What happens when school reform and accountability testing meet?

Theory into Practice

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 262-265

  Mitchell, Karen J ^a  

^a NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031215194     PISSN: 00405841     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00405849709543777     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Aschbacher, P. (1994). Helping educators to develop and use alternative assessments: Barriers and facilitators. Educational Policy, 8, 202-223.
2. Bodilly, S. (1996). Lessons from New American Schools Development Corporation's demonstration phase (MR-729-NASDC). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute on Education and Training.
3. Herman, J., & Golan, S. (1991). Effects of standardized testing on teachers and learning - Another look (CSE Technical Report No. 334). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Learning (CRESST).
4. Mitchell, K. (1996). Reforming and conforming: NASDC principals discuss school accountability systems (MR-716-NASDC). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute on Education and Training.
5. Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Madison.
6. Shepard, L., & Bliem, C. (1993). Parent opinions about standardized tests, teacher's information and performance assessments: A case study of the effects of alternative assessment in instruction, student learning and accountability practices (CSE Technical Report No. 367). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation. Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
7. Stecher, B., & Mitchell, K. (1995). Vermont teachers' understanding of mathematical problem solving and "good" math problems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute on Education and Training.