarterly. Published by McKinsey & Company.
Visit the website of Thaler Pekar & Partners at www.thalerpekar.com. Thaler has taught in TC’s Urban Education Leaders EdD Program and the Columbia University graduate programs in Strategic Communications and Communications Practice. At her website, click on the Tools link and read “Heart, Head, and Hand: An Introduction to the Science of Communication”, as well as any others that look interesting to you. (Another really good one to look at is “Framing for Advocacy Communications”.)
Assignment 1: Prepare a 500-750 word speech (about 2-3 pages, double spaced) directed towards a local school governing unit or another audience of your choosing, advocating for a specific learning/development goal, using the Interest – Inform – Invite approach presented in class. Also submit an appendix to your speech, including a bibliography of resources and a table of knowledge resources that lend support for your positions, using the table template provided in class.
This assignment must be emailed to the instructor no later than Monday, February 20th, at 8 am EST. In the subject line of the email and in the filename, include your name and “goal speech.” Also, bring a printed copy of the speech to class that day. Most importantly, be prepared to give the speech in class.
Week 4 (February 13): Education policy as a lever for establishing goals for student learning and developmentReadings: We are in the midst of an historic push for a national curriculum. Peruse the website for the Common Core State Standards: http://www.corestandards.org/. Also look at states’ requests for modifications to NCLB.
Jennings, Jack. (2012). Reflections on a half-century of school reform: Why have we fallen short and where do we go from here? Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Available on the web at: http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?DocumentTopicID=1.
Gewertz, C. (2010). States adopt standards at fast clip. Education Week, 29(36), 1.
Kober, N., & Rentmer, D. S. (2011). States' progress and challenges in implementing common core state standards. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Available on the web at: http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?DocumentTopicID=1. Also peruse their other publications on the Common Core State Standards.Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116. Beach, R. W. (2011). Issues in analyzing alignment of language arts common core standards with state standards. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 179-182. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Assessing the quality of the common core state standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 183-185. Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Assessing the common core standards: Opportunities for improving measures of instruction. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 186-188. Fogo, B. (2011). Making and measuring the California history standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 62-67.
Unit 3: Mapping the Connections between Learning and Development, Teaching, and Classroom (and School) EnvironmentKey questions: What forms of curriculum, instruction, and classroom and school environment will enable
students to learn and develop? How can parents, policymakers, and principals know if learning and development is taking
place? What practices and policies will help people observe and/or be informed about the learning and development going on in schools and school systems?
Change management: What strategies at the school level, at the system level, at higher policy levels will foster the articulation and accomplishment of goals for student learning and development?
What local, state, and federal policies can foster the conditions that make it possible to meet strong goals for teaching, learning, and development?
What are the effects of current education policies on progress toward goals?
Week 5 (February 20): Strong teaching for learningReadings:Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary. Theory into Practice, 50(1), 4-11.
Recommended Readings:Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (2001). Making change: Instruction and its improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 73-77.
Cummings, K. D., Atkins, T., Allison, R., & Cole, C. (2008). Response to intervention: Investigating the new role of special educators. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40(4), 24-31.
Issue Paper from Pearson Education: Personalized learning: The nexus of 21st century learning and educational technologies. Available for download from http://www.pearsoned.com/pr_2009/072109.htm.
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
Valencia, S. W., Place, N. A., Martin, S. D., & Grossman, P. L. (2006). Curriculum materials for elementary reading: Shackles and scaffolds for four beginning teachers. Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 93-121.
Week 6 (February 27): The role of research and policy in improving instruction Readings:USDOE/IES Practice Guide: Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through third grade. Available for download from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.Wise, B. (2007). Turning reading research into policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 407-411. Au, K. H. (2011). Reflections on making the progressive vision a reality: Commentary on "A journey through nine decades of NCTE-published research in elementary literacy". Research in the Teaching of English, 46(2), 162-170.Nelson, T. H., Deuel, A., Slavit, D., & Kennedy, A. (2010). Leading deep conversations in collaborative inquiry groups. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(5), 175-179.Price, J. N., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Challenges of liberatory pedagogy in mathematics and teacher education. Theory into Practice, 37(4), 256-264. Labaree, D. F. (2011). The lure of statistics for educational researchers. Educational Theory, 61(6), 621-632. Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: Ac/Counting for educational research. Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 355-382.
Recommended Readings:Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). What doesn't work: The challenge and failure of the What Works Clearinghouse to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Educational Researcher, 35(2), 13-21. THERE’S ALSO A REBUTTAL FROM WWC AND ANOTHER REJOINDER FROM SCHOENFELD.Palmer, D., & Rangel, V. S. (2011). High stakes accountability and policy implementation: Teacher decision making in bilingual classrooms in Texas. Educational Policy, 25(4), 614-647.John Q. Easton’s talk about IES at UNC: http://vimeo.com/22256877 (good picture, bad audio); http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2009/06/speechifying_at_the_ies_confer.html;Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290-322.
Also see Bryk et al., Organizing schools for improvement; research by Gamoran and Nystrand, Coburn and Stein
Week 7 (March 5): Policies related to teacher quality and effectivenessReadings:Superfine, B. M., Gottlieb, J. J., & Smylie, M. A. (2012). The expanding federal role in teacher workforce policy. Educational Policy, 26(1), 58-78.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement (11844). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org.
Grossman, P. L., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., Hammerness, K., Wyckoff, J. H., Boyd, D. J., & Lankford, H. (2010). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers' value-added scores. Working paper 45. Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. The Urban Institute. Available on the web at: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=1001425.
NYC’s use of Charlotte Danielson framework
Recommended Readings:Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 793-818.
Boyd, D.J., Grossman, P.L., Ing, M., Lankford H., Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J.H. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303-333. (Also a report published in 2009 from Washington, D.C.: Calder, The Urban Institute.)
TC Spring Break – No class on March 12
Week 8 (March 19): Assessment and the use of information to improve teaching and learningReadings:Black, Paul and Dylan Wiliam. (2010). "Kappan Classic": Inside the black box--Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81-90.
Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3-12.
Stiggins, R., & Duke, D. (2008). Effective instructional leadership requires assessment leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(4), 285-291.
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25.
Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3-12.
Davis, D. S., & Neitzel, C. (2011). A self-regulated learning perspective on middle grades classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Research, 104(3), 202-215.
Frey, B. B., & Schmitt, V. L. (2010). Teachers' classroom assessment practices. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(3), 107-117.
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145.
Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 24-31.
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28-37.
Park, Vicki and Amanda Datnow. (2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership & Management, 29(5), 477-494.Stiggins, R. J. (2001). The unfulfilled promise of classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(3), 5-14.
Streifer, Philip A. and Jeffrey A. Schumann. (2005). Using data mining to identify actionable information: Breaking new ground in data-driven decision making. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 10(3), 281-293 .
Yeh, S. S. (2010). Understanding and addressing the achievement gap through individualized instruction and formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 169-182.
Week 9 (March 26): Policies related to assessment, accountability and the use of information to manage instructionReadings:Arne Duncan, “Robust data gives us the roadmap for reform”: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/robust-data-gives-us-roadmap-reformLazar, Stephen, et al. Thoughts on an assessment of Common Core Standards. Retrieved from the Web at www.ets.org/s/ commonassessment s/pdf/ Thoughts on Assessment .pdf .
Diamond, John B. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80(4), 285-313.
Bulkley, Katrina E., Jolley B. Christman, Margaret E. Goertz , & Nancy R. Lawrence. (2010). Building with benchmarks: The role of the district in Philadelphia's benchmark assessment system. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 186-204.
Blanc, Suzanne, Jolley B. Christman, Roseann Liu, Cecily Mitchell, Eva Travers and Katrina E. Bulkley. (2010). Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education 85(2), 205-225.
Fuhrman, S. (1988). An overview. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(7), 486-487.
Assignment 2: Option A: Prepare a 3-5 page memorandum (double spaced), laying out the curriculum and instructional strategies and classroom and school environment conditions that will support a specific student learning/development goal (or, in some cases, a more general goal). The memorandum may be addressed to teachers, a school board, principals, policymakers, or the fellow members of this course. Be sure to include a succinct introduction to your learning/development goals. The memo should be heavily footnoted, discussing resources that provide analytic and/or empirical support for your strategies and conditions. Show the footnotes at the end of the memo, not at the bottom of pages; they do not count as part of the page limit. Use APA format for citing resources and preparing a bibliography.
Option B: Option B: Create an action plan for leadership and organizational strategies that will support development of the instructional program and classroom and school environments needed for achieving desired learning/development goals for students. You can write this as a general plan or address it to a specific context (such as the school or EMO where you work).
The action plan should be derived from the research literature on education leadership and change. In it, you should anticipate the kinds of challenges that a school or school district might face in instructional improvement and, for each challenge, suggest some action steps that could be taken, people to involve, resources needed, and so on. Provide detailed discussion and evaluation of theories and evidence to support your action plan, in extensive footnotes at the end of the document.
This assignment should be emailed to the instructor no later than Monday, April 9th, 8 am EST. Also, bring a printed copy of the memo to class that day.
Unit 4: Leadership and Organizational Strategies for Creating the Conditions for Teaching, Learning, and Development in Schools and School SystemsKey questions: What organizational strategies within the school or school district will facilitate the desired
goals for teaching, learning, and development? What leadership practices at the school level and above will stimulate and support change in
teaching, learning, and development?
12
What educational policies can help to support this layer of instructional management?
Assignment 3: Policy Analysis
Prepare a policy position statement, summarizing and analyzing the potential and/or documented impact of a major educational policy on the improvement of student learning and development, using a backward mapping approach to address issues of leadership, organization, learning environment, teaching, and learning. The position statement should contain the following elements: A description of the domain of learning and/or instructional management being
addressed by the policy A description of the policy and a history of its development A discussion and analysis of the theory of action behind the policy. Is it a reasonable
theory of action for producing intended changes? Does the policy provide for reasonable timelines, resources, and human resource issues? How are the politics of the policy being addressed?
Presentation of research evidence regarding possible or actual challenges with policy implementation and effects. Has implementation begun? How are practitioners and the public making sense of it and implementing it? What evidence is there of intended and unintended effects?
An analysis of whether the policy has had the intended effect. A final summary and critique of the policy, with suggestions for possible revisions. A bibliography.
Submit a brief description of your assignment by Monday, April 2nd, via email to the instructor ([email protected]).
The final assignment must be emailed to the instructor at [email protected], no later than Monday, April 30th, 8 am EDT. Also, bring a printed copy to class that day.
Prepare a two-page handout to share with other students on the last day of class.
Week 10 (April 2): School organization, leadership, and the management of instructionReadings:Printy, S. (2010). Principals' influence on instructional quality: Insights from US schools. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 111-126.
Fullan, M. (2005). Turnaround leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 174-181.
Recommended Readings:Stein, M. K. & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-448.
Resnick, Lauren B., & Hall, Megan Williams. (1998). Learning organizations for sustainable education reform. Daedalus, 127(4), 89-118. (For this unit, focus on pages 108-118.)
Moran, C., Cooper, C. R., Lopez, A., & Goza, B. (2009). Developing effective P-20 partnerships to benefit Chicano/Latino students and families. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(4), 340-356.
Week 11 (April 9): Other aspects of school organization and leadership that matter for managing instruction, and the policies that can support themReadings:Murphy, J. (2009). Turning around failing schools: Policy insights from the corporate, government, and nonprofit sectors. Educational Policy, 23(6), 796-830.
de la Torre, Marisa, et al. (2012). Turning around low-performing schools in Chicago. Chicago: The University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. Available for download from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php?pub_id=163.
Eiken, Odd. (2011). The Kunskapsskolan (“the knowledge school”): A personalised approach to education. Stockholm, Sweden: Kunskapsskolan Education.
Vevea, Rebecca. (2012). Longer school day brings promise and questions. The New York Times, January 12.
Recommended Readings:Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 298-339.
Fuhrman, S. (1988). An overview. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(7), 486-487.
Miller, R. J., & Rowan, B. (2006). Effects of organic management on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 219-247.
Rowan, B., & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252-297.
Hammond, C., Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S. (2007). Dropout risk factors and exemplary programs: A technical report. National Dropout Prevention Center/Network (NDPC/N). Clemson, SC: Clemson University. Read the Executive Summary. Available on the web at: http://www.dropoutprevention.org/major-research-reports/dropout-risk-factors-exemplary-programs-technical-report.
Week 12 (April 16): Individual consultations on policy projects
Week 13 (April 23): The role of the school district and educational management organizations in instructional improvement: Trying to helpReadings:Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 583-626.
Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A lens on teacher learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(4), 281-301.
Lake, Robin, Bowen, Melissa, Demeritt, Allison, McCullough, Moira, Haimson, Joshua, & Gill, Brian. (2012, March). Learning from charter school management organizations: Strategies for student behavior and teacher coaching. New York and Seattle: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., and Center on Reinventing Public Education. Available at: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/Education/cmo.asp.
Recommended Readings:Stein, M. K., Kaufman, J. H., Sherman, M., & Hillen, A. F. (2011). Algebra: A challenge at the crossroads of policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 453-492.
Heath Kaufman, J., & Stein, M. K. (2010). Teacher learning opportunities in a shifting policy environment for instruction. Educational Policy, 24(4), 563-601.
Rowan, B., & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252-297. Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 298-339. McDermott, K. A. (2000). Barriers to large-scale success of models for urban school reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 83-89.
Week 14 (April 30): Policies regarding school districts, charter management, state interventions, and federal programs to support and manage instructionReadings:Childress, Stacy, Higgins, Monica, Ishimaru, Ann, & Takahashi, Sola. (2010). Managing for results at the New York City Department of Education. Paper presented at the New York City Education Reform Retrospective Project, New York University, New York City, November.
Childress, Stacey, Elmore, Richard, & Grossman, Allen. (2006). How to manage urban school districts. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55-61.
Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., Grossman, A. S., & Johnson, S. M. (2007). Managing school districts for high performance: Cases in public education leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Case 1: Meeting new challenges at the Aldine Independent School District.
Supovitz, Jonathan A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Chapter 3: Gardening and engineering: A dual approach to educational change; and Chapter 7: The role of the school district in instructional improvement.
Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2008). Learning about system renewal. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(2), 289-303.
Gallucci, Chrysan, Knapp, Michael, Markholt, Anneke, & Ort, Suzanne. (2007). Converging reform “theories” in urban middle schools: District-guided instructional improvement in small schools of choice. Teachers College Record, 109(12), 2601-2641.
Leithwood, K., Strauss, T., & Anderson, S. E. (2007). District contributions to school leaders' sense of efficacy: A qualitative analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 17(6), 735-770.
Week 15 (May 7): Final presentations; course wrap-up; celebrationKey question:
Does policy help, or hurt?
Reading:Anyon, J. (2005). What "counts" as educational policy? Notes toward a new paradigm. Harvard Educational Review, 75(1), 65-88.
Recommended Readings:
On broad conceptions of goals for schools and students:Christensen, Clayton M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw Hill. Chapter 2: Making the shift: Schools meet society’s needs (pgs. 43-70).
Feller, T. R., Jr., Gibbs-Griffith, B., D'Acquisto, L., Khourey-Bowers, C., & Croley, C. B. (2007). Teaching content through the arts. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 48-49. Huguelet, J. A. (2007). No more haves and have-nots. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 45-47. Rothstein, R., Wilder, T., & Jacobsen, R. (2007). Balance in the balance. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 8-14. San Antonio, D. M., & Salzfass, E. A. (2007). How we treat one another in school. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 32-38. Washor, E., & Mojkowski, C. (2007). What do you mean by rigor? Educational Leadership, 64(4), 84-87. Web resources on youth development, including: Positive youth development. http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/pyd/ Catalano, Richard, et al. (1998). Positive youth development in the United States: Research
findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. University of Washington: Social Development Research Group. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/PositiveYouthDev99/
National Youth Development Information Center: http://www.nydic.org/nydic/?CFID=582398&CFTOKEN=68341139
John W. Gardner Center for Youth and their Communities at Stanford University. http://gardnercenter.stanford.edu/index.html.
On theories of learning, teaching and classroom practice, and their relationship:Bransford, John D. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School (Expanded Edition). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Wiggins, Grant P., & McTighe, Jay. (2005). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Allington, Richard L., & Cunningham, Patricia M. (2007). Schools that work: Where all children read and write (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is--or might be--the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8, 14.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. Chapter 4: “Teaching and learning for understanding.” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Walberg, Herbert J., & Paik, Susan J. (2000). Effective educational practices. International Academy of Education. Available on the web at http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/practices.htm.
Brophy, Jere. (1999). Teaching. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University. Available on the web at http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/practices.htm.
Galloway, C., & Lasley, T. J.,II. (2010). Effective urban teaching environments for the 21st century. Education and Urban Society, 42(3), 269-282.
National Education Technology Plan 2010. Available for download from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
Resnick, Lauren B., & Glennan Thomas K., Jr. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts. Chapter 10 in A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, and M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 160-172). New York: Teachers College Press.
Resnick, Lauren B., & Hall, Megan Williams. (1998). Learning organizations for sustainable education reform. Daedalus, 127(4), 89-118. (For this unit, focus on pages 89-107.)
On English language teaching and learning:Tellez, Kip, & Waxman, Hersh C. (2005). Quality teachers for English language learners. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University. Available on the web at http://www.temple.edu/lss/.
Hunsberger, P. (2007). "Where am I?" A call for "connectedness" in literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 420-424.
On mathematics teaching and learning:Superfine, A. C., Kelso, C. R., & Beal, S. (2010). Examining the process of developing a research-based mathematics curriculum and its policy implications. Educational Policy, 24(6), 908-934.Gutstein, Eric (Rico). (2007). “And that’s just how it starts”: Teaching mathematics and developing student agency. Teachers College Record, 109(2), 420-448.
Grouws, Douglas A., & Cebulla, Kristin. (2000). Improving student achievement in mathematics. International Academy of Education. Available on the web at http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/practices.htm.Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers' mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406. Matthews, L. E. (2003). Babies overboard! The complexities of incorporating culturally relevant teaching into mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(1), 61-82. Anderson, R. (2007). Being a mathematics learner: Four faces of identity. Mathematics Educator, 17(1), 7-14. Stein, M. K. (2001). Mathematical argumentation: Putting umph into classroom discussions. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7(2), 110-112. Ball, D. L. (1997). From the general to the particular: Knowing our own students as learners of mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 90(9), 732-737. Resources from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (www.nctm.org).State curriculum standards: see North Carolina, Wisconsin, New York, California
On testing and accountability:Valli, L., & Chambliss, M. (2007). Creating classroom cultures: One teacher, two lessons, and a high-stakes test. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 38(1), 57-75.
Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519-558.
On assessments and the use of information on students:Stiggins, R. (2007). Assessment through the student's eyes. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 22-26. Popham, W. J. (2006). Assessment for learning: An endangered species? Educational Leadership, 63(5), 82-83.
Nabrs Olah, L., Lawrence, N. R., & Riggan, M. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: How teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 226-245.
Lachat, M. A., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 10(3), 333-349.
Young, V. M., & Kim, D. H. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(19).
On the development of CCSS: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/national-standards/the-problems-with-the-common-c.html.
Also consider: Ron Marx and Joseph Krajcik on project-based learning in science Svi Shapiro and David Purpel on learning for social justice Paulo Freire on critical liberatory pedagogy Terrie Epstein on African American students’ views of American history Joseph Kahne and Joel Westheimer on democratic learning in schools John Dewey on genuine interest
On classroom and school organizational conditions:
Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. Chapters 3, 5, and 6. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. (see also http://www.srnleads.org/press/news/hsfe.html for other versions of this basic framework)
Elmore, Richard F. (1995). Teaching, learning, and school organization: Principles of practice and the regularities of schooling. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(3), 355-374.Hatch, Thomas. (2006). Improving schools in turbulent times. The New Educator, 2, 267-276.Lee, Valerie E., & Smith, Julia B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education, 104(2), 103-147.On community and district strategies:Moses, Robert P., et al. (1989). The algebra project: Organizing in the spirit of Ella. Harvard Educational Review, 59(4), 423-443.
San Francisco Education Fund. (2006, Winter). It takes a community to build education. Public Engagement Initiative publication. Available on the web at http://www.publiceducation.org/pubs_publicengagement.asp <http://www.publiceducation.org/pubs_publicengagement.asp>
Resnick, Lauren B., & Glennan Thomas K., Jr. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts. Chapter 10 in A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, and M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 160-172). New York: Teachers College Press.
McLaughlin, Milbrey W., et al. (2002). Domains of district action: A framework for assessing district reform strategies. Stanford University: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Pecheone, Raymond, Tytler, Paul, & Ross, Peter. (2006). Austin Independent School District and the School Redesign Network at Stanford University: A Partnership for Successful School Redesign. Stanford, CA: School Redesign Network, Stanford University. Available on the web at http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/austin.pdf.
Collaborative Communications Group. (n.d.). The Houston A+ Challenge: Staying the course. Public Education Network. Available on the web at www.publiceducation.org/pdf/houston_aplus_2007.pdf.
Hargreaves, A. and D. Fink (2006). The ripple effect. Educational Leadership, 63(8): 16-20.
On leadership:Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Pascale, R., et al. (1997). Changing the way we change. Harvard Business Review, 75(6), 126-139.Nelson, B. S., & Sassi, A. (2006). What to look for in your math classrooms. Principal, 86(2), 46-47,49. Stein, M. K. & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Winter 2003, 25(4), 423-448.
Wagner, Tony, & Kegan, Robert. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
On teacher professional development:Penuel, William R., Fishman, Barry J., Yamaguchi, Ryoko, & Gallagher, Lawrence P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.
Correnti, Richard. (2007). An empirical investigation of professional development effects on literacy instruction using daily logs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 262-295.
Education Commission of the States/MetLife Education Leadership Policy Toolkit. Available on the web at http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issues.asp.Sassi, A. M., & Nelson, B. S. (1999). Learning to see anew: How facilitator moves can reframe attention when administrators look at reformed mathematics classrooms Nelson, B. S. (1999). Building new knowledge by thinking: How administrators can learn what they need to know about mathematics education reform. Education Development Center, 55 Chapel Street, Newton, MA 02454. Allington, Richard L., & Cunningham, Patricia M. (2007). Schools that work: Where all children read and write. Boston: Pearson.
The Jossey-Bass reader on school reform. The Jossey-Bass education series. (2001). Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Company, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA.Pierce, M., (Ed.), & Stapleton, D. L., (Ed.). (2003). The 21st-century principal: Current issues in leadership and policy. Harvard Education Press, 8 Story Street, 1st Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ($19.95). Tel: 617-495-3432; Fax: 617-496-3584; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http: //www.gse.harvard.edu/hepg/hep.html.
On education policy:Honig, Meredith I. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 327-345.
Birckmayer, J. D., & Weiss, C. H. (2000). Theory-based evaluation in practice: What do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24(4), 407-431.
Rogers, P. J., & Weiss, C. H. (2007). Theory-based evaluation: Reflections ten years on. Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation, (114), 63-81.
Weiss, C. H. (1982). Policy research in the context of diffuse decision making. Journal of Higher Education, 53(6), 619-639.
Weiss, C. H. (1998). Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 21-33.
Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2005). Strategic leadership for education reform: Lessons from the statewide systemic initiatives program. CPRE policy briefs RB-41Consortium for Policy Research in Education. University of Pennsylvania, 3440 Market Street, Suite 560, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Tel: 215-593-0700; Fax: 215-573-7914; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.cpre.org/Publications/Publications.htm.
McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305-322.http://www.csa.com
Starratt, R. J. (1988). Administrative leadership in policy review and evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 141-150.
On the impact of curriculum standards, assessment, and accountability policies:Anderson, S., Medrich, E., & Fowler, D. (2007). Which achievement gap? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(7), 547-550.
Lee, J. (2007). Do national and state assessments converge for educational accountability? A meta-analytic synthesis of multiple measures in Maine and Kentucky. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(2), 171-203.
Nelson, S. W., McGhee, M. W., Meno, L. R., & Slater, C. L. (2007). Fulfilling the promise of educational accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(9), 702-709.
Franzak, Judith K. (2006). Zoom: A review of the literature on marginalized adolescent readers, literacy theory, and policy implications. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 209-248.
Mintrop, Heinrich, & Trujillo, Tina. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 319-352.
On the impact of policies regarding teacher professional development and teacher quality:Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
Valli, L., Croninger, R. G., & Walters, K. (2007). Who (else) is the teacher? Cautionary notes on teacher accountability systems. American Journal of Education, 113(4), 635-662.
Gimbert, B. G., Cristol, D., & Sene, A. M. (2007). The impact of teacher preparation on student achievement in algebra in a "hard-to-staff" urban PreK-12-university partnership. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(3), 245-272.
On policies regarding leadership:Burch, P. (2007). The professionalization of instructional leadership in the United States: Competing values and current tensions. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 195-214.
On policies supporting large-scale, district-based change:Traver, A. (2006). Institutions and organizational change: Reforming New York City's public school system. Journal of Education Policy, 21(5), 497-514.
Peterson, P. E. (2007). School reform in Philadelphia: A comparison of student achievement at privately-managed schools with student achievement in other district schools. PEPG 07-0. Program on Education Policy and Governance. Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government. Available on the web at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/research.htm.
Bowles, S. A., Churchill, A. M., Effrat, A., & McDermott, K. A. (2002). School and district intervention: A decision-making framework for policymakers. University of Massachusetts Center for Education Policy, 813 North Pleasant Street, 250 Hills South, Amherst, MA 01003-9308. Tel: 413-545-0958; Fax: 413-545-3855; Web site: http://www.umass.edu/education/cep/index.htm.
On state-level policy interventions:McDermott, K. A., et al. (2001). An analysis of state capacity to implement the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993. Center for Education Policy, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Available on the web at http://www.umass.edu/education/cep/index.htm.
On the politics of education policy:Apple, M. W. (2007). Ideological success, educational failure?: On the politics of No Child Left Behind. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 108-116.
Gruenewald, D. A., & Manteaw, B. O. (2007). Oil and water still: How No Child Left Behind limits and distorts environmental education in US schools. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 171-188.
Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., & Russell, J. et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Hursh, D. (2007). Exacerbating inequality: The failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 295-308.
Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. S. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110-113.
Stiefel, L., Schwartz, A. E., & Chellman, C. C. (2007). So many children left behind: Segregation and the impact of subgroup reporting in No Child Left Behind on the racial test score gap. Educational Policy, 21(3), 527-550.
McDermott, K. A. (2003). What causes variation in states' accountability policies? Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 153-176.
Birman, B. F., Le Floch, K. C., Klekotka, A., Ludwig, M., Taylor, J., & Walters, K. et al. (2007). State and local implementation of the "No Child Left Behind Act." volume II--teacher quality under "NCLB": Interim reportUS Department of Education. Available from: ED Pubs. P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Tel: 877-433-7827; Fax: 301-470-1244; Web site: http://www.edpubs.org.
Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., & Russell, J. et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. MG-589-NSF. RAND Corporation. P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138. Tel: 877-584-8642; Tel: 310-451-7002; Fax: 412-802-4981; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http: //www.rand.org.
On research for policy:Viadero, D. (2007). Scholarship's political punch examined: Policymakers, educators urged to become better "consumers". Education Week, 26(38), 1,14.
Mosher, Fritz, Fuhrman, Susan H., & Cohen, David K. (2007). The research that policy needs. Educational Horizons, 86(1), 19-28.
Weiss, Carol H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(3), 381-404.
Eisenhart, M. (2006). Qualitative science in experimental time. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 19(6), 697-707.
On school turnaroundHess, G. A., Jr. (2003). Reconstitution--three years later: Monitoring the effect of sanctions on Chicago high schools. Education and Urban Society, 35(3), 300-327.
Rouse, C.E., Hannaway, J., Goldhaber, D., & Figlio, D. (2007). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. Washington, D.C.: CALDER, The Urban Institute.
Murphy, J. (2008). The place of leadership in turnaround schools: Insights from organizational recovery in the public and private sectors. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 74-98.
Smarick, A. (2010). The turnaround fallacy. Education Next, 10(1), 20-26.
Special note:A lot of people seem to be paying attention to MassInsight, an outfit in Massachusetts that is providing support for turnaround efforts in several states. If you’re curious, look at their report from 2007, The Turnaround Challenge: Why America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve student achievement lies in our worst performing schools. http://www.massinsight.org/micontent/trnresources.aspx?ref=turnaround&thm=buildingblocks
Additional resources:
Harris and Hargreaves, Schools performing beyond expectationsPaperback: 978-0-415-69231-1: $35.95
Stephen Ball, Global education, Inc.Paperback: 978-0-415-68410-1: $44.95
Ball, S. J. (2011). A new research agenda for educational leadership and policy. Management in Education, 25(2), 50-52.
Ball, S., Hoskins, K., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2011). Disciplinary texts: A policy analysis of national and local behaviour policies. Critical Studies in Education, 52(1), 1-14.
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers' topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372-400.
