Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2001-10
Trends in GRE Scores for Principal Candidates in the United States: A Call for International Debate on the Intellectual Quality of Principal Candidates
AchillesC. M. (1984). Forecast: Stormy weather ahead for educational administration. Issues in Education, 2, 127–135.
2.
AchillesC. M., LintzM. N., & SchounS. (1981). As is the principal….Catalyst for Change, 10, 17–21.
3.
AllisonP. A., DemaerschalkD., & AllisonD. J. (1996, April). Thinking through an administrative problem: Processing differences between expert, average, and true novice subjects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
4.
ArcherJ. (1999, March 17). New teachers abandon field at high rate. Education Week, 18(27), 1, 20, 21, 58.
5.
ArgyrisC., & SchonD. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
BarnardC. I. (1938). The functions of the executive.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
BennettR. E., & SebrechtsM. M. (1997). A computer-based task for measuring the representational component to quantitative proficiency. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 64–77.
8.
BerleiterC., & ScardamaliaM. (1986). Educational relevance of the study of expertise. Interchange, 17, 10–24.
9.
CallahanR. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
ChapmanJ. (1993). Leadership, school-based decision making and school effectiveness. In DimmockC. (Ed.), School-based management and effectiveness (pp. 201–218). London: Routledge.
11.
ChaseW. G., & SimonH. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.
12.
ChiM. T., FeltovichP. T., & GlaserR. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.
13.
ClarkD. L., LottoL. S., & McCarthyM. M. (1979). Factors associated with success in urban elementary schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 61, 467–470.
14.
ClintonW. J. (1986). Who will manage the schools?Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 208–210.
15.
CohenD. K., & HillH. C. (1998). State polity and classroom performance: Mathematics reform in California. Consortium for Policy Research in Education Policy Brief, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania.
16.
CooperJ., & HeckR. (1995). Using narrative in the study of school administration. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 195–210.
17.
Council of Chief School Officers. (2000). Professional development for school leaders, pp. 36–40. Washington, DC: Council of Chief School Officers.
18.
CubberlyE. P. (1923). The principal and his school.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
19.
CushmanK (1992). The essential school principal: A changing role in a changing school. Horace, 9, 1–9.
20.
DoudJ. L., & KellerE. P. (1998). The K–8 principal in 1998.Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals.
21.
EdmondsR. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24.
22.
Educational Research Service. (2000). The principal, keystone to a higher-achieving school: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need.Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
23.
FinnC. E.Jr.. (1990). The biggest reform of all. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 584–592.
24.
FiskeE. B., & LaddH. F. (2000, May 17). A distant laboratory: Learning cautionary lessons from New Zealand's schools. Education Week, 29(36), 56, 38.
25.
GibtonD., GoldringE. B., & SabarN. (1998, April). A comparative and empirical view of decentralization policy, legislation and autonomy in Israel's school system: An unattainable aspiration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
26.
GlickmanC. D. (1991). Pretending not to know what we know. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 4–10.
27.
GoodladJ. I. (1955). The individual school and its principal: Key person in educational leadership. Educational Leadership, 13(1), 2–7.
28.
GoodladJ. I. (1984). A place called school.New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
GoughP. B. (1993). Rising to the challenge. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 195.
30.
GrandyJ. (1995). Talent flow from the undergraduate to graduate school: 1982–1993 (GRE Report No. 92-02). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
31.
GRE 1996–1997 guide to use of scores. (1997). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
32.
GriffithsD. E., StoutR. T., & ForsythP. B. (1988). The preparation of educational administrators. In GriffithsD. E., StoutR. T., & ForsythP. B. (Eds.) Leaders for America's schools: The report and papers of the National Commission an Excellence in Educational Administration (pp. 284–304). Tempe, AZ: University Council for Educational Administration.
33.
Guide to the Use of the Graduate Record Examination Program. (1985). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, pp. 22–26.
34.
HallerE. J., BrentB. O., & McNamaraJ. H. (1997). Does graduate training in educational administration improve America's schools?Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 222–227.
35.
HallingerP., & HeckR. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 32, 5–44.
36.
HoffmanL. (1999). Overview of public elementary and secondary schools and districts: School year 1997-98. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(3), 1, 2.
37.
IngersollR. M. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality: The recurring myth of teacher shortages. Teachers College Record, 99, 41–44.
38.
JonesR. (1995). Picturing your perfect principal. Executive Educator, 17(5), 16–21.
39.
KeedyJ. L. (1992). Creative insubordination: Autonomy for school improvement by successful high school principals. High School Journal, 76, 17–23.
40.
KeedyJ. L. (1999). Examining teacher leadership within the small group dynamics of teacher collegial groups. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 785–799.
41.
KeedyJ. L., & AchillesC. M. (1997). The need for school-constructed theories in practice in U.S. school restructuring. Journal of Educational Administration, 35, 102–121.
42.
KeedyJ. L., & FinchA. M. (1994). Examining teacher-principal empowerment: An analysis of power. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27, 154–166.
43.
KeedyJ. L., FlemingT. G., GentryR. B., & WheatD. L. (1998). Students as meaning makers and the quest for the common school: A micro-ethnography of a U.S. history classroom. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 619–645.
44.
KeedyJ. L., & GrandyJ. (1999, April). Trends in GRE scores in Education Administration: Implications for principal preparation programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 030 155)
45.
KeedyJ. L., MacPhail-WilcoxB., MullinA. G., & Campbell WootenW. (1998). Principal transformational leadership for successful schools: Cases and strategies for teacher and student empowerment.Tempe, AZ: Arizona Educational Information System, Arizona State University.
46.
KennedyM. M. (1987). Inexact sciences: Professional education and the development of expertise. In RothkopfE. Z. (Ed.) Review of Research in Education, vol. 19, (pp. 133–167). Washington, DC: Author.
47.
LeithwoodK. A., & StagerM. (1989). Expertise in principals’ problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25, 126–161.
48.
LevacicR. (1995). Local management of schools: Analysis and practice.Buckingham, England Open University Press.
49.
LewisA. C. (1999). Time for schools to perform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 99–100.
50.
LortieD. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51.
MarksH. M., & LouisK. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 245–275.
52.
MartinW. J., & WillowerD. J. (1981). The managerial behavior of high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 17, 69–90.
53.
MarshD. D. (1997, April). Educational leadership for the 21st Century: Integrating three emerging perspectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
54.
McNeilL. J. (1988). Contradictions of control, Part 2: Teachers, students, and curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 432–438.
MorfittG., DemaerschalkD., & AllisonD. J. (1996, April). Paying attention: Content considered by experts and others when responding to a case problem. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
57.
MunceyD. E., & McQuillanP. J. (1993). Preliminary findings from a five-year study of the Coalition of Essential Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 486–489.
58.
MurphyJ. (1991). School restructuring: Capturing and assessing the phenomenon.New York: Teacher's College Press.
59.
MurphyJ., & ForsythP. B. (1999). Educational administration: A decade of reform.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
60.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
61.
OgawaR. T., & BossertS. T. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 203–223.
62.
PetersonK. (1977–78). The principal's tasks. Administrator's Notebook, 26(8), 1–4.
63.
PiphoC. (1991). The vouchers are coming. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 102–103.
64.
RadnorH. A., BallS. J., & VincentC. (1998). Local educational governance: Accountability and democracy in the United Kingdom. In MacphersonR. J. S. (Ed.), The politics of accountability: Educative and international perspectives (pp. 120–133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
65.
SarasonS. (1990). The predictable failure of school reform.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
66.
SchmokerM. J. (1996). Results: The key to continuous improvement.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
67.
SchneiderG. T. (1984). Teacher involvement in decision making: Zones of acceptance, decision conditions, and job satisfaction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 18, 25–32.
68.
SedlackM. W., WheelerC. W., PullinD. C., & CusickP. A. (1986). Selling students short: Classroom bargains academic reform in the American high school.New York: Teachers College Press.
69.
SeeleyD. S. (1981). Education through partnership.Cambridge: Ballinger.
70.
SilverP. F. (1975). Principals’ conceptual ability in relation to situation and behavior. Educational Administration Quarterly, 11, 49–66.
71.
SimonH. A. (1957). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
72.
SirotnikK. A. (1989). The school as a center for change. In SergiovanniT. J. & MooreJ. H. (Eds.), Schooling for tomorrow (pp. 89–113). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
73.
SirotnikK. A., & KimballK. (1999). Standards for standards-based accountability systems. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 209–214.
74.
SizerT. R. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
75.
SizerT. R. (1992). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
76.
SizerT. R., & SizerN. F. (1999). Grappling. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 184–190.
77.
SlaterR. O. (1995). The sociology of leadership and educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 449–472.
78.
SpillaneJ. P., & ThompsonC. C. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 185–203.
79.
TsuchidaI., & LewisC. (1996). Responsibility and learning: Some preliminary hypotheses about Japanese elementary classrooms. In RohlenT. P. & LeTendreG. K. (Eds.), Teaching and learning in Japan (pp. 190–212). New York: Cambridge University Press.