The use of cross-national comparisons for local education policy

Curriculum Inquiry

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 345-352

  Heyneman, Stephen P ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644772121     PISSN: 03626784     EISSN: 1467873X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2004.00299.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Baker, D. P. 2002. "Should we be more like them"?: Reflections on causes of crossnational high school achievement differences and implications for educational policy reform. Paper presented at the Education Policy Conference on the American High School Today. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
2. Baker, D. P., B. Goesling, and G. K. LeTendre. 2002. Socio-economic status, school quality and national economic development: A cross national analysis of the "Heyneman-Loxley" effect. Comparative Education Review 46: 291-313.
3. Bradburn, N., E. Haertel, J. Schwille, and J. Torney-Purta. 1991. A rejoinder to "I never promised you first place." Phi Delta Kappan June: 774-777
4. Buchmann, C. 2002. Measuring family background in international studies of education: Conceptual issues and methodological challenges. In Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement, National Research Council, ed., pp. 150-198 Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. Chromy, R. R. 2002. Sampling issues in design, conduct and interpretation of international comparative studies of school achievement. In Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement, National Research Council, ed., pp. 80-117. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Coleman, J. S., E. Q. Campbell, C. J. Hobsen, J. McPartland, A. M. Mood, F. D. Wienfall, and R. L. York. 1966. The equality of educational opportunity report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7. Floden, R. E. 2002. The measurement of the opportunity to learn. In Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement, National Research Council, ed., pp. 231-67. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8. Goldstein, H. 1995. Interpreting international comparisons of student achievement. Paris: UNESCO, 1995.
9. Heyneman, S. P. 1983. Education during a period of austerity: Uganda, 1971-1981. Comparative Education Review 27 (3): 403-13.
10. 1987. Curriculum economics in developing countries: An emerging crisis in developing countries. Prospects 18 (1): 63-74.
11. Heyneman, S. P. and W. Loxley. 1983. The effect of school quality on academic achievement across twenty-nine high- and low-income countries. American Journal of Sociology 88 (6): 1162-94.
12. Horvitz, D. 1992. Improving the quality of international education surveys. Draft prepared for the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
13. Linn, R. L. 2002. The measurement of student achievement in international studies. In Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achieve-ment, National Research Council, ed., pp. 27-58. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14. Martin, M. O., K. Rust, and R. J. Adams. 1999. Technical standards for IEA studies: Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
15. Medrich, E. A. and J. E. Griffith. 1992. International mathematics and science assessments: What have we learned? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
16. National Research Council. 1985. Summary report of the conference on October 16-17, 1985 (draft) Committee on National Statistics, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17. 1990. A framework and principles for international comparative studies in education. Board on International Comparative Studies in Education, N. M. Bradburn and D. M. Gilford, eds., Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18. 1995. International comparative studies in education: Descriptions of selected largescale assessments and case studies. Board on International Comparative Studies in Education Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. 1999. Next steps for TIMSS: Directions for secondary analysis. Board on International Comparative Studies in Education, A. Beatty, L. Paine, and F. Ramirez, eds., Board on Testing and Assessment, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20. Olkin, I. and D. T. Searls. 1985. Statistical aspects of international assessments of science education. Paper presented at the conference on Statistical Standards for International Assessments in Pre-college Science and Mathematics. Washington, DC.
21. Postlethwaite, T. N. 1999. International studies of academic achievement: Methodological issues. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
22. Rotberg, I. 1990. I never promised you first place. Phi Delta Kappan December: 296-303.
23. Rowen, B. 2002. Large-scale, cross-national surveys of educational achievement: Promises, pitfalls and possibilities. In Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement, National Research Council, ed., pp. 321-353 Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
24. Schmidt, W. H. 2002. Too little too late: American high schools in an international context. Paper presented at the Education Policy Conference on the American High School Today. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
25. Schmidt, W. H., C. C. Knight, R. T. Houang, H. C. Wang, D. E. Wiley, L. S. Cogan, and R. G. Wolf. 2001. Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. New York: Jossey-Bass.
26. Smith, M. S. 2002. Drawing inferences for national policy from large-scale cross national education surveys. In Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement,National Research Council, ed., pp. 2951-3321 Washington, DC: National Academy Press. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.