This article examines the school-based management reforms instituted in Chicago since 1988 and needed changes added to those reforms in 1995. After describing student achievement patterns between 1990 and 1998, the article examines three essential components of the reform effort: higher teacher expectations for students, the opportunity for schools to do things differently including additional resources, and addressing the capacity of teachers to dramatically improve the level of instruction. But school-based management alone was not enough to make improvement happen in all schools. A fourth component was needed. Accountability provisions, strengthened in 1995, addressed the lack of will among school staffs to undertake change and among students to be highly engaged in learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blank, R. K.
, & Schilder, D. (1991). State policies and state role in currculum. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 37-62). New York: Falmer.
2.
Bloomfield, D. C.
, & Cooper, B. S. (1998). Recentralization or strategic management? A new governance model of the New York City Public Schools. New York: Center for Educational Outreach and Innovation of Columbia University.
3.
Brookover, W. B.
, & Lezotte, L. W. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes in student achievement. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
4.
Bryk, A. S.
, Easton, J. Q., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S. G., & Sebring, P. A. (1993). A view from the elementary schools: The state of reform in Chicago. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
5.
Bryk, A. S.
, Thum, Y. M., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (1998). Academic productivity of Chicago public elementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
6.
Byrd defends school anti-dropout role
. (1987, January 18). Chicago Tribune, p. 4-2.
7.
Cohen, D. K.
(1996). Rewarding teachers for student performance. In S. H. Fuhrman & J. A. O'Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 60-112). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Designs for Change
. (1985). The bottom line: Chicago's failing schools and how to save them. Chicago: Author.
9.
Duffrin, E.
(1996). Direct instruction making waves. Catalyst: Voices of Chicago School Reform, 8(1), 1, 4-5.
10.
Easton, J. Q.
, Bryk, A. S., Driscoll, M. E., Kotsakis, J. G., Sebring, P. A., & van der Ploeg, A. J. (1991). Charting reform: The teachers' turn. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Reform.
11.
Easton, J. Q.
, Flinspach, S. L., Ford, D. J., Qualls, J., Ryan, S. R., & Storey, S. L. (1991). Decision making and school improvement: LSCs in the first two years of reform. Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance.
12.
Edmonds, R.
(1979, October). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-18.
13.
Etheridge, C. P.
, & Collins, T. W. (1992). Conflict in restructuring the principal-teacher relation- ship in Memphis. In G. A. Hess, Jr. (Ed.), Empowering teachers and parents: School restructuring through the eyes of anthropologists (pp. 89-102). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
14.
Fullan, M. G.
(1993). Coordinating school and district development in restructuring. In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts (pp. 143-164). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
15.
Glass, T. E.
, & Sanders, W. D. (1978). Community control in education: A study in power transition. Midland, MI: Pendell.
16.
Hanson, M. K.
, Morris, D. R., & Collins, R. A. (1992). Empowerment of teachers in Dade County's school-based management pilot. In G. A. Hess, Jr. (Ed.), Empowering teachers and parents: School restructuring through the eyes of anthropologists (pp. 71-87). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
17.
Hess, G. A., Jr.
(1991). School restructuring, Chicago style. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
18.
Hess, G. A., Jr. (Ed.). (1994, May). Outcomes of Chicago school reform. Education and Urban Society [Special Issue], 26(3).
19.
Hess, G. A., Jr.
(1995). Restructuring urban schools: A Chicago perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.
20.
Hess, G. A., Jr.
(Ed.). (1996). Implementing reform: Stories of stability and change in 14 schools. Chicago: Chicago Panel on School Policy.
21.
Hess, G. A., Jr.
, &Lauber, D. (1985). Dropouts from the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance.
22.
Hess, G. A., Jr.
, Wells, E., Prindle, C., Kaplan, B., & Liffman, P. (1987). "Where's Room 185?" How schools can reduce their dropout problem. Education and Urban Society, 19(3), 330-355.
23.
Malcolm X College
. (n.d.). The Personalized Curriculum Institute. Chicago: Author.
24.
Malen, B.
, & Ogawa, R. T. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site based governance councils: A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 251-270.
25.
Malen, B.
, Ogawa, R. T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school-based management? A case study of the literature-A call for research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, Volume 2: The practice of choice, decentralization and school restructuring (pp. 289-342). New York: Falmer.
26.
Marburger, K.
(1985). One school at a time. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
27.
Mirel, J.
(1993). The rise and fall of an urban school system: Detroit, 1907-81. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
28.
Moore, D. R.
, & Radford-Hill, S. (1982). Caught in the web: Misplaced children in Chicago's classes for the mentally retarded. Chicago: Designs for Change.
29.
National Commission on Excellence in Education
. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
30.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future
. (1997). What matters most: Teachers for America's future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
31.
National Commission on Time and Learning
. (1994). Prisoners of time. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
32.
Orfield, G.
(1984). The Chicago study of access and choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Public Policy Committee.
33.
Purkey, S. C.
, & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal,81(1), 426-452.
34.
Reed, R. J.
(1992). School decentralization and empowerment. In J. G. Cibulka, R. J. Reed, & K. K. Wong (Eds.), The politics of urban education in the United States (pp. 149-166). Washington, DC: Falmer.
35.
Resnick, L.
(1987, December). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20.
36.
Rogers, D.
, & Chung, N. (1983). 110 Livingston Street revisited: Decentralization action. New York: New York University Press.
37.
Ryan, S.
, & Schlesinger, A. (1996). Dollars and cents: Reforming schools through State Chapter I and discretionary spending. In G. A. Hess, Jr. (Ed.), Implementing reform: Stories of stability and change in 14 schools (pp. 67-97). Chicago: Chicago Panel on School Policy.
38.
Ryan, W.
(1976). Blaming the victim. New York: Random House.
39.
Wehlege, G. G.
, & Rutter, R. A. (1986). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the problem?Teachers College Record,87(2), 374-392.
40.
Wohlstetter, P.
, & Odden, A. (1992). Rethinking school-based management policy and research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(4), 529-549.
41.
Wong, K. K.
, Dreeben, R., Lynn, L. E., & Sunderman, G. L. (1997). Integrated governance as a reform strategy in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Department of Education, University of Chicago.
