AlkinM., and DaillackR.1979. “A Study of Evaluation Utilization,”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1: 41–49.
2.
Chicago Board of Education.1991. System-wide Educational Reform Goals and Objectives Plan, 1991–1993. Chicago.
3.
Chicago Board of Education.1992. CPS Systemwide Educational Reform Goals and Objectives Plan, 1992–1994 (draft submitted to Chicago School Finance Authority). Chicago.
4.
CrandallD.1986. “Strategic Planning Issues That Bear on the Success of School Improvement Efforts,”Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(3): 22.
5.
DayM., EisnerE., StakeR., WilsonB., and WilsonM.1984. Art History, Art Criticism, Art Production: An Examination of Art in Selected School Districts.Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
6.
DenzinN. K.1970. The Research Act.Chicago: Aldine.
7.
EastonJ. Q., BrykA. S., DriscollM. E., KotsakisJ. G., SebringP. A., van der PloegA. J.1991. Charting Reform: The Teacher's Turn.Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research, reprinted in Catalyst, III(1): September, 1991.
8.
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.
9.
HessG. A.Jr.1991. School Restructuring, Chicago Style.Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
10.
HessG. A.Jr.1992. “Midway through School Reform in Chicago,”International Journal of Educational Reform, 1(3): 270–284.
11.
McDonaldB., JenkinsD., KemmisS., and TawneyD.1975. The Programme at Two.Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.
12.
NowakowskiJ.1988. Evaluation Summary: Wisconsin Rural Reading Improvement Project.Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
13.
NowakowskiJ., StewartM., and QuinnD. W.1992. Monitoring Implementation of the Chicago Public Schools’ Systemwide School Reform Goals and Objectives Plan.Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
14.
O'ConnellM.1991. School Reform Chicago Style: How Citizens Organized to Change Public Policy.Chicago: Center for Neighborhood Technology.
15.
ParlettM., and HamiltonD1976. “Evaluation as Illumination: A New Approach to the Study of Innovatory Programmes,” in Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 1, GlassG. V., ed., Beverly Hills: SAGE.
16.
SmithM. S., and O'DayJ.1990. “Systemic School Reform,”Politics of Education Association Yearbook.New York: Falmer Press.
17.
StakeR., BresslerL., and MabryL.1991. Custom and Cherishing: The Arts in the Elementary Schools.Urbana: University of Illinois, Council for Research in Music Education.
18.
StakeR., and EasleyJ., eds. 1977. Case Studies in Science Education.Urbana: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois.
19.
StakeR., RathsJ., DennyT., StenzelN., and HokeG.1986. Final Report: Evaluation Study of the Indiana Gifted and Talented Program.Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for Instructional Research and Evaluation.