State Testing and Mathematics Teaching in New Jersey: The Effects of a Test Without Other Supports

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 373-405

  Schorr, Roberta Y ^a,b   Firestone, William A ^a,c   Monfils, Lora ^a,d  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c The State University of New Jersey   (United States)

^d ETS K 12 Assessments ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Large scale studies; Policy issues; Reform in mathematics education; Survey data, Teacher beliefs; Teaching effectiveness; Teaching practice; Testing

Indexed keywords

EID: 0242370153     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/30034793     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Adams, J. E., & Kirst, M. W. (1999). New demands and concepts for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 463-490). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Baron, J. B., & Wolf, D. P. (1996). Performance-based student assessment; Challenges and possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Cobb, P. (2000). From representations to symbolizing: Introductory comments on semiotics and mathematical learning. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.) Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms (pp. 17-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In M. W. McLaughlin & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding (pp. 207-239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning and policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6. Confrey, J. & Carrejo, D. (2002). A content analysis of exit level mathematics on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills: Addressing the issue of instructional decision-making in Texas. In D. S. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. G. Wiegel, R. L. Bryant, & K. Nooney (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 539-550). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
7. Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. (1991). Testing, reform, and rebellion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1980. (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Davis, J., Wagner, L. R., & Shafer, M. C. (1997). Classroom observation scale. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
10. Dienes, Z. P. (1964). The power of mathematics. London: Hutchinson Educational.
11. Editorial Projects in Education. (2001). A better balance: Standards, tests, and the tools to succeed: Quality Counts 2001. Bethesda, MD: Author.
12. Elmore, R. F. (1996) Getting to scale with successful educational practices. In S. H. Furhman, & J. O'Day, (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 294-329). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Firestone, W. A., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). Rethinking "high stakes": Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record, 102, 724-749.
14. Firestone, W. A., Monfils, L., & Camilli, G. (2001, April). Pressure, support, and instructional change in the context of a state testing program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
15. Firestone, W. A., Monfils, L., Camilli, G., Schon, R. Y., Hicks, J., & Mayrowetz, D. (2001, April). The ambiguity of test preparation: A multimethod study of one state. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
16. Firestone, W. A., Schorr, R. Y., & Monfils, L. (in press) The ambiguity of teaching to the test. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Grissmer, D., & Flanagan, A. (1998). Exploring rapid achievement gains in North Carolina and Texas. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
18. Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students' learning in second grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393-425.
20. Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., & Stecher, B. M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
21. Koretz, D., Mitchell, K., Barron, S., & Keith, S. (1996). Final report: Perceived effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
22. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
23. Monfils, L., Camilli, G., Firestone, W. A., Yurecko, M., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000, April). Multidimensional analysis of scales developed to measure standards based instruction in response to systemic reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
24. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1998). Digest of educational statistics, 1998. Washington, DC: Author.
25. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Statistics in brief: Overview of public elementary and secondary school districts: School year 1998-99. Washington, DC: Author.
26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
27. New Jersey State Department of Education. (1996a). Mathematics Curriculum Framework. Trenton, NJ: Author.
28. New Jersey State Department of Education. (1996b). Core curriculum content standards. Trenton, NJ: Author.
29. Newmann, P. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work: Conflict or coexistence. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
30. O'Day, J., & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31. Pankratz, R. S., & Petrosko, J. M. (2000). All children can learn: Lessons from the Kentucky reform experience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32. Pennell, J. R., & Firestone, W. A. (1997). Changing practices through teacher networks: Matching program features with teacher characteristics and circumstances. Teachers College Record, 34, 209-235.
33. Pólya, G. (1957). How to solve it. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
34. Pólya, G. (1967). Mathematical discovery. New York: Wiley.
35. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford, & M. C. O'Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 37-75). Boston: Kluwer.
36. Rothman, R. (1995). Measuring up: Standards, assessment, and school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37. Shafer, M. C. (2001, April). Instructional quality in the context of reform. Paper presented at the research presession of the 79th annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Orlando, FL.
38. Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
39. Simon, M. A., & Tzur, R. (1999). Explicating the teacher's perspective from the researchers' perspectives: generating accounts of mathematics teachers' practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 252-264.
40. Smith, M. L. (1991 a). Meanings of test preparation. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 521-542.
41. Smith, M. L. (1991b). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on students. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8-12.
42. Smith, M. L. (1996). Reforming schools by reforming assessment: Consequences of the Arizona Student Assessment Program. Tempe, AZ: Southwest Educational Policy Studies, Arizona State University.
43. Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-127.
44. Stecher, B. M., & Barron, S. I. (1999). Quadrennial milepost accountability testing in Kentucky. Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation Standards and Student Testing.
45. Stecher, B. M., & Mitchell, K. (1995). Portfolio-driven reform: Vermont teachers' understanding of mathematical problem-solving and related changes in classroom practice (Technical report #400). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation Standards and Student Testing.
46. Stein, M. K, & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3, 268-276.
47. Stein, K. S., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-base mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.
48. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 14-21.
49. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
50. Whitford, B. L., & Jones, J. (2000). Accountability, assessment, and teacher commitment: Lesson's from Kentucky's reform efforts. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
51. Wilson, S. M., & Floden, R. E. (2001). Hedging bets: Standards-based reform classrooms. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capital to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 193-216). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.