Social science has provided poor guidance for educational policymakers interested in improving student performance. While education research is a large and active field of scholarship, much of the literature has concen trated on influences beyond the control of policymakers. This paper ex plores the influences of realistic policy options. Several policies are identified that meet the criteria of a positive relationship with student per formance and controllability by policymakers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Astin, A.1971. Predicting Academic Performance in College. New York: Free Press.
2.
Bridge, R. Gary, Charles Judd, and Peter Moock.1979. The Determinants of Educational Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
3.
Bryk, Anthony S., Valerie E. Lee, and Julia L. Smith.1990. "High School Organization and Its Effects on Teachers and Students: An Interpretive Summary of the Research." In William H. Clune and John F Witte, eds., Choice and Control in American Education . Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
4.
Celis, William.1993. "Uneven Progress in Decade of School Reform." New York Times, 28 April 1993, sec. A.
5.
Chira, Susan.1993. "Lessons of South Carolina: What Secretary May Try for U.S. Schools." New York Times, 24 March 1993 , sec. B.
6.
Chubb, John E., and Terry M. Moe.1990. Politics, Markets and America's Schools . Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
7.
Clune, William H., and John F. Witte, eds. 1990. Choice and Control in American Education, vols. 1 & 2. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
8.
Coleman, James S., et al. 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
9.
Council of State Governments.1985. The Recommendations of the National Commission on Excellence in Education: Reviewing the State Response. Washington, DC.
10.
Daft, Richard L., and Selwyn W. Becker .1980. "Managerial, Institutional and Technical Influences on Administration: A Longitudinal Analysis." Social Forces59: 392-413.
11.
Ferguson, Ronald F.1991. "Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters." Harvard Journal on Legislation, Summer.
12.
Friedkin, Noah E., and Juan Necochea.1988. "School Size and Performance: A Contingency Perspective ." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis10: 237-49.
13.
Galbraith, James K.1984. "The Debate about Industrial Policy." In Gar Alpervitz and Roger Skurski , eds., American Economic Policy: Problems and Prospects . Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
14.
Hanushek, Erik A.1981. "Throwing Money at Schools." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management1: 19-41.
15.
_ . 1986. "The Economics of Schooling: Participation and Performance ." Journal of Economic Literature24: 1141-77.
16.
Hanushek, Erik A., and Lori L. Taylor.1990. "Alternative Assessments of the Performance of Schools." Journal of Human Resources25: 179-201.
17.
Jencks. C., M. Smith, H. Avery, M.J. Bane, D. Coehn, J. Gintis, B. Heyns and S. Michelson.1972. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
18.
Lehnen, Robert G.1992. "Constructing State Education Performance Indicators from ACT and SAT Scores." Policy Studies Journal20: 22-40.
19.
Mazmanian, Daniel A., and Paul A. Sabatier .1989. Implementation and Public Policy with a New Postscript. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20.
McCubbins, M., R. Noll, and B. Weingast.1987. "Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control." Journal of Law, Economics and Organization3: 243-47.
21.
Meyer, Robert H.1992. "Education Reform: What Constitutes Valid Indicators of Educational Performance?" The LaFollette Policy Report 4 (2).
22.
Morgan, David R., and Sheilah S. Watson .1987. "Comparing Education Performance among the American States." State and Local Government Review19: 15-21.
23.
Murphy, Joseph, ed. 1990. "The Educational Reform Movement of the 1980s: A Comprehensive Analysis." In The Educational Reform Movement of the 1980s. Berkeley, CA : McCutchan.
24.
National Commission on Excellence in Education.1983. A Nation at Risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
25.
Peterson, Paul E.1990. "Monopoly and Competition in American Education ." In William H. Clune and John F. Witte, eds., Choice and Control in American Education . Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
26.
Powell, Arthur G., Eleanor Farrar, and David K. Cohen.1985. The Shopping Mall High School: Winners and Losers in the Educational Marketplace. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
27.
Powell, Brian, and Lala Carr Steelman.1984. "Variation in State SAT Performance: Meaningful or Misleading? " Harvard Educational Review61: 1066-71.
28.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.1992. Overview and Inventory of State Requirements for School Coursework and Attendance. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
Walberg, Herbert J., and Sue P Rasher1979. "Achievement in Fifty States." In Herbert J. Walberg, ed., Educational Environments and Effects . Berkeley, CA: McCutchan .
30.
Wainer, H.1986a. "Five Pitfalls Encountered While Trying to Compare States on Their SAT Scores." Journal of Educational Measurement23: 69-81.
31.
_ . 1986b. "The SAT as a Social Indicator: A Pretty Bad Idea." In H. Wainer, ed., Drawing Inferences from Self-selected Samples. New York: Springer.
32.
Weiss, Janet A.1990. "Control in School Organizations: Theoretical Perspectives ." In William H. Clune and John F. Witte, eds., Choice and Control in American Education. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
33.
Wise, A.1979. Legislated Learning: The Bureaucratization of the American Classroom. Berkeley: University of California Press.
