Educational Reform, Standards, and School Leadership

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Educational Leadership book series (SIEL, volume 16)

Abstract

Education reform is not a new phenomenon. Every society, from the early classical period to the current modern era, has debated the importance of different types of contents and experiences that lead to an educated and well-adjusted child. It is impossible to do justice to this wide range of human history within this book. This introductory chapter merely attempts to capture some of the most salient changes that have influenced educational reform since the introduction of compulsory schooling, particularly as they relate to the genesis of educational standards and its corresponding influence on school leadership.

Keywords

Transformational Leadership School Leader School Administrator Policy Context School Improvement 
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.

References

  1. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32–38.Google Scholar
  2. Barber, M. (2004). The virtue of accountability: System redesign, inspection, and incentives in the era of informed professionalism. Journal of Education, 185(1), 7–38.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, S. O., Hornung, E., & Woessmann, L. (2010). Being the educational world leader helped Prussia catch up in the Industrial Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/5006. Accessed 28 Feb 2012.Google Scholar
  4. Center on Education Policy. (2006, March). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/. Accessed 28 Feb 2012.Google Scholar
  5. Certo, J. L., Cauley, K. M., Moxley, K. D., & Chafin, C. (2008). An argument for authenticity: Adolescents’ perspectives on standards-based reform. High School Journal, 91(4), 26–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, S., Reiss, M., & Stobart, G. (2010). What happens when high-stakes testing stops? Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of compulsory national testing in science of 11-year-olds in England and its abolition in Wales. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 17(3), 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Croft, M., & Waltman, K. (2005, April). The impact of school-level accountability on local test preparation practices. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Quebec.Google Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Earl, L., & Torrance, N. (2000). Embedding accountability and improvement into large-scale assessment: What difference does it make? Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 114–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eurydice. (2009). National testing of pupils in Europe: Objectives, organisation and use of results. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual & Cultural Executive Agency. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/109EN.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2012.Google Scholar
  11. Gipps, C. V. (2003, April). Educational accountability in England: The role of assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  12. Grogan, M. (2004). Keeping an critical, postmodern eye on educational leadership in the United States: In appreciation of Bill Foster. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(2), 222–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gunter, H. (2001). Critical approaches to leadership in education. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), 94–108.Google Scholar
  14. Gupton, S. L. (2003). The instructional leadership toolbox: A handbook for improving practice. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  15. Hamilton, L. S., Stetcher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J., Nafftel, S., & Barney, H. (2007). Standards-based accountability under no child left behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  16. Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of learning. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Heck, D., Banilower, E. R., Weiss, I. R., & Rosenberg, S. L. (2008). Studying the effects of professional development: The case of the NSF’s local systematic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 39(2), 113–152.Google Scholar
  18. Herman, J. L. (1997). Large-scale assessment in support of school reform: Lessons in the search for alternative measures. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation.Google Scholar
  19. Hursh, D. (2005). Neo-liberalism, markets, and accountability: Transforming education and undermining education in the United States and England. Policy Futures in Education, 3(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kornhaber, M. L. (2004). Appropriate and inappropriate forms of testing, assessment, and accountability. Educational Policy, 18(1), 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kruger, L., Wandle, C., & Stuzziero, J. (2007). Coping with the stress of high stakes testing. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23(2), 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leithwood, K. (1992). Transformational leadership: Where does it stand? Education Digest, 58(3), 17–20.Google Scholar
  23. Leithwood, K., Steinback, R., & Jantzi, D. (2000, April). Identifying and explaining the consequences for schools of external accountability initiatives or “What in the world did you think I was doing before you came along?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  24. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nichols, S. L. (2007). High-stakes testing: Does it increase achievement? Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23(2), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Phelps, R. P. (2006). Characteristics of an effective student testing system. Educational Horizons, 85(1), 19–29.Google Scholar
  28. Robinson, V. M. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 9(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roderick, M., & Nagaoka, J. (2005). Retention under Chicago’s high-stakes testing program: Helpful, harmful, or harmless? Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 27(4), 309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roderick, M., Jacob, B. A., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sandholtz, J. H., Ogawa, R. T., & Scribner, S. P. (2004). Standards gap: Unintended consequences of local standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1177–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scoppio, G. (2002). Common trends of standardization, accountability, devolution and choice in the educational policies on England, U.K., California, U.S.A., and Ontario, Canada. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 2(2), 130–141.Google Scholar
  33. Scott, C. (2007). Stakeholder perceptions of test impact. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 14(1), 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simner, M. L. (2000). A joint position statement by the Canadian Psychological Association and the Canadian Association of School Psychologist on the Canadian press coverage of the province-wide achievement test results. Retrieved from http://www.cpa.ca/documents/joint_position.html. Accessed 28 Feb 2012.Google Scholar
  35. Spillane, J. P., & Orlina, E. C. (2005). Investigating leadership practice: Exploring the entailments of taking a distributed perspective. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 4(3), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Valencia, R. R., & Villarreal, B. J. (2003). Improving students’ reading performance via standards-based reform: A critique. The Reading Teacher, 56(7), 612–621.Google Scholar
  37. Volante, L. (2007). Standards-based reform: Can we do better? Education Canada, 47(1), 54–56.Google Scholar
  38. Volante, L. (2008, August). Testing achievement. Education Today, 8, 22–23.Google Scholar
  39. Volante, L., Cherubini, L., & Drake, S. (2008). Examining factors that influence school administrators’ responses to large-scale assessment. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 84. Retrieved from http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/volante_etal.html. Accessed 28 Feb 2012.Google Scholar
  40. Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Whetton, C., Twist, E., & Sainsbury, M. (2000, April). National tests and target setting: Maintaining consistent standards. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  42. Young, M. D., & Skrla, L. (2003). Reconsidering feminist research in educational leadership. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ysseldyke, J., Dennison, A., & Nelson, R. (2004). Large-scale assessment and accountability systems: Positive consequences for students with disabilities. Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationBrock UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations