"Highly qualified" to do what? the relationship between NCLB teacher quality mandates and the use of reform-oriented instruction in middle school mathematics

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 75-109

  Smith, Thomas M ^a,c   Desimone, Laura M ^a   Ueno, Koji ^b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Certification; Mathematics teaching; Teacher quality

Indexed keywords

EID: 18444384548     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737027001075     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Interview mode effects in drug surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 210-240.
2. Aquilino, W. S. (1998). Effects of interview mode on measuring depression in younger adults. Journal of Official Statistics, 14, 15-30.
3. Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90, 449-466.
4. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93, 373-397.
5. Ballou, D. (1996). Do public schools hire the best applicants? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 97-134.
6. Baroody, A. J., & Benson, A. (2001). Early number instruction. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 154-158.
7. Barr, R. & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1988). The formation and instruction of ability groups. American Journal of Education, 97, 34-64.
9. Battista, M. (2001). Research and reform in mathematics education. In T. Loveless (Ed.), The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math? (pp. 42-84). Washington, DC: Brookings Institutions.
10. Betts, J., & Shkolnik, J. L. (1999). The behavioral effects of variation in class size: The case of mathematics teachers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 193-213.
11. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. Contributions to Human Development, 21, 108-126.
12. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
13. Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guitton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
14. Carpenter, T., & Fennema, E. (1991). Research and cognitively guided instruction. In E. Fennema, T. Carpenter, & S. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 1-17). Albany: State University of New York Press.
15. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. Elementary School Journal 97, 3-20.
16. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499-531.
17. Cobb, P. (1988). The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics education. Education Psychologist, 23, 97-103.
18. Cohen, D., & Ball, D. (1990). Policy and practice: An overview. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 347-353.
19. Cohen, D., & Hill, H. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294-343.
20. Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. C., & York, R. I. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
22. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/
23. Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thorenson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 57-77.
24. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-604.
25. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M., Suk Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Does professional development change teachers' instruction? Results from a three-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81-112.
26. Desimone, L., Smith, T., & Ueno, K. (in press). Who gets sustained, content-focused professional development? An administrator's dilemma. Educational Administration Quarterly.
27. Dillman, D. A., & Tarnai, J. (1991). Mode effects of cognitively designed recall questions: A comparison of answers to telephone and mail surveys. In P. N. Beimer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 367-393). New York: Wiley.
28. Dreeben, R., & Gamoran, A. (1986). Race, instruction, and learning. American Sociological Review, 51, 660-669.
29. Education Trust. (2003). Telling the whole truth (or not) about high school graduation: New state data. Retrieved from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/ rdonlyres/C638111D-04E3-4C0D-9F68-20E7009498A6/0/tellingthetruthteachers.pdf
30. Ehrenberg, R. G., & Brewer, D. J. (1994). Do school and teacher characteristics matter? Evidence from High School and Beyond. Economics of Education Review, 13, 1-17.
31. Ehrenberg, R. G., & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Did teachers' verbal ability and race matter in the 1960s? Coleman revisited. Economics of Education Review, 14, 1-21.
32. Ernest, P. (1998). The history of mathematics in the classroom. Mathematics in School, 27(4), 25-31.
33. Ernest, P. (1999). Forms of knowledge in mathematics and mathematics education: Philosophical and rhetorical perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 67-83.
34. Federal Publications. (2003). Primary mathematics, U.S. edition. (2003). Singapore: Author.
35. Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465-499.
36. Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In H. F. Ladd (Eds.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 265-298). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
37. Fernandez, C., Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A U.S.- Japan lesson study collaboration reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 171-185.
38. Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Gamoran, A. (1986). Instructional and institutional effects of ability groupings. Sociology of Education, 59, 1985-1998.
40. Gamoran, A., & Nystrand, M. (1990, July). Tracking instruction and achievement. Paper presented at the World Congress of Sociology, Madrid.
41. Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325-338.
42. Garet, M., Birman, B., Porter, A., Yoon, K., & Desimone, L. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of tgeachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945.
43. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1997). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. In W. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in school finance, 1996 (pp. 197-210). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
44. Goldhaber, D. D. & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129-145.
45. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
46. Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 3-19.
47. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12-21.
48. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., & Murray, H. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
49. Ingersoll, R. (January). Out of field teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of schools: An exploratory analysis. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for Study of Teaching and Policy.
50. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63.
51. Lampert, M. (1992). Practices and problems in teaching authentic mathematics. In F. Oser, A. Dick, & J. L. Parry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 295-313). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
52. Li, S. (1999). Does practice make perfect? For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(3), 33-35.
53. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
54. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 258-271.
55. Loveless, T. (Ed.). (2001 ). The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
56. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
57. Mathews, J. (2003, December 30). Finding truth in teacher qualifications. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ A41267-2003Dec30.html
58. Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 29-45.
59. Monk, D.H., & King, J. R. (1994). Multi-level teacher resource effects on pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science: The role of teacher subject matter preparation. In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Contemporary policy issues: Choices and consequences in education (pp. 29-58). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
60. Mosteller, F., & Moynihan, D. P. (Eds.). (1972). On equality of educational opportunity. New York: Random House.
61. Mullens, J. (1995). Classroom instructional processes: A review of existing measurement approaches and their applicability for the teacher follow-up survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
62. Mullens, J. E., & Gayler, K. (1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using survey and case study field test results to improve item construction. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
63. Mullens, J., & Kasprzyk, D. (1996). Using qualitative methods to validate quantitative survey instruments. In 7996 proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 638-643). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
64. Mullens, J., & Kasprzyk, D. (1999). Validating item responses on self-report teacher surveys. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
65. Murnane, R. J., & Phillips, B. R. (1981). Learning by doing, vintage, and selection: Three pieces of the puzzle relating teaching experience and teaching performance. Economics of Education Review, 1, 691-693.
66. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Author.
67. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
68. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
69. Newmann, F., Bryk, A., Nagoaka, I. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
70. Newmann, F., Marks, H., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104, 280-312.
71. Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001). School instructional program coherence: Benefits and challenges. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
72. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
73. Porter, A. C., & Brophy, J. E. (1988). Good teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching. Educational Leadership, 45(8), 75-84.
74. Porter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. L., & Schneider, S. A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
75. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
76. Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F.(1993). Higher order instructional goals in secondary school: Class, teacher, and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 523-553.
77. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2000). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
78. Romberg, T. A. (2000). Changing the teaching and learning of mathematics. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 56(4), 6-9.
79. Rowan, B., & Miracle, A. W. (1983). Systems of ability grouping and the stratification of achievement in elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 56, 133-144.
80. Schifter, D., & Fosnot, C. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of teachers meeting the challenge of reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
81. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
82. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
83. Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-371). New York: Macmillan.
84. Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 51-91). New York: Macmillan.
85. Silver, E. (Ed.). (1985). Teaching and learning mathematics problem solving: Multiple research perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
86. Simon, M. (1986). The teacher's role in increasing student understanding of mathematics. Educational Leadership, 43, 40-43.
87. Smith, J., Lee, V., & Newmann, F. (2001). Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary schools: Improving Chicago's schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
88. Smith, T., & Desimone, L. (2003). Do changes in patterns of participation in teachers' professional development reflect the goals of standards-based reform? Educational Horizons, 81, 119-129.
89. Smithson, J. L., & Porter, A. C. (1994). Measuring classroom practice: Lessons learned from efforts to describe the enacted curriculum - The Reform Up Close Study. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
90. Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 1-27.
91. Sykes, G. (1996). Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 465-489.
92. Tirosh, D., & Graeber, A. O. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers' explicit beliefs about multiplication and division. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 79-96.
93. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). The NAEP 1996 technical report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
94. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
95. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Monitoring school quality: An indicators report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
96. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). No Child Left Behind: A toolkit for teachers. Retrieved from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/C638111 D-04E3-4COD-9F68-20E7009498A6/0/telling the truthteachers.pdf
97. Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
98. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved from epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12
99. Wiley, D., & Yoon, B. (1995). Teacher reports on opportunity to learn: Analyses of the 1993 California Learning Assessment System. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 355-370.