Beyond accountability and average mathematics scores: Relating state education policy attributes to cognitive achievement domains

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 5-18

  Desimone, Laura M ^a,b   Smith, Thomas M ^a,b   Hayes, Susan A ^a,b   Frisvold, David ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Mathematics achievement; NAEP; State policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 29244439352     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00019.x     Document Type: Review

References (119)

1. American Federation of Teachers (2001). Making standards matter 2001:Afifty-state report on efforts to implement a standards-based system. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 70(18). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/.
3. Berends, M., Chun, J., Schuyler, G., Stockly, S., & Briggs, R. J. (2002). Challenges of conflicting school reforms: Effects of New American Schools in a high-poverty district. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
4. Berends, M., & Garet, M. (2002). In (re)search of evidence-based school practices: Possibilities for integrating nationally representative surveys and randomized field trials to inform educational policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(4), 28-59.
5. Berger, A., Desimone, L., Herman, R., Garet, M., & Margolin, J. (2002). Content of state standards and the alignment of state as sessments with state standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
6. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol. IV: The findings in review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND (ED 108 330).
7. Bishop, J. (1998). Do curriculum-based external exit exam systems enhance student achievement? CPRE Research Report Series RR-40. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education Publications.
8. Blank, R., & Langesen, D. (2001). State indicators of science and mathematics education. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
9. Blank, R., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics & science. Results from Survey of Enacted Curriculum Project. Final project report published under National Science Foundation/EHR/REC.
10. Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools' scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple schools. Santa. Monica, CA: RAND (ED 425 511).
11. Braun, H. (2004, January 5). Reconsidering the impact of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n1/.
12. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform. Boulder, CO: West-view Press.
13. Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.
14. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2003). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-332.
15. Chatterji, M. (2002). Models and methods for examining standards-based reforms and accountability initiative: Have the tools of inquiry answered pressing questions on improving schools? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 345-386.
16. Clune, W. (1998). Toward a theory of systemic reform: The case of nine NSF statewide systemic initiatives. Research Monograph No. 16. Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.
17. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
18. Cohen, D. K. (1995, December). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 34(3), 11-17, 31 (EJ 519 251).
19. Cohen, D. K. (1996). Standards-based school reform: Policy, practice, and performance. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 99-127). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
20. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teach ers College Record, 103(2), 294-343.
21. Cook, T. D. (1999). Considering the major arguments against random assignment: An analysis of the intellectual culture surrounding evaluation in American schools of education. Paper presented at the Harvard faculty seminar on experiments in education. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
22. Cook, T. D., Habib, F., Phillips, M., Settersten, R. A., Shagle, S. C., & Degirmencioglu, S. M. (1999). Comer's school development program in Prince George's County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 543-597.
23. Cook, T. D., Murphy, R., & Hunt, D. (2000). Comer's school development program in Chicago: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (2), 535-597.
24. Corbett, H., & Wilson, B. (1996). Urban students' perspectives on middle school. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Educational Fund.
25. Corcoran, T. B. (1997, February). Evaluating systemic reform. Prepared for Teacher Enhancement Electronic Community Hall. Available online at http://teech.terc.edu/papers/papers/corcoran.htm.
26. Cuban, L. (1984, May). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy, and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54 (2), 129-151 (EJ 299 040).
27. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of whole school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357-374.
28. Dee, T. (2003). The "first wave" of accountability. In P. E. Peterson and M. R. West (Eds.), No Child Left Behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 215-241). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
29. Desimone, L. (2002). What makes Comprehensive School Reform successful? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433-479.
30. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Birman, B. F., Garet, M. S., & Suk Yoon, K. (2002, October). How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the professional development that districts provide to teachers? Teachers College Record 104(7), 1265-1312.
31. Doolittle, F., Herlihy, C., & Snipes, J. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. New York: MDRC for the Council of Great City Schools.
32. Education Week (2001). Quality counts 2001: A better balance. Education Week, 20 (17). Retrieved from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/qc01/index.cfm.
33. Education Week (2002). Quality counts 2002: Building blocks for success. Education Week, 21(17). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/.
34. Education Week (2003). Quality counts 2003: If I can't learn from you. Education Week, 22(17). Retrieved from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/qc03/ index.cfm.
35. Education Week (2004). Quality counts 2004: count me in: Special education in an era of standards. Education Week, 23(17). Retrieved from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/qc04/.
36. Elmore, R. F. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 96-124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37. Elmore, R. F., Abelmann, C., & Fuhrman, S. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65-98). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
38. Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1996, March). Staff development and instructional improvement: Community District 2, New York City. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
39. Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning, & school organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40. Finn, C., Jr., & Petrilli, M. (2000). The state of state standards. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
41. Foorman, B., Francis, D., Fletcher, J., & Schatschneider, C. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal, of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
42. Fuhrman, S., Chune, W. H., & Elmore, R. F. (1988). Research on education reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90, 237-257.
43. Fuhrman, S. H. (Ed.) (1993). Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (ED 359626).
44. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45. Goertz, M., Massell, D., & Chun, T. (1998). District response to state accountability systems. CPRE, University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, and RAND. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
46. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
47. Griffin, B. W., & Heidorn, M. H. (1996). An examination of the relationship between minimum competency test performance and dropping out of high school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 243-252.
48. Grissmer, D., & Flanagan, A. (1998). Exploring rapid achievement gains in North Carolina and Texas. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
49. Hannaway, J., & Kimball, K. (1997). Reports on reform from the field: District and state survey results. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
50. Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2002). Improving educational quality: How best to evaluate our schools? Paper prepared for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference, Education in the 21st Century: Meeting the Challenges of a Changing World, 2002.
51. Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2004). The effect of school accountability systems on the level and distribution of student achievement. Journal of European Economic Association, 2(2), 406-415.
52. Herman, J., & Golan, S. (1991). Effects of standardized testing on teachers and learning: Another look. Los Angeles; University of California-Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
53. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984, Fall). Rethinking the quest for school improvement: Some findings from the DESSI study. Teachers College Record, 56(1), 34-54 (EJ 309 292).
54. Jacob, B. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 2.
55. Joyce, B., Murphy, C., Showers, B., & Murphy, J. (1989, November). School renewal as cultural change. Educational Leadership, 47(3), 70-77 (EJ 398 956).
56. Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What do we already know about successful school leadership? Paper prepared for the AERA Division A Task Force on Developing Research in Educational Leadership.
57. Lieberman, A. (1995). Restructuring schools: The dynamics of changing practice, structure, and culture. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The work of restructuring schools: Building from the ground up (pp. 1-17). New York: Teachers College Press (ED 383109).
58. Little, J. W. (1989). District policy choices and teachers' professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(2), 165-179.
59. Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
60. Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998, August). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575 (EJ 576 587).
61. Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. B. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press (ED 327 623).
62. Loveless, T. (Ed.) (2001). The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
63. Luhm, T., Foley, E., & Corcoran, T. (1998). The accountability system: Defining responsibility for student achievement. Children Achieving Evaluation Report. Philadelphia: Children Achieving Challenge.
64. Massell, D. (1998). State strategies for building capacity in education: Progress and continuing challenges. CPRE Research Report Series, RR-41. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
65. Massell, D. (2000). The district role in building capacity: Four strategies. CPRE Policy Briefs, RB-32.
66. Massell, D. (2001). The theory and practice of using data to build capacity: State and local strategies and their effects. In S. Furhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. One hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
67. McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record, 77(3), 339-351.
68. McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
69. McLaughlin, M., Henderson, K., & Morando-Rhim, L. (1998). The inclusion of students with disabilities in school reform: An analysis of five local school districts. In S. Vitello & D. Mithaug (Eds.), Inclusive schooling: National and international perspectives (pp. 54-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
70. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
71. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2004). Corrective action in low-performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from state and district strategies in first-generation accountability systems. CSE Report 641. Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
72. Mirel, J. (1994, Fall). School reform unplugged: The Bensenville New American School project, 1991-93. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 481-518 (EJ 497 058).
73. Mosteller, F., & Boruch, R. (Eds.) (2002). Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 150-178). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
74. Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 77-78 (EJ 449 894).
75. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
76. Newmann, F. (1991). Linking restructuring to authentic student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(6), 458-463.
77. Newmann, F., & Associates (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
78. Porter, A. (1994). National standards and school improvement in the 1990s: Issues and promise. American Journal of Education, 102, 421-449.
79. Porter, A. C. (2002, October). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
80. 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.
81. Porter, A., & Chester, M. (2002). Building a high-quality assessment and accountability program: The Philadelphia example. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookingspapers on education policy 2002 (pp. 285-337). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
82. Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states: One hundredth, year-book of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 60-80). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
83. Porter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. L., & Schneider, S. A. (1993, October). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin - Madison.
84. Potts, A., Blank, R., & Williams, A. (2002). Key state education policies on PK-12 education, 2002. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
85. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427-452.
86. Romberg, T., Zarinnia, E., & Williams, S. (1989). The influence of mandated testing on mathematics instruction: Grade 8 teachers'perception's. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin - Madison, National Center for Research in Mathematical Science Education.
87. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
88. 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.
89. Schmidt, W. H., & Prawat, R. S. (1999, Spring). What does the Third International Mathematics and Science Study tell us about where to draw the line in the top-down versus bottom-up debate? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 85-91.
90. Schwille, J., Porter, A., Alford, L., Floden, R., Freeman, D., Irwin, S., & Schmidt, W. (1988). State policy and the control of curriculum decisions. Educational Policy, 2(1), 29-50.
91. Sebring, P. B., & Bryk, A. S. (2000, February). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 57(6), 440-443.
92. Shields, P. M., Marsh, J. A., & Adelman, N. E. (1998). Evaluation of NSF's statewide systemic initiatives (SSI) program: The SSIs' impacts on classroom practice. Menlo Park, CA: SRI.
93. Simon, E., Foley, E., & Passantino, C. (1998). Making sense of standards: Implementation issues and the impact on teaching practice, Philadelphia: Center for Policy Research in Education.
94. Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin (ED 264 171).
95. Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
96. Smith, L. J., Maxwell, S., Lowther, D., Hacker, D., Bol, L., & Nunnery, J. (1997, March). Activities in schools and programs experiencing the most, and least, early implementation successes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(1), 125-150.
97. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds,), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
98. Spillane, J. (1996). School district matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87.
99. Spillane, J. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.
100. Spillane, J., & Louis, K. (2002). School improvement processes and practices. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 83-104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
101. Spillane, J., & Thompson, C. (1997). Reconstructing conception of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185-203.
102. Stecher, B. M., & Barron, S. I. (1999). Quadrennial milepost accountability testing in Kentucky. CSE Technical Report 505(1-73). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing/RAND.
103. Stevenson, H., & Stigler, J. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.
104. 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.
105. Supovitz, J., Mayer, D., & Kahle, J. (2000). Promoting inquiry based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331-356.
106. Swanson, C., & Stevenson, D. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1) 1-27.
107. Timar, T. (1989, December). The politics of school restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan, 71 (4), 165-175 (EJ 400 479).
108. Tyack, D. (1990, Winter). "Restructuring" in historical perspective: Tinkering toward utopia. Teachers College Record, 92(2), 170-191 (EJ 422 096).
109. United States Congress. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.
110. United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (1999). The NAEP 1996 Technical Report, NCES 1999-452. N. L. Allen, J. E. Carlson, & C. A. Zelenak. Washington, DC: Author.
111. United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2001). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 3000. NCES 2001-517. J. S. Braswell, A. D. Lutkus, W. S. Grigg, S. L. Santapau, B. S.-H. Tay-Lim, & M. S. Johnson. Washington, DC: Author.
112. United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2002). Schools and staffing survey: 1999-2000. Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools. NCES 2002-213. K. J. Gruber, S. D. Wiley, S. P. Broughman, G. A. Strizek, & M. Burian Fitzgeral. Washington, DC: Author.
113. United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2003). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics: Highlights 2003. Washington, DC: Author.
114. Vinovskis, M. (1996). An analysis of the concept and uses of systemic educational reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 53-85.
115. Warren, J. R., & Edwards, M. R. (2005). High school exit examinations and high school completion: Evidence from the early 1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 53-74.
116. Webb, N. L. (2002, December). Alignment study in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of state standards and assessments for four states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
117. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
118. Whitehurst, G. (2002, February 28). Statement before subcommittee on education reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
119. Wixson, K. K., Fisk, M. C., Dutro, E., & McDaniel, J. (2002). The alignment of state standards and assessments in elementary reading. CIERA report #3-024. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Education, Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.