Sand, Bricks, and Seeds: School Change Strategies and Readiness for Reform

  • Robert E. Slavin

Abstract

In this chapter Robert Slavin argues against a prevailing orthodoxy by maintaining that differences between schools in terms of “effectiveness” are less important than what and how a school teaches. Slavin contends that there are fewer highly effective, in his terms “seed” schools than others suppose, and by the same token a similary fewer number of “sand” or highly ineffective schools. Most schools he claims are “brick” schools, in so far as they are amenable to reform by the introduction of prepared curriculum and instructional packages. In a similar vein Slavin argues that of the three main types of innovation — organisation development, single curricular innovations or comprehensive reform models — it is only the latter that holds any promise for positively affecting student achievement in a majority of schools. Slavin concludes by proposing a series of policy implications that involve the funding and implementation of well-specified (“brick”) models of school improvement.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler, M. J. (1982). The Paideia proposal: An educational manifesto. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Bodilly, S.J., Purnell, S., Ramsey, K., & Keith, S. (1996). Lessons from New American Schools Development Corporation’s development phase. Washington, DC: RAND.Google Scholar
  3. Clay, M. M (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  4. Comer, J. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, 259, 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Commission on Chapter 1. (1992). Making schools work for children in poverty. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  6. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1–26.Google Scholar
  7. Fashola, O. S., & Slavin, R. E. (1996). Effective and replicable programs for students placed at risk in elementary and middle schools. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.Google Scholar
  8. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Goodlad, J. I. (1993). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Hargreaves, D. H. (1990). Accountability and school improvement in the work of LEA inspectorates: The rhetoric and beyond. Journal of Education Policy, 5(3), 230–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hill, P. (1996). Early Literacy Research Project (ELRP): Project brief. Melbourne, Australia: University of MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  12. Hirsch, E. D. (1993). The Core Knowledge curriculum: What’s behind its success? Educational Leadership, 50(8), 23–30.Google Scholar
  13. Hopfenberg, W. S., & Levin, H. M. (1993). The Accelerated Schools resource guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Hopkins, D. (1994). Towards a theory for school improvement. In J. Gray et al. (Eds.), Merging traditions. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  15. Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M., & West, M. (1994). School improvement in an era of change. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  16. Kilgore, S., Doyle, D., & Linkowsky, L. (1996). The Modern red schoolhouse. In S. Stringfield, S., Ross, & L. Smith (Eds.), Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools Development Corporation designs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Levin, H. M. (1987). Accelerated schools for disadvantaged students. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 19–21.Google Scholar
  18. Levine, D., & Lezotte, L. (1990). Unusually effective schools. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development.Google Scholar
  19. Meier, D. (1995). How our schools could be. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(5), 369–373.Google Scholar
  20. Mentzer, D., & Shaughnessy, G. (1996). Hawthorne elementary school: The teachers’ perspective. Journal of Education of Students Placed at Risk, 1(1) 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muncey, D. E., & McQuillan, P. J. (1993). Preliminary findings from a five-year study of the Coalition of Essential Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 486–489.Google Scholar
  22. Newmann, F. M., et al. (1996). School restructuring and student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Newmann, F. M. & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.Google Scholar
  24. Orell, C. (1996). ATLAS Communities: Authentic teaching, learning, and assessment for all students. In S. Stringfield, S. Ross, & L. Smith (Eds.), Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools Development Corporation designs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Pinnell, G. S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. Elementary School Journal, 90, 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prestine, N. A. (1993). Feelings the ripples, riding the waves: Making an Essential School. In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Restructuring Schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  27. Puma, M. J., Jones, C. C, Rock, D., & Fernandez, R. (1993). Prospects: The congressionally mandated study of educational growth and opportunity. Interim report. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Rothman, R. (1996). Reform at all levels: National Alliance for Restructuring Education. In S. Stringfield, S., Ross, & L. Smith (Eds.), Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools Development Corporation designs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Slavin, R. E. (1994). School and classroom organization in beginning reading: Class size, aides, and instructional grouping. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, B. A. Wasik, & N. A. Madden (Eds.), Preventing early school failure: Research on effective strategies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  30. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Design competitions: A proposal for a new federal role in educational research and development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.Google Scholar
  31. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. X, & Wasik, B. A. (1996a). Every child, every school: Success for All. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  32. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. X, Wasik, B. A., Ross, S., Smith, L. & Dianda, M. (1996b). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1, 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sizer, T. (1992). Horace’s school. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, M., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233–267). Bristol, PA: Falmer.Google Scholar
  35. Stapleford, T. A. (1994, April). The power of coalition: A comparative study of two school reform projects. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  36. Stringfield, S. (1995). Fourth year evaluation of the Calvert School program at Barclay School. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.Google Scholar
  37. Stringfield, S., & Herman, B. (1994). Observation of partial implementations of the Coalition of Essential Schools: The need for higher reliability organizational methods. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.Google Scholar
  38. Stringfield, S, & Herman, B. (1995, April). The effects of promising programs on students: Results from the special strategies study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  39. Stringfield, S., Herman, R., Millsap, M., & Scott, E. (1996, April). The three year effects of ten “Promising Programs” on the academic achievements of students placed at risk. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Teddlie, C, & Stringfield, S. (1993). School matters: Lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert E. Slavin
    • 1
  1. 1.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations