This article addresses the sustainability of comprehensive school reform(CSR) models in the face of turbulent district and state contexts. It draws on qualitative data gathered in a longitudinal case study of six CSR models implemented in 13 schools in one urban district. Why do reforms sustain in some schools and not in others? How do changing state and district contexts influence reform sustainability in schools? After 3 years, reform efforts ceased in 6 of the 13 schools studied; two other schools were still implementing reforms but at very low levels. Only 5 of the 13 schools continued to implement their CSR models with moderate to high levels of intensity. Findings show that changing district and state contexts affected the sustainability of CSR models in schools differently depending on each school's strategy for dealing with the changes, as well as their local conditions, experiences with reform, and capacity.
Anderson, S., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1994). Institutionalization and renewal in a restructured secondary school. School Organization, 14 (3), 279-293.
2.
Bascia, N. (1996). Caught in the crossfire: Restructuring, collaboration, and the “problem” school. Urban Education, 37 (2), 177-198.
3.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1974). Federal programs supporting educational change: A model of educational change, Vol. I. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
4.
Bodilly, S. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools' scale up phase. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
5.
Bodilly, S., & Berends, M. (1999). Necessary district support for comprehensive school reform. In G. Orfield & E. H. Debray (Eds.), Hard work for good schools: Facts bit fads in Title I reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Civil Rights Project.
6.
Borman, G., Hewes, G., Overman, L., & Brown, S. (2002). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis (Report No. 59). Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.
7.
Corbett, H. D., Dawson, J. A., & Firestone, W. A. (1984). School context and school change: Implications for effective planning. New York: Teachers College Press.
8.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Columbia Teachers College Press.
9.
Cuban, L. (1992). What happens to reforms that last? The case of the junior high school. American Educational Research Journal, 29 (2), 227-251.
10.
Curry, B. K. (1991). Institutionalization: The final phase of the organizational change process. Administrator's Notebook, 35 (1).
11.
Datnow, A., Borman, G.,& Stringfield, S. (2000). School reform through a highly specified curriculum: A study of the implementation and effects of the Core Knowledge Sequence. The Elementary School Journal, 101 (2), 167-192.
12.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L.,& Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London: Routledge.
13.
Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 5 (1), 183-204.
14.
Desimone, L. (2000). Making comprehensive school reform work. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
15.
Elmore, R. E. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), 1-26.
16.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
Fullan, M. (1999) Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer.
18.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
Geijsel, F., Van Den Berg, R., & Sleegers, P. (1999). The innovative capacity of schools in primary education: A qualitative study. Qualitative Studies in Education, 12 (2), 175-191.
20.
Hargreaves, A.& Fink, D. (2000). Three dimensions of educational reform. Educational Leadership, 57 (7), 30-34.
21.
Herman, R., Aladjem, D., McMahon, P., Masem, E., Mulligan, I., O'Malley, A., et al. (1999). An educators'guide to schoolwide reform. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
22.
Kanter, R. M. (1984). The change masters. Training and Development Journal, 38 (4), 39-43.
23.
Kearns, D. T., & Anderson, J. L. (1996). Sharing the vision: Creating new American schools. In S. Stringfield, S. M. Ross, & L. Smith (Eds.), Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools designs (pp. 9-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
Kirst, M.,& Meister, G. (1985). Turbulence in American secondary schools. What reforms last?Curriculum Inquiry, 15, 169-186.
25.
Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.
26.
Lusi, S. (1997). The role of state departments of education in complex school reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
28.
Moffet, C. A. (2000). Sustaining change: The answers are blowing in the wind. Educational Leadership, 57 (7), 35-38.
29.
Nunnery, J., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Hunter, P., et al. (1997). Effects of full and partial implementation of Success for All on student reading achievement in English and Spanish. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
30.
Oakes, J. (1993). New standards and disadvantaged schools. Background paper prepared for research forum on Effects of New Standards and Assessments on High Risk Students and Disadvantaged Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
31.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Sand, bricks, and seeds: School change strategies and readiness for reform. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center For Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
32.
Slavin, R. E., & Fashola, O. (1998). Show me the evidence! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
33.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1998). Disseminating Success for All: Lessons for policy and practice (Revised technical report). Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins University.
34.
Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
35.
Strauss, A.,& Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
Stringfield, S., & Datnow, A. (1998). Introduction: Scaling up school restructuring designs in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 30 (3), 269-276.
37.
Stringfield, S., Ross, S.,& Smith, L. (Eds.). (1996). Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools Development Corporation models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Suchman, M. C., & Edelman, L. B. (1997). Legal rational myths: The new institutionalism and the law and society tradition. Law and Social Inquiry, 903-941.
39.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
Tyack, D.,& Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change?American Educational Research Journal, 31, 453-479.
41.
Yin, R. (1989). Case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
Yonezawa, S., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Special strategies for educating disadvantaged students follow-up study: Examining the sustainability of research based school reforms. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University CRESPAR.
43.
Zucker, L. G. (1991). The role of institutionalism in cultural perspective. In P. DiMaggio & W. Powell (Eds.), The newinstitutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 83-107). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
