AndreoliT.1990. “Councils Stick with Insiders in Picking New Principals,”Catalyst, 1(4): 12–14, 16.
2.
BrookoverW. B., and LezotteL. W.1979. Changes in School Characteristics Coincident with Changes in Student Achievement.East Lansing: Michigan State University.
3.
Chicago Panel. 1988. “Illegal Use of State Chapter I Funds,” unpublished paper distributed by the Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance, Chicago.
4.
Chicago Panel. 1989. “Interim Board of Education Completes 4 of 5 ‘Miracles,’”Panel Update: Newsletter of the Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance, VI(3): 1, 4.
5.
Chicago Panel. 1990. “Needed: A New Spirit,”Panel Update: Newsletter of the Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance, VI(4): 1, 4.
6.
Chicago Panel. 1990. “Board's Budget Balanced by Smoke and Mirrors,”Panel Update: Newsletter of the Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance, VII(2): 3–6.
7.
Chicago Panel. 1991. “Board Passes a Wishful Budget,”Panel Update: Newsletter of the Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance, VII(5): 1, 4.
8.
Chicago Panel. 1991. “Board's Fiscal Mismanagement Undermines Long-Term Success,”Panel Update: Newsletter of the Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance, VIII(1): 1, 4–6, 10.
9.
Chicago Public Schools.1991. High School Dropout Profile: A Trend Report on the Garduating Classes of 1982–1990.Chicago: Chicago Public Schools.
10.
Chicago Sun Times. June 30, 1991. “Senate Kills Bid to Sap Chapter I Funds,” p. 58.
11.
Chicago Sun Times. September 1, 1991. “Board cuts it close-schools will open,” p. 1.
12.
Chicago Sun Times. September 11, 1991. “With Teachers Laid Off, Some Students Are Idle,” Sec. Metro, p. 3.
13.
Chicago Sun Times. September 12, 1991. “Edgar Signs 2 School Council Bills,” p. 32.
14.
Chicago Sun Times. November 18, 1991. “School Groups Fear Cuts Next Year,” p. 5.
15.
Chicago Tribune. July 27, 1989. “Teachers Union OKs Contract,” Sec. 1, p. 1.
16.
Chicago Tribune. August 15, 1990. “‘Fuzzy’ School Plan Rejected,” Sec. 2, pp. 1, 8.
17.
Chicago Tribune. December 1, 1990. “City School Reform Plan Is Ruled Illegal,” Sec. 1, pp. 1, 6.
18.
Chicago Tribune. January 9, 1991. “Legislators Patch School Reform,” Sec. 1, p. 1.
19.
Chicago Tribune. May 2, 1991. “Kimbrough Reads the Riot Act, but Daley, Legislators Doubt Need for Big School Cuts,” Sec. 1, p. 4.
20.
Chicago Tribune. June 25, 1991. “Reformers Say Schools Deficit Is Overestimate,” Sec. 2, p. 1.
21.
Chicago Tribune. September 23, 1991. “300 School Custodian and Clerical Jobs Restored to Avoid Court Fight,” Sec. 2, p. 3.
22.
Designs for Change.1991. The Untold Story: Candidate Participation in the 1991 Chicago Local School Council Elections, Author, Chicago; reported in Catalyst, III, 3:47, “Updates: Fewer LSC Candidates, but Better Than Suburbs.”
23.
EastonJ. Q.1989. Teacher Attitudes Toward School Reform.Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance.
24.
EastonJ. Q., BrykA. S., DriscollM. E., KotsakisJ. G., SebringP. A., and van der PloegA. J.1991. Charting Reform: The Teachers’ Turn, Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research, reprinted in Catalyst, III(1): September, 1991.
25.
EastonJ. Q., FlinspachS. L., FordD. J., QuailsJ., RyanS. P., and StoreyS. L.1991. Decision Making and School Improvement: LSCs in the First Two Years of Reform, Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance.
26.
EastonJ. Q., and StoreyS. L.1990. Local School Council Meetings during the First Year of Chicago School Reform, Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance.
27.
EdmondsR. R.1979. “Effective Schools for the Urban Poor,”Educational Leadership, 37: 15–18.
28.
EtheridgeC. P., and CollinsT. W. Forthcoming. “Conflict in Restructuring the Principal-Teacher Relationship in Memphis,” in Empowering Teachers and Parents: School Restructuring through the Eyes of Anthropologists, Alfred HessG.Jr., ed., New York: Bergin & Garvey.
29.
FordD. J.1991. The School Principal and Chicago School Reform: Principals’ Early Perceptions of Reform Initiatives.Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance.
30.
HansonM.K., MorrisD. R., and CollinsR. A. Forthcoming. “Empowerment of Teachers in Dade County's School-Based Management Pilot,” in Empowering Teachers and Parents: School Restructuring through the Eyes of Anthropologists, HessG. A.Jr., ed., New York: Bergin & Garvey.
31.
HessG. A.Jr.1991a. School Restructuring, Chicago Style.Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
32.
HessG. A.Jr.1991b. “The Reallocation of Funds under the Chicago School Reform Act,” an unpublished paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
33.
HessG. A.Jr., ed. Forthcoming, 1992. Empowering Teachers and Parents, School Restructuring through the Eyes of Anthropologists.New York: Bergin & Garvey.
34.
HessG. A.Jr., LyonsA., and CorsinoL1989. Against the Odds: The Early Identification of Dropouts.Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance.
35.
MunceyD. E., and McQuillanP. J. Forthcoming. “The Dangers of Assuming a Consensus for Change: Some Examples from the Coalition of Essential Schools,” in Empowering Teachers and Parents: School Restructuring through the Eyes of Anthropologists, HessG. A.Jr., ed., New York: Bergin & Garvey.
36.
OakesJ.1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37.
O'DowdS.1991. “Newcomers Dominate New Local School Councils,”Catalyst, III(4): 18f.
38.
PurkeyS. C., and SmithM. S.1983. “Effective Schools: A Review,”The Elementary School Journal, 81(1): 426–452.
39.
RaudenbuschS. W., and BrykA. S.1986. “A Hierarchical Model for Studying School Effects,”Sociology of Education, 59: 1–17.
40.
RosenbaumJ. E.1980. “Social Implications of Educational Grouping,” in Review of Research in Education, BerlinerD. C., ed., Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 8: 361–401.
41.
SlavinR. E.1988. “Synthesis of Research on Grouping in Elementary Schools,”Educational Leadership, 46(1): 67–74.