“Effective for What; Effective for Whom?” Two Questions SESI Should Not Ignore

  • Ira Bogotch
  • Luis Mirón
  • Gert Biesta
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 17)


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bettelheim, B. (1969). The Children of the dream. Macmillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  2. Biesta, G. J. J. (1994). Education as practical intersubjectivity. Towards a critical-pragmatic understanding of education. Educational Theory, 44(3), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biesta, G. J. J. (1995). Pragmatism as a pedagogy of communicative action. In J. Garrison (Ed.), The new scholarship on John Dewey (pp. 105–122). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Biesta, G. J. J. (1998). Mead, intersubjectivity, and education: The early writings. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 17, 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biesta, G. J. J. (1999). Redefining the subject, redefining the social, reconsidering education: George Herbert Mead’s course on Philosophy of Education at the University of Chicago. Educational Theory, 49(4), 475–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biesta, G. J. J. (2004). Education, accountability and the ethical demand. Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained? Educational Theory, 54(3), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biesta, G. J. J. (2005). George Herbert Mead and the theory of schooling. In D. Troehler, & J. Oelkers (Eds.), Pragmatism and education (pp. 117–132). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). “ ‘Of all affairs, communication is the most wonderful.’ Education as communicative praxis.” In D. T. Hansen (Ed.), John Dewey and our educational prospect. A critical engagement with Dewey’s democracy and education (pp. 23–37). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  9. Biesta, G. J. J., & Burbules, N. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  10. Bodilly, S. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools’ scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple schools. Rand: Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Bogotch, I. (1997). Private conversations: Listening for leadership in real schools. International Journal of Educational Reform, 6(3), 274–283.Google Scholar
  12. Bogotch, I., & Roy, C. (1997). The context of partial truths: An analysis of principal’s discourse. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(3), 234–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bogotch, I., & Taylor, D. (1993). Discretionary assessment practices: Professional judgments and principal’s actions. The Urban Review, 25(4), 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carr, D. (1992). Practical enquiry, values and the problem of educational theory. Oxford Review of Education, 18(3), 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coe, R., & Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1998). School effectiveness research: Criticisms and recommendations. Oxford Review of Education, 24(4), 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coleman, J. [and others] (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education: The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govt. Printing Office.Google Scholar
  17. Dahl, R., & Lindblom, C. (1953). Politics, economics and welfare. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  18. de Jong, R., Westerhof, K. J., & Kruiter, J. H. (2004). Empirical evidence of a comprehensive model of school effectiveness: A multilevel study in mathematics in the 1st year of junior general education in the Netherlands. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denzin, N. (2003). Performance ethnography: Critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15–24.Google Scholar
  21. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Towards an activity-theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fine, M. (1994). Distance and other stances. Negotiations of power inside feminist research. In Andrew Gitlin (Ed.), Power and method. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Fine, M. (2005). Contesting research: Rearticulation and “thick democracy” as political projects of method. In Greg Dimitriadis, Cameron McCarthy, & Lois Weis (Eds.), Ideology, curriculum, and the new sociology of education: Revisiting the work of Michael Apple. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Fine, M., Tuck, J., & Zeller-Berkman, S. (2006). Methods and ethics at the global local nexus. Paper presented at the second meeting of the International Congress on Qualitative Inquiry. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  25. Fine, M., & Vanderslice, V. (1992). Reflections on qualitative activist research: Politics and methods. In E. Posavac (Ed.), Methodological issues in applied social psychology. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  26. Finn, Jr., C. (1990). The biggest reform of all. Phi Delta Kappen, 71, 584–592.Google Scholar
  27. Finn, Jr., C., & Walberg, H. (Eds.). (1994). Radical educational reforms. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
  28. Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744–752.Google Scholar
  29. Gray, J. (2004). School effectiveness and the “other outcomes” of secondary schooling: A reassessment of three decades of British research. Improving Schools, 2, 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heritage, M., & Yeagley, R. (2005). Data use and school improvement. In J. Herman, & E. Haertel (Eds. ), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement. The 104th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2. (pp. 320–339). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Holly, P. (1986). Soaring like turkeys – the impossible dream? School organization, 6(3), 346–364.Google Scholar
  32. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Luyten, H., Visscher, A., & Witziers, B. (2005). School effectiveness research: From a review of the criticism to recommendations for further development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(3), 249–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mirón, L. (2005). Performance and performativity: New directions for ethnography or just another word game? Paper presented to the Bureau of Educational Research. College of Education. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, October 2005.Google Scholar
  35. Mirón, L. (in press). Multiple racial subjects: Transnational, national, and indigenous peoples: Beyond categorization. In N. Denzin (Ed.), Handbook of critical methodologies. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Mortimer, P. (2001). Globalization, effectiveness and improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(2), 229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mujis, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas – A review of research evidence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), 149–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reynolds, D., & Teddlie, C. (2001). Reflections on the critics, and beyond them. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(1), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roman, L., & Apple, M. (1990). Is naturalism a move away from positivism? In Elliot Eisner, & Alan Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rutter, M., & Maugham, B. (2002). School effectiveness findings 1979–2002. Journal of School Psychology, 40(6), 451–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2004). Schools as learning organisations – effects on teacher leadership and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(3–4), 443–466.Google Scholar
  42. Taylor, F. (1911/1967). The principles of scientific management. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  43. Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2001). Countering the critics: Responses to recent criticisms of school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(1), 41–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  45. Thrupp, M. (2001). Sociological and political concerns about school effectiveness research: Time for a new research agenda. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(1), 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Townsend, T. (2001). Satan or savior? An analysis of two decades of school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(1), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31, 453–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Usher, R., & Edwards, R. (1996). Postmodernism and education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Vanderstraeten, R., & Biesta, G. J. J. (2001). How is education possible? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 33(1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vanderstraeten, R., & Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). How is education possible? A pragmatist account of communication and the social organisation of education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(2), 160–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walford, G. (2002). Redefining school effectiveness. Westminster Studies in Education, 25(1), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Wonycott, A., & Bogotch, I. (1997). Reculturing: Assumptions, beliefs, and values underlying the processes of restructuring. Journal of School Leadership, 7(1), 27–49.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ira Bogotch
  • Luis Mirón
  • Gert Biesta

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations