The Educational Reform Rating Rubric is an evaluation tool created to manage, organize, and integrate qualitative and quantitative data collected on school reform programs. The rubric is based on seven key indicators, including collective participation, principal leadership, teacher and instructional quality, parental involvement, student outcomes, project support, and school environment. The Educational Reform Rating Rubric holds promise for effectively and efficiently integrating the complex data that result from real-world school reform evaluations.
Bessell, A.G., M.C. Burke, O. Lee, A.E. Rivers, and J.S. Schumm.2004a. South Florida Annenberg Challenge summative report 2003. Unpublished. Annenberg Evaluation Team Report, University of Miami.
2.
---. 2004b. The power behind the principal: State of the art programs for training and maintaining school leaders. Unpublished. Annenberg Evaluation Team Report, University of Miami.
3.
Bessell, A.G., J.S. Schumm, and O. Lee.2003. Beyond standardized-test scores: Using case studies to evaluate a reform strategy. In Research perspectives on school reform: Lessons from the Annenberg Challenge, edited by W. Simmons and M. Grady , 117-32. Providence, RI: Brown University.
4.
Block, C.C., and J. Gasser.1996. Promoting teacher change to enhance comprehension for at-risk students. Paper presented at the 46th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC, November 29-December 2.
5.
Bushweller, K., and S.B. Zakariya.1997. Education vital signs 1997: What makes students succeed? American School Board Journal 184 (12): A1-A31.
6.
Castambis, S.1998. Expanding the knowledge of parental involvement in secondary education: Effects on high school academic success. Baltimore : Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
7.
Caton, J.J., and S.P. Krchinak.1991. What makes school-business partnerships successful? Business Education Forum45 (1): 3-6.
8.
Christner, C.1990. Priority schools: The third year. Effective school standards report 1989-1990. Austin, TX: Office of Research and Evaluation, Austin Independent School District.
9.
Easterling, D.1996. Creating the link between institutional effectiveness and assessment. Paper presented at the 101st annual meeting of the North Central Association, Chicago, March 23-26.
10.
Epstein, J.L.1995. Effects on students of an interdisciplinary program linking social studies, arts, and family volunteers in the middle grades. Journal of Early Adolescence15:114-44.
11.
Heck, R.H.1993. School characteristics, school academic indicators and student outcomes: Implications for policies to improve schools. Journal of Education Policy8 (2): 143-54.
12.
Hess, G.A.1999. Understanding achievement (and other) changes under Chicago school reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis21:67-83.
13.
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., and K.P. Jones.1997. Parental role construction and parental involvement in children's education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, March 24-28.
14.
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., and H.M. Sandler.1997. Why do parents become involved in their child's education? Review of Educational Research67 (1): 3-42.
15.
Kahne, J., and K. Bailey.1999. The role of social capital in youth development: The case of "I have a dream" programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis21:321-43.
16.
King, B., and C.T. Kerchner.1991. Defining principal leadership in an era of teacher empowerment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 3-7.
17.
Lambert, E., and R. Himsl.1993. Signs of learning in an affective domain . Edmonton, CA: Alberta Department of Education.
18.
Lankard, B.A.1995. Business/education partnerships (ERIC Digest no.156) . Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education.
19.
Lydeen, J.1991. The educator's role in successful business partnerships . Business Education Forum45 (1): 10-11.
20.
Muraski, E.1995. Core indicators of effectiveness and student success . Project description. Porterville College, CA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED384 365).
21.
O'Brien, E., and M. Rollefson.1995. Extracurricular participation and student engagement. Education policy issues: Statistical perspectives. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics .
22.
Porter, A.C.1991. Creating a system of school process indicators . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis13 (1): 13-29.
23.
Rymhs, R.1993. Effective teaching does make a difference. Alberta Journal of Educational Research39 (2): 191-203.
24.
Short, P.M.1994. School empowerment through self-managing teams: Leader behavior in developing self-managing work groups in schools. Education114:493-503.
25.
U.S. Department of Education.2001. No Child Left Behind Act. http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml (accessed October 25, 2005).
26.
Wheling, R.L.1997. Building bridges: How to make business-education partnerships work. In Common schools, uncommon futures: A working consensus for school renewal, edited by K. S. Kogan , 132-38. New York: Columbia University.
27.
Wong, K., and S.J. Meyer.1998. Title I schoolwide programs: A synthesis of findings from recent evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis20 (2): 115-36.
