AdamsJ. E., & KirstM. (1999). New demands and concepts for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In MurphyJ., & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
BauchP., & GoldringE. (1995). Parent involvement and school responsiveness: Facilitating the home-school connection in schools of choice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(1), 1–21.
3.
BayJ. M., ReysB. J., & ReysR. E. (1999). The top 10 elements that must be in place to implement standards-based mathematics curricula. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(7), 503–506.
4.
BullockA., & ThomasH. (1997). Schools at the centre? A study of decentralization.London: Routledge.
5.
ChubbJ., & MoeT. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools.Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
6.
CluneW. H., & WitteP. (1988). School-based management: Institutional variation, implementation, and issues for further research.New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Center for Policy Research in Education.
7.
DetertJ. R., KopelM., MaurielJ., & JenniR. (2000). Quality management in U.S. high schools: Evidence from the field. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 158–187.
8.
ElmoreR. (1990). Choice as an instrument of public policy: Evidence from education and health care. In CluneW. H., & WitteJ. (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, volume 1: The theory of choice and control in education.New York: Falmer Press.
9.
ElmoreR. F. (1995). Structural reform and educational practice. Educational Researcher, 24(9), 23–26.
10.
ElmoreR., & FuhrmanS. H. (Eds.). (1994). The governance of curriculum: 1994 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
11.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management (1999). Accountability. Research Roundup, 16(1).
12.
FinkelsteinN., & GrubbN. (2000). Making sense of education and training markets: Lessons from England. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 601–632.
13.
FirestoneW. A. (1989). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151–164.
14.
ForsythP., & TallericoM. (1998). Accountability and city school leadership. Education and Urban Society, 30(4), 546–555.
15.
FullanM. (1999). Change forces: The sequel.London: Falmer Press.
16.
GantnerM., NewsomJ., & DunlapK. (2000, April). Reconceptualizing the role of the principal: Giving voice to the silence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
17.
GilesC. (1997). School development planning: A practical guide to the strategic management process.Plymouth, UK: Northcote House Publishers.
18.
GraceG. (1995). School leadership: Beyond education management.London: Falmer Press.
19.
HanushekE., & MeyerR. (1996). Comments on chapters two, three, and four. In LaddH. (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education.Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
20.
HausmanC. S. (2000). Principal role in magnet schools: Transformed or entrenched?Journal of Educational Administration, 38(1), 25–46.
21.
HessG. A.Jr. (1991). School restructuring Chicago style.Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
22.
Illinois State Board of Education. (1999). Performance-based accountability: System overview. November 17. Springfield, IL.
23.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2000). Performance-based school designation system: Progress report and 1999–2001 interim warning/watch list recommendations. January 19. Springfield, IL.
24.
KerchnerC. T. (1988). Bureaucratic entrepreneurship: The implications of choice for school administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(4), 381–392.
25.
KnappM. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 227–266.
26.
LauderH., & HughesD. (1999). Trading in futures.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
27.
LeithwoodK., & EarlL. (2000). Educational accountability effects: An international perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4).
28.
LeithwoodK., EdgeK., & JantziD. (1999). Educational accountability: The state of the art.Gutersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers.
29.
MassellD., & GoertzM. (1999, April). Local strategies for building capacity: The district role in supporting instructional reform. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
30.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–78.
31.
McLaughlinM. W. (1991). The Rand change agent study: Ten years later. In OddenA. R. (Ed.), Education Policy Implementation (pp. 143–156). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
32.
MurphyJ., & BeckL. (1995). School-based management as school reform.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
33.
NewmannF. M., KingM., & RigdonM. (1997). Accountability and school performance: Implications for restructuring schools. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 41–74.
34.
OrnsteinA. C. (1983). Administrative decentralization and community policy: Review and outlook. Urban Review, 15(1), 3–10.
35.
ParkerK., & LeithwoodK. (2000). The influence of school councils on school and classroom practices. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 37–65.
36.
PetersM. (1992). Performance indicators in New Zealand higher education: Accountability or control?Journal of Education Policy, 7(3), 267–283.
37.
RauW. C. (2000). Brass knuckles in velvet gloves: Illinois’ school designation system as a case study in centralized state educational planning.Unpublished paper. Bloomington, IL: Illinois State University.
RosenholtzS. J. (1991). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools.New York: Teachers College Press.
40.
SizerT. R. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
41.
SizerT. R. (1996). Horace's hope: What works for the American high school.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
42.
SouthworthG. (1998). Leading improving primary schools.London: Falmer Press.
43.
SpillaneJ. (1994). How districts mediate between state policy and teachers’ practice. In ElmoreR. F., & FuhrmanS. H. (Eds.), The Governance of Curriculum (pp. 167–185). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
44.
SpillaneJ. P., & JenningsN. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98(3), 449–481.
45.
TachenyS. (1999). If we build it, will they come?Educational Leadership, 56(6), 62–65.
46.
WigginsG. P., & McTigheJ. (1998). Understanding by design.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
47.
WildyH., & LoudenW. (2000). School restructuring and the dilemma of principals’ work. Educational Management and Administration, 28(2), 173–184.
48.
WohlstetterP., & MohrmanS. A. (1993). School-based management: Strategies for success.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.