AIKIN, M. C.
, BENSON, C. S., & GUSTAFSON, R. H. (1968). Economy of scale in the production of selected educational outcomes. Paper prepared for the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
2.
BENVENISTE, G.
(1983). Bureaucracy. San Francisco: Boyd & Fraser.
3.
Berman and Weiler Project Team
. (1988). Restructuring California education: A design for public education in the twenty-first century. Recommendations to the California Business Roundtable, Berman and Weiler Associates.
4.
BIDWELL, C. C.
, & KASARDA, J. (1975). School district organization and student achievement.American Sociological Review, 40, 55-70.
5.
California School Boards Association
. (1986). Why Change? (Report of the Task Force on Governance and Management). Sacramento, CA: Author.
6.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy
. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century (Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession). New York: Author.
7.
Committee on School Organization
. (1973). Opportunities for excellence. Springfield, IL: Author.
8.
CONANT, J. B.
(1959). The American high school today. Carnegie Series in American Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
Education Comparative Services Unit
. (1977). School district reorganization: A review of selected studies. Minneapolis/ St. Paul: University of Minnesota.
10.
Educational Research Service
. (1971). Size of schools and school districts. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. (Information Aid No. 8; ERIC Document No. 055 355)
11.
FRIEDKIN, N. E.
, & NECOCHEA, J. (1988). School system size and performance: A contingency perspective.Educational Administration and Policy Analysis, 10(3), 237-249.
12.
GUTHRIE, J. W.
(1979). Organizational scale and school success.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(1) 17-27.
13.
INGRAHAM, R. N.
, & KENNEY, C. F. (1965). The areas of administrative concern and the problems encountered by newly unified school districts in California. San Mateo, CA: San Mateo Board of Education.
14.
JAMES, H. T.
, & LEVIN, H. M. (1970). Financing community schools. Community control of schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
15.
KOPPICH, J.
, GERRITZ, W., & GUTHRIE,J. W. (1986).A view from the classroom: California teachers' opinions on working conditions and school reform proposals (Policy Paper No. PP86-3-1). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
16.
LAREAU, A.
(1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital.Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.
17.
MILLARD, J. E.
(1979). How long should a man's legs be?Ankeny, IA: Heartland Education Agency. (ERIC Document No. 170 088)
18.
MONK, D. H.
, & HALLER, E. J. (1986). Organizational alternatives for small rur-al schools. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Department of Education.
19.
NISKANEN, W.
, & LEVY, M. (1975). Cities and schools: A case for community government in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Graduate School of Public Policy. (ERIC Document No. 097 768)
20.
ODDEN, A.
(1987). Education reform and services to poor students: Can the two policies be compatible?Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. (Policy Paper No. PP87-3-3)
21.
SHER, J.
, & THOMPKINS, R. (1976). Economy, efficiency, and equality: Myths of rural school and district consolidation. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute of Education. (ERIC Document No. 135 507)
22.
WALBERG, H. J.
, & FOWLER, W. J. (1987). Expenditures and size efficiencies of public school districts.Educational Researcher, 16(7), 5-13.
23.
WEAVER, T.
(1975). The case against the Preston County Comprehensive Facilities Plan for consolidating the schools. Boston, MA: Boston University.
24.
WEBB, F. R.
, & OHM, K. A. (1984). School district unification: A careful look. San Ramon, CA: Dixie School District.
25.
ZYMELMAN, M.
(1973). Financing and efficiency in education. Boston, MA: Nimrod Press.
