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?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also Dooley (1960) for a similar conclusion about textbook content in the United States during the 1950s.

References

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Rowan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rowan, B. 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?. J Educ Change 9, 197–202 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-007-9062-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Education Reform
  • Educational Change
  • Charter School
  • Positive Force
  • Sound Change