AndersonS. E. (1991). Principal's management style and patterns of teacher implementation across multiple innovations.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(4), 286–304.
BermanP., WeilerD., CzesakK., GjeltenT., & IzuJ. A. (1981). Improving school improvement: A policy evaluation of the California School Improvement Program.Berkeley, CA: Berman, Weiler.
4.
CaweltiG., & ProtheroeN. (2001). High student achievement: How six school districts changed into high-performance systems.Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
CorcoranT., FuhrmanS., & BelcherC. (2001, September). The district role in instructional improvement.Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 78–84.
7.
CubanL. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy, and practice at the district level.Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129–151.
8.
EdmondsR. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor.Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24.
9.
ElmoreR. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In FuhrmanS. (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 96–124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
ElmoreR. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership.Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
11.
ElmoreR., & BurneyD. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community School District #2.New York: Consortium for Policy Research in Education and National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, Teachers College, Columbia University.
12.
FirestoneW. (1989). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151–164.
13.
FlodenR., PorterA., AlfordL., FreemanD., IrwinS., SchmidtW. (1988). Instructional leadership at the district level: A closer look at autonomy and control.Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 96–124.
14.
FuhrmanS., CluneW., & ElmoreR. (1988). Research on education reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy.Teachers College Record, 90(2), 237–257.
15.
FuhrmanS., & ElmoreR. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state education reform.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82–96.
16.
FullanM. (1985). Change process and strategies at the local level.Elementary School Journal, 84(3), 391–420.
17.
FullanM. (2000). The return of large-scale reform.Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 5–28.
18.
FullanM. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
FullanM., AndersonS. E., & NewtonE. (1986). Support systems for implementing curriculum in school boards.Toronto, ON: Ontario Government Bookstore.
20.
FullanM., BertaniA., & QuinnJ. (2004, April). New lessons for districtwide reform.Educational Leadership, pp. 42–46.
21.
GronnP. (2002). Distributed leadership. In LeithwoodK., & HallingerP. (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653–696). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
22.
HargreavesS., MooreS., FinkD., BraymanC., & WhiteR. (2003). Succeeding leaders? A study of principal succession and sustainability.Toronto, ON: Ontario Principals’ Council.
23.
HightowerA. (2002). San Diego's big boom: Systemic instructional change in the central office and schools. In HightowerA., KnappM. S., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 76–93). New York: Teachers College Press.
24.
HightowerA., KnappM. S., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. (2002). The district role in instructional renewal: Making sense and taking action. In HightowerA., KnappM. S., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 193–201). New York: Teachers College Press.
25.
LaRocqueL., & ColemanP. (1990). Quality control: School accountability and district ethos. In HolmesM., LeithwoodK., & MusellaD. (Eds.), Educational policy for effective schools (pp. 168–191). Toronto, ON: OISE Press.
26.
LeithwoodK., & MenziesT. (1998). A review of research concerning the implementation of school-based management.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3), 233–285.
27.
LeithwoodK., Seashore LouisK., AndersonS., & WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: A review of research.New York: Wallace Foundation.
28.
LouisK. S. (1989). The role of the school district in school improvement. In HolmesM., LeithwoodK., & MusellaD. (Eds.), Educational policy for effective schools (pp. 145–167). Toronto, ON: OISE Press.
29.
LouisK. S., & MilesM. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why.New York: Teachers College Press.
30.
LouisK. S., RosenblumS., & MolitorJ. (1981). Strategies for knowledge use and school improvement.Cambridge, MA: ABT.
31.
MarshJ. (2002). How districts relate to states, schools, and communities: A review of emerging literature. In HightowerA., KnappM. S., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 25–40). New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
MassellD., & GoertzM. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In HightowerA., KnappM. S., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 43–60). New York: Teachers College Press.
33.
McLaughlinM., & TalbertJ. (2002). Reforming districts. In HightowerA., KnappM. S., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 173–192). New York: Teachers College Press.
34.
MurphyJ., & HallingerP. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective districts.Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 175–181.
35.
PurkeyS., & SmithM. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective school literature.Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 353–389.
36.
ResnickL., & GlennanT. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts. In HightowerA., KnappM. S., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 160–172). New York: Teachers College Press.
37.
RosenholtzS. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools.New York: Longman.
38.
RossJ., HannayL., & BrydgesB. (1998). District-level support for site-based renewal: A case study of secondary school reform.Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44(4), 349–365.
39.
SnipesJ., DoolittleF., & HerlihyC. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement.New York: MDRC for the Council of the Great City Schools.
40.
SnyderJ. (2002). New Haven Unified School District: A teaching quality system for excellence and equity. In HightowerA., KnappM. S., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 94–110). New York: Teachers College Press.
41.
SpillaneJ. (1996). Districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy.Educational Policy, 10, 63–87.
42.
SpillaneJ. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations.American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33–63.
43.
SpillaneJ. (2002). District policy making and state standards: A cognitive perspective on implementation. In HightowerA., KnappM. S., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 143–159). New York: Teachers College Press.
44.
SpillaneJ., & ThompsonC. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis19(2), 185–203.
45.
SteinM. K., & D'AmicoL. (2002). The district as a professional learning laboratory. In HightowerA., KnappM. S., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 61–75). New York: Teachers College Press.
46.
TogneriW., & AndersonS. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools.Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
47.
WallaceM. (1991). Flexible planning: A key to the management of multiple innovations.Educational Management and Administration, 19(3), 180–192.