Impact of a state performance assessment program in reading and writing

Educational Research and Evaluation

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 239-269

  Parke, Carol S ^a   Lane, Suzanne ^b   Stone, Clement A ^b  

^a DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745113180     PISSN: 13803611     EISSN: 17444187     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13803610600696957     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). AMOS user's guide version 3.6. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation.
2. August, D., Hakuta, K., & Pompa, D. (1994). For all students: Limited English proficient students and goals 2000. NCBE Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education No. 10. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
3. Borko, H., Wolf, S. A., Simone, G., & Uchiyama, K. (2003). Schools in transition: Reform efforts in exemplary schools of Washington. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 171-202.
4. Bos, K. T., Kuiper, W. A. J. M., & Plomp, T. (1999). Student performance and curricular appropriateness in The Netherlands. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 25, 269-276.
5. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002). Annual survey of state student assessment programs: Summary report, fall 2002. Washington, DC: Author.
6. Firestone, W. A., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-113.
7. Goertz, M., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and accountability programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 4-11.
8. Harris, S. (1999). TIMSS performance assessment: The strengths and weaknesses of students in England. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 25, 287-295.
9. Herman, J. L. (1997). Large-scale assessment in support of school reform: Lessons in the search for alternative measures (Center for the Study of Evaluation Tech. Rep. No. 446). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
10. Herman, J. L., & Golan, S. (1993). The effects of standardized testing on teaching and schools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(4), 20-25, 41-42.
11. Holt, J. K., & Campbell, C. (2004). The influence of school policy and practice on mathematics achievement during transitional periods. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 72(23), 1-18.
12. International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English. (1994). Standards for the assessment of reading and writing. Author.
13. International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Author.
14. Jakwerth, P. (1999). TIMSS performance assessment results: United States. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 25, 277-281.
15. Koretz, D. M., Mitchell, K., Barron, S., & Keith, S. (1996). Final report: Perceived effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (CFDA No. 84.117G). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
16. Lane, S. (2004). Validity of high-stakes assessment: Are students engaged in complex thinking? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(3), 6-14.
17. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., & Stone, C. A. (1998). A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 24-28.
18. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., & Stone, C. A. (2002). The impact of a state performance-based assessment and accountability program on mathematics instruction and student learning: Evidence from survey data and school performance. Educational Assessment, 8(4), 279-315.
19. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., Stone, C. A., Cerillo, T. L., & Hansen, M. A. (2000a). MSPAP impact study: Language arts (reading and writing) for the U.S. Department of Education, Assessment Development and Evaluation Grants Program (CFDA 84.279-A). Maryland Assessment System Project. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
20. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., Stone, C. A., Cerillo, T. L., & Hansen, M. A. (2000b). MSPAP impact study: Science for the U.S. Department of Education, Assessment Development and Evaluation Grants Program (CFDA 84.279-A). Maryland Assessment System Project. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
21. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., Stone, C. A., Hansen, M. A., & Cerillo, T. L. (2000c). MSPAP impact study: Social studies for the U.S. Department of Education, Assessment Development and Evaluation Grants Program (CFDA 84.279-A). Maryland Assessment System Project. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
22. Linn, R. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(1), 1-16.
23. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
24. Maryland State Board of Education. (1995). Maryland school performance report: State and school systems. Baltimore, MD: Author.
25. Mehrens, W. A. (1998, April). Consequence of assessment: What is the evidence? Vice Presidential address for Division D, American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
26. Mehrens, W. A., Popham, W. J., & Ryan, J. M. (1998). How to prepare students for performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 18-22.
27. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-104). New York: American Council on Education.
28. National Governors' Association. (1996, March). Policy statement. National Education summit, Palisades, New York.
29. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
30. Paleckova, J. (1999). Performance assessment in the Czech Republic. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 25, 265-268.
31. Parke, C. S., Cerrillo, T. L., Levenson, J., O'Mara, J., Hansen, M. A., & Lane, S. (1999, April). Impact of the MSPAP: Evidence from classroom instruction and assessment activities (reading, writing). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.
32. Porter, A. (2000). Doing high-stakes assessment right. School Administrator, 57(11), 28-32.
33. Rogosa, D. R. (1987). Causal models do not support scientific conclusions: A comment in support of Freedman. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 185-195.
34. Rogosa, D. R., & Willet, J. B. (1985). Understanding correlates of change by modeling individual differences. Psychometrika, 50, 203-228.
35. 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 Polity Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.
36. Stecher, B. M., Barron, S. L., Chun, T., & Ross, K. (2000). The effects of the Washington state education reform on schools and classrooms (Center for the Study of Evaluation Tech. Rep. No. 525). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
37. Stecher, B. M., Barron, S. L., Kaganoff, T., & Goodwin, J. (1998). The effects of standards-based assessment on classroom practices: Results of the 1996-97 RAND survey of mathematics and writing (Center for the Study of Evaluation Tech. Rep. No. 482). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
38. Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 50-80.
39. Stone, C. A., & Lane, S. (2003). Consequences of a state accountability program: Examining relationships between school performance gains and teacher, student, and school variables. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(1), 1-26.
40. Tamir, P., & Zuzovsky, R. (1999). Performance of Israeli 4th and 8th grade students on science and combined science and math performance assessment tasks. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 25, 283-286.
41. Willet, J. B., & Sayer, A. G. (1994). Using covariance structure analysis to detect correlates and predictors of change. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 363-381.