About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Education Research International
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 270404, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/270404
Research Article

Organizational Learning in Schools under Sanction

1Warner Graduate School of Education, University of Rochester, Dewey Hall 1-333, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
2Education Studies, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0070, USA
3College of Education, Alabama State University, Abernathy Hall 344, Montgomery, AL 36101, USA

Received 6 March 2012; Accepted 20 July 2012

Academic Editor: Alex W. H. Chan

Copyright © 2012 Kara S. Finnigan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. S. Stullich, E. Eisner, J. McCrary, and C. Roney, National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report, Volume I: Implementation of Title I, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
  2. D. J. Hoff, “Schools struggling to meet key goal on accountability,” Education Week, vol. 28, no. 16, 3 pages, 2009.
  3. U.S. Department of Education, Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference, Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
  4. Center on Education Policy, Beyond the Mountains: An Early Look at Restructuring Results in California, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  5. U.S. Department of Education, “LEA and school improvement: non regulatory-guidance (Revised),” Washington, DC, USA, 2006, http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolimprovementguid.doc.
  6. C. Bitter, M. Perez, T. Parrish, et al., Evaluation Study of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999, American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, Calif, USA, 2005.
  7. H. Mintrop and T. Trujillo, “Corrective action in low performing schools: lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 13, no. 48, pp. 1–27, 2005. View at Scopus
  8. J. O'Day and C. Bitter, Evaluation study of the Immediate Intervention/ Underperforming Schools Program and the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999, American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, Calif, USA, 2003.
  9. Center on Education Policy, Wrestling the Devil in the Details: An Early Look at Restructuring in California, Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
  10. Center on Education Policy, What Now? Lessons from Michigan about Restructuring Schools and Next Steps Under NCLB, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  11. L. M. Rhim, Restructuring Schools in Baltimore: An Analysis of State and District Efforts, Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colo, USA, 2004.
  12. L.M. Rhim, Restructuring Schools in Chester Upland, Pennsylvania: An Analysis of State Restructuring Efforts, Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colo, USA, 2005.
  13. K. Leithwood, D. Jantzi, and R. Steinbach, “An organisational learning perspective on school responses to central policy initiatives,” School Leadership and Management, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 229–252, 1995.
  14. C. Argyris and D. A. Schön, Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Mass, USA, 1996.
  15. G. P. Huber, “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures,” Organization Science, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 88–115, 1991.
  16. B. Levitt and J. G. March, “Organizational learning,” American Review of Sociology, vol. 14, pp. 319–340, 1988.
  17. J. March, “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning,” Organization Science, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 71–87, 1991.
  18. J. P. Scribner, K. S. Cockrell, D. H. Cockrell, and J. W. Valentine, “Creating professional communities in schools through organizational learning: an evaluation of a school improvement process,” Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 130–160, 1999. View at Scopus
  19. V. Collinson and T. F. Cook, Organizational Learning: Improving Learning, Teaching, and Leading in School Systems, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 2007.
  20. C. M. Fiol and M. A. Lyles, “Organizational learning,” The Academy of Management Review, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 803–813, 1985.
  21. L. Hubbard, H. Mehan, and M. K. Stein, Reform as Learning: School Reform, Organizational Culture, and Community Politics in San Diego, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2006.
  22. M. S. Knapp, “How can organizational and sociocultural learning theories shed light on district instructional reform?” American Journal of Education, vol. 114, no. 4, pp. 521–539, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. C. Argyris and D. Schön, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass, USA, 1978.
  24. M. Easterby-Smith, M. Crossan, and D. Nicolini, “Organizational learning: debates past, present and future,” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 783–796, 2000. View at Scopus
  25. L. Stoll, “Connecting learning communities: capacity building for systemic change,” in Second International Handbook of Educational Change, A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, and D. Hopkins, Eds., pp. 469–484, Springer International, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009.
  26. J. Supovitz, “Knowledge-based organizational learning for instructional improvement,” in Second International Handbook of Educational Change, A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, and D. Hopkins, Eds., pp. 707–723, Springer International, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009.
  27. J. Bransford, S. Mosberg, M. A. Copland, et al., “Adaptive people and adaptive systems: issues of learning and design,” in Second International Handbook of Educational Change, A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, and D. Hopkins, Eds., pp. 825–856, Springer International, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2009.
  28. H. M. Marks and K. S. Louis, “Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning,” Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 35, pp. 707–750, 1999. View at Scopus
  29. M. I. Honig, “District central offices as learning organizations: how sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators' participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts,” American Journal of Education, vol. 114, no. 4, pp. 627–664, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. J. A. O'Day, “Complexity, accountability, and school improvement,” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 293–329, 2002. View at Scopus
  31. V. Collinson, T. F. Cook, and S. Conley, “Organizational learning in schools and school systems: improving learning, teaching, and leading,” Theory into Practice, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 107–116, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. A. C. Costa, R. A. Roe, and T. C. B. Taillieu, “Trust implications for performance and effectiveness,” European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 225–244, 2001.
  33. M. Tschannen-Moran and W. K. Hoy, “A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 547–593, 2000. View at Scopus
  34. A. S. Bryk and B. Schneider, Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, USA, 2002.
  35. K. Leithwood, L. Leonard, and L. Sharratt, “Conditions fostering organizational learning in schools,” Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 243–276, 1998. View at Scopus
  36. K. M. Marks and S. M. Printy, “Organizational learning in high-stakes accountability environments: lessons from an urban school district,” in Theory and Research in Educational Administration, W. K. Hoy and C. G. Miskel, Eds., pp. 1–39, Information Age, Charlotte, NC, USA, 2002.
  37. J. Murphy, “Turning around failing organizations: insights for educational leaders,” Journal of Educational Change, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 157–176, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. J. Murphy and C. V. Meyers, Turning around Failing Schools: Lessons from the Organizational Sciences, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 2008.
  39. R. K. Yin, Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, Calif, USA, 3rd edition, 2003.
  40. M. Q. Patton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, Calif, USA, 2nd edition, 1990.
  41. H. Boeije, “A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews,” Quality and Quantity, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 391–409, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. B. G. Glaser and A. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1967.
  43. M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 2nd edition, 1994.
  44. Y. S. Lincoln and E. G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif, USA, 1985.
  45. C. E. Coburn and J. L. Russell, “District policy and teachers' social networks,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 203–235, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. M. W. McLaughlin, “Learning from experience: lessons from policy implementation,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 171–178, 1987.