Power to the Principals: Decentralization in Three Large School Districts

References

• Beck L., Murphy J.The Four Imperatives of a Successful School (1996) (Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
• Blau P. M., Schoenherr R.The Structure of Organizations (1971) (Basic Books, New York) Google Scholar
• Bryk A. S., Sebring P. Bender, Kerbow D., Rollow S., Easton J. Q.Charting Chicago School Reform: Democratic Localism as a Lever for Chang (1998) (Westview, Boulder, CO) Google Scholar
• Chandler A. D.The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (1977) (Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Chapman R. Decentralization: Another perspective. Comparative Ed. (1973) 9(Oct):127–134Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chubb J. E., Moe T. M.Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools (1990) (The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C) Google Scholar
• Cooper B. S. Making money matter in education: A micro-financial model for determining school-level allocations, efficiency, and productivity. J. Ed. Finance (1994) 20(Summer):66–87Google Scholar
• Corcoran T., Christman J. B. The limits and contradictions of reform: The Philadelphia story. (2002) . Report, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia, PA (Nov)Google Scholar
• Ferris J. M. School-based decision making: A principal-agent perspective. Ed. Evaluation Policy Anal. (1992) 14(4):333–346Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske E. B., Ladd H. F.When Schools Compete: A Cautionary Tale (2000) (Brookings, Washington, D.C.) Google Scholar
• Goertz M. E., Hess G. A. Processes and power in school budgeting across four large urban school districts. J. Ed. Finance (1998) 23(4):490–506Google Scholar
• Greene J. P. High school graduation rates in the United States. (2001) . Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, New York (Nov)Google Scholar
• Hannaway J., Hannaway J., Carnoy M. Decentralization in two school districts: Challenging the standard paradigm. Decentralization and School Improvement (1993) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) 135–162Google Scholar
• Hannaway J., Hanushek E. A., Jorgenson D. W. Management decentralization and performance-based incentives: Theoretical considerations for schools. Improving America’s Schools: The Role of Incentives (1996) (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.) 97–109Google Scholar
• Harris L. (2004) . Report on the status of public school education in California 2004: With special emphasis on the status of equality in public school education. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA, 7–9Google Scholar
• Honig M. The view from the edge: The progress of Oakland unified school district’s central office in the implementation of site-based decision-making and new small autonomous schools. (2003) . College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 26Google Scholar
• Honig M. I. District central office-community partnerships: From contracts to collaboration to control. Educational Administration, Policy, and Reform: Research and Measurement (2004) (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT) 59–90Google Scholar
• Joyce B., Calhoun E.Learning Experiences in School Renewal: An Exploration of Five Successful Programs(ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene, OR) Google Scholar
• Malen B. Enacting site-based management: A political utilities analysis. Ed. Evaluation Political Anal. (1994) 16(3):249–267Crossref, Google Scholar
• March J. G., Simon H. A.Organizations (1958) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• McAdams D. R.Fighting to Save Our Urban Schools…and Winning! (2000) (Teachers College, New York) Google Scholar
• McNeil L. M.Contradictions of Control: School Structure and School Knowledge (1999) (Routledge, New York) 234Google Scholar
• McNeil L. M.Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing (2000) (Routledge, New York) 304Google Scholar
• Miles K. Hawley, Roza M. Understanding student-based budgeting as a means to greater school resource equity. (2004) . Working paperGoogle Scholar
• Miles K. Hawley, Roza M., Ware K. Leveling the playing field: Creating funding equity through student-based budgeting. Phi Delta Kappan (2003) 85(2):114–119Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mohrman S. A., Wohlstetter P.School-Based Management: Organizing for High Performance (1994) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) Google Scholar
• Oakes J., Hunter Quartz K., Ryan S., Lipton M.Becoming Good American Schools: The Struggle for Civic Virtue in Education Reform (2000) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) 385Google Scholar
• O’Day J. A. Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Ed. Rev. (2002) 72(3):1–31Google Scholar
• Odden A., Busch C.Financing Schools for High Performance (1998) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) Google Scholar
• Ouchi W. G., Segal L. G.Making Schools Work: A Revolutionary Plan to Get Your Children the Education They Need (2003) (Simon and Schuster, New York) Google Scholar
• Petko Mike. Weighted Student Formula (WSF): What is it and How Does it Impact Educational Programs in Large Urban Districts? (2005) (National Education Association, Washington, D.C.) Google Scholar
• Ravitch D.The Great School Wars: A History of the New York City Public Schools (1974) (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD) Google Scholar
• Roza M., Hill P., Ravitch D. How within district spending inequities help some schools to fail. Brookings Papers on Education Policy (2004) (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seattle Public SchoolsBudget Allocations to the Seattle Schools for the 2001–2002 School Year (2001) (Seattle Public Schools, Seattle, WA) Google Scholar
• Segal L.Battling Corruption in America’s Public Schools (2004) (Northeastern University Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Sizer T. R.Horace’s School: Redesigning the American High School (1992) (Houghton Mifflin, New York) Google Scholar
• Snipes J., Doolittle F., Herlihy C. Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. (2002) . Report, Council of the Great City Schools, Washington, D.C. (Sep)Google Scholar
• Stanford J.Victory In Our Schools (1999) (Bantam, New York) Google Scholar
• State of Hawaii Twenty-Second Legislature. Act 51 (2004) May):84Google Scholar
• Stein M. K., Hubbard L., Mehan H. Reform ideas that travel far afield: The two cultures of reform in New York City’s district #2 and San Diego. J. Ed. Change (2004) 5:161–197Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strembitsky M. A. Accountability: Perception versus reality. School Bus. Affairs (1997) 63(11):3–5Google Scholar
• Terrien F. C., Mills D. C. The effects of changing size upon the internal structure of an organization. Amer. Soc. Rev. (1955) 20(Feb):11–13Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tucker M. S., Codding J. B.Standards for Our Schools (1998) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) Google Scholar
• Tyack D., Cuban L.Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform (1995) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Van Langen A., Dekkers H. Decentralization and combating educational exclusion. Comparative Ed. (2001) 37(3):367–384Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walberg H. J., Paik S. J., Komukai A., Freeman K. Decentralization: An international perspective. Ed. Horizons (2000) 78(3):153–164Google Scholar
• Washington State House of Representatives Report of an evaluation of the Seattle public schools. (1990) . Washington State (Nov)Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E.Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (1975) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E., Ouchi W. G., Van de Ven A. H., Joyce W. E. The markets and hierarchies and visible hand perspectives. Perspectives on Organization Design and Behavior (1981) (Wiley, New York) 347–370Google Scholar
• Wohlstetter P., Van Kirk A., Robertson P. J., Mohrman S. A.Successful School-Based Management: A Report with Cases (1997) (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA) Google Scholar
• Young B. Aronstamm. Characteristics of the 100 largest public elementary and secondary school districts in the United States: 2000–01. (2002) . National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar