Redefining government roles in an era of standards-based reform

Phi Delta Kappan

Volumn 83, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 62-66

  Goertz, Margaret E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038893524     PISSN: 00317217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/003172170108300113     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. CPRE conducted intensive case studies of education reform in 10 states, 23 school districts, and 56 schools between 1996 and 1999. The states -California, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Texas -represent a range in the age, strength, and stability of state standards-based reform policies and, together, educate about 40% of U.S. public school students. The districts were selected for their activism in school improvement and standards-based reform but were demographically diverse. In spring 2000, CPRE researchers collected data on the assessment and accountability policies of the other 40 states and updated information on the 10 case study states. Funding for this work was provided by the National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking, and Management of the U.S. Department of Education (Grant No. OERI-R308A60003), the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the Pew Charitable Trusts, but the opinions expressed are the author's own.
2. Margaret E. Goertz and Mark Duffy, with Kerstin Carlson LeFloch, Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States: 1999-2000 (Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, 2001).
3. Margaret E. Goertz, "Standards-Based Accountability: Horse Trade or Horse Whip?," in Susan H. Fuhrman, ed., From the Capitol to the Classroom: Standards-Eased Reform in the States (Chicago: National So.ciety for the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press, 2001), pp. 39-59; and
4. Diane Massell, "The Theory and Practice of Using Data to Build Capacity: State and Local Strategies and Their Effects," in Fuhrman, pp. 148-69.
5. See Michael Cohen, "Memorandum to Chief State School Officers on Review of State Assessment Systems forTitle I," 19 January 2001, available at www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/saaJ.
6. Diane Massell, State Strategies for Building Local Capacity: Addressing the Needs of Standards-Eased Reform (Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-25, 1998).
7. See, for example, MaryT. Moore, Margaret E. Goertz, and Terry Hartle, "Interaction of Federal and State Programs," Education and Urban Society, vol. 15, 1983, pp. 452-78.
8. Goertz and Duffy, Education and Urban Society, op. cit.
9. Independent Review Panel, Improving the Odds: A Report on Title I from the Independent Review Panel on Title I, January 2001, available at www.c-b-e.org.
10. Diane Massell, The District Role in Building Capacity: Four Strategies (Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, CPRE Policy Brief RB-32, September 2000).
11. See, forexample, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 12, 1990;
12. William A. Firestone, David Mayrowetz, and Janet Fairman, "Performance-Based Assessment and Instructional Change: The Effects of Testing in Maine and Maryland," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 20,1998, pp. 95-113;
13. James P. Spillane and Nancy E. Jennings, "Aligned Instructional Policy and Ambitious Pedagogy," Teachers College Record, vol. 98, 1997, pp. 449-81 ; and
14. James P. Spillane and John S. Zeuli, "Reform and Teaching: Exploring Patterns of Practice in the Context of National and State Mathematics Reform," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 21, 1999, pp. 1-27.
15. Suzanne M. Wilson and Robert E. Floden, "Hedging Bets: Standards-Based Reform in Classrooms," in Fuhrman, pp. 193-216.
16. Suzanne M. Wilson and Robert E. Floden, in Fuhrman, Ibid.