Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 197–202 | Cite as

Does the school improvement “industry” (organizations providing schools and governing agencies with information, training, materials, and programmatic resources relevant to instructional improvement problems) help or prevent deep and sound change?

  • Brian RowanEmail author
Big change question

Like all big questions, the question of whether or not the school improvement industry promotes or impedes deep and sound change in education requires a complex answer. One reason this is the case is that the “industry” is not a monolithic entity. Rather, it is composed of many different types of organizations, each of which sells (or disseminates) different mixes of products and services germane to school improvement. As discussed in a paper published earlier in this journal (Rowan 2002), organizations in the school improvement industry range from contracted providers of direct instructional services (e.g., charter school management firms; supplemental instructional service providers), to textbook and test publishers providing materials basic to instruction, to staff development providers who attempt to improve teachers’ knowledge and practice, to various research and development organizations, advocacy groups, and professional and trade associations that seek to provide direction to...


Education Reform Educational Change Charter School Positive Force Sound Change 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Altbach, P. G., Kelly, G. P., Petrie, H. G., & Weis, L. (Eds.) (1991). Textbooks in American society: Politics, policy, and purpose. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. (Eds.) (2002). Facing the challenges of whole school reform: New American schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  3. Borman, G., Hewes, G., Overman, L., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chubb, J. E. (2003). Ignoring the market. Education Next, 3, 81–83.Google Scholar
  5. Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 298–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dooley, M. C. (1960). The relationship between arithmetic research and the content of arithmetic textbooks: 1900–1957. The Arithmetic Teacher, 7, 25–35.Google Scholar
  7. Fitz, J., & Beers, B. (2002). Education management organisations and the privatisation of public education: A cross-national comparison of the USA and Britain. Comparative Education, 38, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heyneman, S. P., Farrell, J., & Sepulveda-Stuardo, M. (1978). Textbooks and achievement: What we know. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  9. Johnsen, E. (2001). Textbooks in the kaleidoscope: A critical survey of literature and research on educational texts (trans: Sivesind, L.). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  10. Rowan, B. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Wells, A. S. (2002). Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and equity. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Social ResearchUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations