This article explores school improvement planning under conditions of high-stakes accountability by means of a content analysis of school improvement plans. The schools examined here were identified by their accountability agencies as low performing and were put on probation to reverse their decline. Schools in three accountability systems are compared. Content analyses indicated that school improvement plans across the three jurisdictions were very similar, suggesting institutional isomorphism. However, certain policy design features prompted variation in the levels of internalization of external demands by school sites.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bardach, E. (1986). Educational paperwork. In D. L. Kirp & D. N. Jensen (Eds.), School days, rule days: The legalization and regulation of education (pp. 124-144). London: Falmer.
2.
Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Bell, T. H. (1974). A performance accountability system for school administrators. West Nyack, NY: Parker.
4.
Biott, C. , Easen, P., & Atkins, M. (1994). Written planning and school development: Biding time or making time. In D. H. Hargreaves & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Development planning for school improvement (pp. 80-90). New York: Cassell.
5.
Broadhead, P. , Cuckle, P., Hodgson, J., & Dunford, J. (1996). Improving primary schools through school development planning: Building a vision, exploring the reality. Educational Management and Administration, 24(3), 277-290.
6.
Canner, J. (1985). School improvement project: 1983-1984. Fifth annual process assessment. New York: New York City Board of Education.
7.
Clark, T. A. , & McCarthy, D. P. (1983). School improvement in New York City: The evolution of a project. Educational Researcher, 12(4), 17-24.
8.
Conley, D. T. (1992, April). Strategic planning in America’s schools: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
9.
Conley, D. T. (1993, April). Strategic planning in practice: An analysis of purposes, goals, and procedures. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
10.
Constable, H. (1994). Three arenas of tension: Teachers’ experience of participation in school development planning. In D. H. Hargreaves & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Development planning for school improvement (pp. 91-99). New York: Cassell.
11.
Cuttance, P. (1994). The contribution of quality assistance reviews to development in school systems. In D. H. Hargreaves & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Development planning for school improvement (pp. 49-68). New York: Cassell.
12.
DiMaggio, P. J. , & Powell, W. W. (1983, April). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
13.
Elmore, R. , Abelmann, C., & Fuhrman, S. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65-98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
14.
Firestone, W. A. , & Corbett, H. D. (1988). Planned organizational change. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 321-340). White Plains, NY: Longman.
15.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
Hanushek, E. A. (1994). Making schools work: Improving performance and controlling costs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
17.
Hutchinson, B. (1993). The effective reflective school: Visions and pipedreams in development planning. Educational Management and Administration, 21(1), 4-18.
18.
Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990, H.B. 940, General Assembly, Regular Session 1990, Vol. 1, (1990).
19.
Levine, D. U. , & Leibert, R. E. (1987). Improving school improvement plans. The Elementary School Journal, 87(4), 397-412.
20.
Lezotte, L. W. , & Bancroft, B. A. (1985). School improvement based on effective schools research: A promising approach for economically disadvantaged and minority students. Journal of Negro Education, 54(3), 301-312.
21.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.
22.
Malen, B., & Muncey, D. (1999). Creating “a new set of givens?”: The impact of state activism on school autonomy (Draft copy of chapter for the American Educational Finance Association Yearbook). Unpublished manuscript.
23.
Maryland State Department of Education . (1997). Criteria for Reconstitution. Baltimore: Author.
24.
McDonald, J. P. (1996). Redesigning school: Lessons for the 21st century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
McLaughlin, M. W. , & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation’s educational goals. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
26.
Mitchell, S. M. (1995). Performance management in education. In S. B. Bacharach & B. Mundell (Eds.), Images of schools structures and roles in organizational behavior (pp. 201-238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
27.
Morrison, K. (1998). Management theories for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Neale, D. C. , Bailey, W. J., & Ross, B. E. (1981). Strategies for school improvement: Cooperative planning and organization development. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
29.
Newmann, F. M. , King, M. B., & Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and school performance: Implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 41-74.
30.
Nias, J. , Southworth, G., & Campbell, P. (1992). Whole school curriculum development in primary school. Washington, DC: Falmer.
31.
O’Day, J. A. , & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32.
Rowan, B. (1986). Rationality and reality in instructional management: Results from a survey of districts in the Far West. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
33.
Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
Schein, E. (1991). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35.
Smith, M. S. , & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-267). London: Falmer.
36.
Tucker, M. S. , & Codding, J. B. (1998). Standards for our schools: How to set them, measure them, and reach them. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37.
Wallace, M. (1994). Towards a contingency approach to development planning in schools. In D. H. Hargreaves & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Development planning for school improvement (pp. 150-161). New York: Cassell.
38.
Wise, A. (1977). Why educational policies often fail: The hyperrationalization hypothesis. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 9(1), 43-57.
