Increasing equity and increasing school performance - Conflicting or compatible goals?: Addressing the issues in Williams v. State of California

Education Policy Analysis Archives

Volumn 12, Issue , 2004, Pages

  Powers, Jeanne M ^a,b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042561909     PISSN: 10682341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Asimov, N. (2003, May 5, 2003). Bitter Battle over Class Standards. State Spends Millions to Defeat Students' Suit. San Francisco Chronicle.
2. California Department of Education. (2000). Fact book 2000: Handbook of education information. Sacramento: Author.
3. California Department of Education. (2001). Year-round education calendars." Sacramento: Author. [accessed May 15, 2003]
4. California Department of Education Office of Policy and Evaluation. (2000). 1999 base year academic performance index (API). Sacramento: Author.
5. California Department of Education Office of Policy and Evaluation. (2003). Explanatory notes for the 2002 Academic Peformance Index base report. Sacramento: Author.
6. Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). "Access to quality teaching: An analysis of inequality in California's schools." Decent Schools for California: Williams v. State of California. (Available online: http://www.decentschools. org)
7. Fetler, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(9).
8. Fox, J. (1991). Regression diagnostics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
9. Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
10. Hoxby, C. M. (2003). Achievement, efficiency and centralization in California's public schools. Decent Schools for California: Williams v. State of California. (Available online: http://www.decentschools.org)
11. Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). The effectiveness of "Teach for America" and other under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37).
12. Lewis-Beck, M. (1980). Applied regression: An introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
13. Oakes, J. (2002). Education inadequacy, inequality and failed state policy. A synthesis of expert reports prepared for Williams v. State of California. Decent Schools for California: Williams v. State of California. (Available online: http://www.decentschools.org)
14. O'Connell, J. (2003, June 30). Update on California's plan of highly qualified teachers (Letter to district supervisors, county superintendents, and charter school administrators:. Sacramento: California Department of Education. [Available online at www.cde.ca.gov]
15. Powers, J. M. (2003). An analysis of performance-based accountability: Factors shaping school performance in two urban school districts. Educational Policy, 17(5), 558-586.
16. Purdum, T. S. (2000, May 18). Rights Groups Sue California Public Schools. New York Times.
17. Raymond, M. E. (2003a). Williams v. State of California report by Margaret E. Raymond. Decent Schools for California: Williams v. State of California. (Available online: http://www.decentschools.org)
18. Raymond, M. E. (2003b). The performance of California charter schools. Palo Alto, CA: CREDO, Hoover Institution.
19. Rogosa, D. (2001). Year 2000 update: Interpretive notes for the Academic Performance Index. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
20. Rogosa, D. (2002). A further examination of student progress in charter schools using the California API. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
21. Russell, M. (2000). Summarizing change in test scores: Shortcomings of three common methods. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(5).