This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Harkreader, S. A. Articles by Henry, G. T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Using Performance Measurement Systems for Assessing the Merit and Worth of Reforms

Gary T. Henry

Georgia State University, School of Policy Studies, Applied Research Center, P.O. Box 4039, Atlanta, GA 30302-4039, USA, gthenry{at}gsu.edu

One highly touted use of performance measurement systems is to assess the merit and worth of reforms. In this study, the effect of the League of Professional Schools, a democratic reform initiative in Georgia, was evaluated using performance measures from the state’s educational performance measurement system. The findings indicate that the League, in combination with an antecedent condition, motivated leadership, produced more widespread participation in staff development than other schools. In addition, schools that were relatively successful in implementing the tenets of the program exhibited modestly improved levels of student achievement over similar schools. However, the League schools did not outperform schools involved in another school reform that was instituted with the same antecedent condition—motivated leadership. Although both reforms were associated with modestly better student performance, the League seemed to trigger more teacher involvement in school governance than did the alternative reform. There is, however, no evidence that the antecedent condition, motivated leadership, was not sufficient by itself to cause the higher levels of student performance. Analysis of the performance measurement data allowed the merit of the League to be assessed against several different performance standards. Although the performance of the League’s schools was positive relative to several of these performance standards, in the end it was impossible to use performance measures to show that the League was a necessary component of the causal package that resulted in improved performance.

American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 21, No. 2, 151-170 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/109821400002100203


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. De Lancer Julnes Performance Measurement: An Effective Tool for Government Accountability? The Debate Goes On Evaluation, April 1, 2006; 12(2): 219 - 235. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. A. Gordon and C. J. Heinrich Modeling Trajectories in Social Program Outcomes for Performance Accountability American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 2004; 25(2): 161 - 189. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. M. Mark From the Editor American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 2003; 24(2): 133 - 136. [PDF]

				G. T. Henry Choosing Criteria to Judge Program Success: A Values Inquiry Evaluation, April 1, 2002; 8(2): 182 - 204. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. T. Henry How Modern Democracies Are Shaping Evaluation and the Emerging Challenges for Evaluation American Journal of Evaluation, September 1, 2001; 22(3): 419 - 429. [PDF]