This article offers a framework for assessing how education policy initiatives may affect a school’s capacity to improve its performance. Drawing on the theoretical literature regarding school capacity and case studies of high-stakes accountability policies, the authors develop and illustrate a framework that includes both a resource dimension and a productivity dimension. They argue that this dual dimensional construction of school capacity encourages a more complete exploration of the manner in which education reform policies might alter school capacity.
Archibald, S., & Odden, A. (2000). A case study of resource reallocation to implement a whole school reform model and boost student achievement: Parnell Elementary School. Retrieved May 16, 2000, from Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin Madison Web site, http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/finance/relatedstudies/
2.
Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S. G.,& Sebring, P. A. (1993). Aviewfromthe elementary schools: The state of reform in Chicago. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
3.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. A., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S. G.,& Easton, J. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform. Boulder, CO: Westview.
4.
Carnoy, M., & MacDonnell, L. (1990). School district restructuring in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Educational Policy, 4, 49-64.
5.
Corcoran, T.,& Goertz, M. (1995). Instructional capacity and high performance schools. Educational Researcher, 24, 27-31.
6.
Elmore, R. F., & Fuhrman, S. H. (2001). Holding schools accountable: Is it working?Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 67-72.
7.
Finkelstein, B., Malen, B., Croninger, R. C., Rice, J. K., Mourad, R. F., Snell, J., et al. (1998). In the early stages of reform: A composite profile of three reconstituted schools. College Park: University of Maryland.
8.
Finkelstein, B., Malen, B., Muncey, D., Rice, J. K., Croninger, R. C. (2000). Caught in contradictions: The first two years of a school reconstitution initiative. College Park: University of Maryland.
9.
Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-23.
10.
Firestone, W. A., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 95-113.
11.
Fraga, L. R., Erlichson, B. A.,& Lee, S. (1998). Consensus building and school reform: The role of the courts in San Francisco. In C. N. Stone (Ed.), Changing urban education(pp. 66-90). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
12.
Fuhrman, S. (2001). From the capital to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Hatch, T. (2002). When improvement programs collide. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 626-639.
14.
Hess, F. M. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
15.
Hess, G. A., Jr. (1999). Expectations, opportunity, capacity and will: The four essential components of Chicago school reform. Educational Policy, 13, 494-517.
16.
Hoshchild, J. (2003). Rethinking accountability politics. In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West (Eds.), No child left behind?(pp. 107-123). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
17.
Jones, D. R.,& Malen, B. (2002). Sources of victory, seeds of defeat: Linking enactment politics and implementation developments. In W. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Theory and research in educational administration(pp. 41-76). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
18.
Kelly, C., & Protsik, J. (1997). Risk and reward: Perspectives on the implementation of Kentucky’s school-based performance award program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(4), 474-505.
19.
King, S. H. (1993). The limited presence of African-American teachers. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 115-149.
20.
Ladd, H. (1996). Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
21.
Malen, B. (1993). Professionalizing teaching by expanding teachers’ roles. In S. L. Jacobson & R. Berne (Eds.), Reforming education: The emerging systemic approach(pp. 43-65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Malen, B. (1999). On rewards, punishments and possibilities: Teacher compensation as an instrument for education reform. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 387-394.
23.
Malen, B. (2001, March). Fostering exit, voice or loyalty: The multiple effects of reconstitution. Paper presented at a symposium at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Cincinnati, OH.
24.
Malen, B., Croninger, R., Muncey, D.,& Jones, D. R. (2002). Reconstituting schools: Testing the Theory of Action. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113-132.
25.
Malen, B.,& Porton, H. (2003). An elementary school’s quest for school improvement(Research monograph prepared for the site and district). College Park: University of Maryland.
26.
Malen, B.,& Rice, J. K. (2003, March). Strengthening incentives, diluting capacity: An analysis of the initial effects of high stakes accountability initiatives on local schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Orlando, FL.
27.
Mayer, R. R., & Greenwood, E. (1980). The design of social policy research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 151-178.
29.
Mintrop, H. (2000). Towards an understanding of school reconstitution as a strategy to educate children at risk. In M. Sanders (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents(pp. 231-259). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
Mintrop, H. (2003). The limits of sanctions in low-performing schools [Electronic version]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(3), 1-30.
31.
Mintrop, H. (2004). Schools on probation. New York: Teachers College.
32.
Murphy, J. T. (1980). Getting the facts. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
33.
Newman, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297-321.
34.
Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). A case study of resource reallocation to reduce class size enhance teacher planning time and strengthen literacy: Clayton Elementary School. Retrieved May 16, 2000, from Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison Web site, http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/finance/relatedstudies/
35.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
Rice, J. K. (2002). Making economically grounded decisions about comprehensive school reform models: Considerations of costs, effects and contexts. In N. C. Wang & K. K. Wong (Eds.), Efficiency and equity issues in Title I school-wide program implementation(pp. 29-55). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
37.
Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
38.
Rice, J. K., & Croninger, R. (2001, March). Resource generation, reallocation or depletion: A multi-disciplinary analysis of the impact of school reconstitution on local capacity. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Finance Association, Cincinnati, OH.
39.
Rice, J. K.,& Malen, B. (2003). The human costs of education reform: The case of school reconstitution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 635-666.
40.
Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2) 185-203.
41.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 1-40.
43.
Stetcher, B. M.,& Hamilton, L. S. (2002). Putting theory to the test. Rand Review, 26(1), 17-23.
44.
U. S. Department of Education. (1998). Intervening in chronically low-performing schools. Turning around low-performing schools: A guide for state and local leaders. Retrieved August 2002 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/turning/intervene.html
45.
U. S. Department of Education. (2001). School improvement report: Executive order on actions for turning around low-performing schools. Washington, DC: Author.
46.
Wong, K., Anagnotopoulos, D., Rutledge, S., Lynn, L.,& Dreeben, R. (1999). Implementation of an educational accountability agenda: Integrated governance in the Chicago public schools enters its fourth year. Chicago: University of Chicago and Irving R. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies.
47.
Yin, R. K. (1990). The role of theory in doing case study research and evaluations. Washington, DC: Cosmos Corporation.
48.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
Youngs, P., & King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 643-670.
