This research examines the importance of a school climate characterized by high levels of academic emphasis. Effective schools research is reviewed to develop a conceptual model undergirding the measurement of academic emphasis. In addition, social cognitive theory is employed as a theoretical framework explaining the development and effect of academic emphasis on student achievement. With the use of hierarchical linear modeling, the authors show that academic emphasis is important to differences among urban elementary schools in student mathematics and reading achievement. The relationship between current academic achievement and students’ prior achievement and demo- graphic characteristics is also modeled in this study.
References
1.
Aitkin, M. , & Zuzovsky, R. (1994). A response to Raudenbush’s comment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 199-201.
2.
Astuto, T. A. , & Clark, D. L. (1985). Strength of organizational coupling in the instructionally effective school. Urban Education, 19, 331-356.
3.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
5.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
6.
Beck, L. , & Murphy, J. (1996). The four imperatives of a successful school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
7.
Bolman, L. G. , & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Bossert, S. T. (1988). School effects. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 341-352). New York: Longman.
9.
Bryk, A. S. , Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Bryk, A. S. , & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
12.
Cohen, M. D. , & Sproull, L. S. (Eds.). (1996). Organizational learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Coleman, J. S. (1985). Schools and the communities they serve. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(8), 527-532.
14.
Coleman, J. S. (1987). Norms as social capital. In G. Radnitzky & P. Bernholz (Eds.), Economic imperialism: The economic approach applied outside the field of economics. New York: Paragon House.
15.
Cook, S.D.N. , & Yanon, D. (1996). Culture and organizational learning. In M. D. Cohen & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 430-459). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Some schools work and more can. Social Policy, 9, 28-32.
17.
Finley, C. J. (1995). Review of the Metropolitan Achievement Test, seventh edition. In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The twelfth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 603-606). Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press.
18.
Goddard, R. D. , Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (in press). Collective efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Journal of Educational Research.
19.
Halpin, A. W. (1959). The leader behavior of school superintendents. Chicago: Midwest Administrative Center.
20.
Halpin, A. W. (1966). Theory and research in administration. New York: Macmillan.
21.
Hambleton, R. K. (1995). Review of the Metropolitan Achievement Test, seventh edition. In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The twelfth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 606-610). Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press.
22.
Hoy, W. K. , & Sabo, D. J. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
23.
Hoy, W. K. , & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change (Elementary and secondary school ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
24.
Hoy, W. K. , Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26.
Lee, V. (1995). Another look at high school restructuring: More evidence that it improves student achievement and more insight into why. Issues in Restructuring Schools, 9, 1-10.
27.
Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: An introduction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 3-33). New York: Plenum.
28.
Murphy, J. , & Louis, K. S. (1999). Handbook editor’s introduction: Notes from the handbook. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 472-476.
29.
Newmann, F. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30.
Nitko, A. J. (1994). Review of the Metropolitan Achievement Test, 6th edition. In J. C. Impara & L. L. Murphy (Eds.), Buros desk reference: Psychological assessment in the schools (pp. 31-35). Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press.
31.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
32.
Purkey, S. C. , & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-452.
33.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
Raudenbush, S. (1994). Searching for balance between a priori and post hoc model specification: Is a “general approach” desirable?School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 196-198.
35.
Rogers, B. G. (1994). Review of the Metropolitan Achievement Test, 6th edition. In J. C. Impara & L. L. Murphy (Eds.), Buros desk reference: Psychological assessment in the schools (pp. 35-40). Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press.
36.
Rowan, B. (1995). Learning, teaching and educational administration: Toward a research agenda. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 344-354.
37.
Sampson, R. J. , Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.
38.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
39.
Shouse, R. C. (1998). Restructuring’s impact on student achievement: Contrasts by school urbanicity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 677-699.
40.
Shouse, R. C. , & Brinson, K. (1995, October). Sense of community and academic effectiveness in American high schools: Some cautionary, yet promising evidence from NELS:88. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT.
41.
Smylie, M. A. , Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of school-based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 181-198.
42.
Stedman, L. C. (1987). It’s time we changed the effective schools formula. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 214-224.
43.
Stringfield, S. , & Herman, R. (1996). Assessment of the state of school effectiveness research in the United States of America. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 159-180.
44.
Stringfield, S. , & Teddlie, C. (1991). Observers as predictors of schools’ multi-year outlier status. Elementary School Journal, 91, 357-376.
45.
Teddlie, C. , & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. New York: Falmer.
46.
Teddlie, C. , & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects. New York: Teachers College Press.
47.
Wimpelberg, R. K. , Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1989). Sensitivity to context: The past and future of effective schools research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25, 82-107.
