Consider the source: Response differences among teachers, principals, and districts on survey questions about their education policy environment

Educational Policy

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 640-676

  Desimone, Laura M ^a,b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Standards based reform; Survey design; Survey reliability and validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746638441     PISSN: 08959048     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0895904805284056     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Interview mode effects in drug surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58 (2). 210-240.
2. Aquilino, W. S. (1998). Effects of interview mode on measuring depression in younger adults. Journal of Official Statistics, 14 (1). 15-30.
3. Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4. Berends, M. (2000). Teacher-reported effects of New American Schools design: Exploring relationships to teacher background and school context. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22 (1). 65-82.
5. Berger, A., Desimone, L., Herman, R. Garet, M., & Margolin, J. (2002). Content of state standards and the alignment of state assessments 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. (ERIC Document Reproduction service No. ED 10 330)
7. Bidwell, C. E., Frank, K. A., & Quiroz, P. A. (1997). Teacher types, workplace controls, and the organization of schools. Sociology of Education, 70, 285-307.
8. Biemer, P., Groves, R., Lyberg, L., Mathiowetz, N., & Sudman, S. (1991). Measurement errors in surveys. New York: John Wiley.
9. Bingham, R., & White, S. (1993). Explaining teacher/principal differences in evaluating schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 31 (1). 70-76.
10. 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 (REC98-03080). Final project report published under National Science Foundation, Education and Human Resources Directorate, Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication.
11. Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guitton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
12. 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 (4). 499-531.
13. Charters, Jr., W., & Pitner, N. J. (1986). The application of the management behavior survey to the measurement of principal leadership behaviors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46 (4). 811-824.
14. Chatterji, M. (2002, Fall). Models and methods for examining standards-based reforms and accountability initiatives: Have the tools of inquiry answered pressing questions on improving schools? Review of Educational Research, 72 (3). 345-387.
15. Clune, W. (1998). Toward a theory of systemic reform: The case of nine NSF statewide systemic initiatives. (National Institute for Science Education Research Monograph No. 16). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education Research.
16. Clune, W. (2001). Toward a theory of systemic reform: The case of nine NSF statewide systemic initiatives. In S. Fuhrman (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 (pp. 13-38). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
17. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Grayson, W., Trigatti, B., et al. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22 (1). 3-29.
18. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12 (3). 311-329.
19. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20. Coleman, J. et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. U.S. Office of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
21. Conley. S. (1991). Review of research on teacher participation in school decision making. In G. Grand (Ed.), Review of Research in Education 17 (pp. 225-266). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
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. Corcoran, T., & Goertz, M. (1995). Instructional capacity and high performance. Educational Researcher, 24, 27-31.
24. Council of Chief State School Officers, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, & Eleven-State Collaborative. (2000). Using data on enacted curriculum in mathematics and science: Sample results of a study of classroom practices. Washington, DC: Author.
25. Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy, and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54 (2). 129-151.
26. Datnow, A. (2000). Power & politics in the adoption of whole school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22 (4). 357-374
27. Desimone, L. (2000). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72 (3). 433-479.
28. Desimone, L., & LeFloch, K. (2004). Probing the "trickle down" effect of standards and assessments: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26 (1). 1-22.
29. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M., Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Does professional development change teachers' instruction? Results from a three-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (2). 81-112.
30. Dillman, D. A., & Tarnai, J. (1991). Mode effects of cognitively designed recall questions: A comparison of answers to telephone and mail surveys. In P. P. Biemer et al. (Eds.), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 73-93). New York: John Wiley.
31. Elmore, R. F. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 96-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32. Firestone, W. (1996). Images of teaching and proposals for reform: A comparison of ideas from cognitive and organizational research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32 (2). 209-232.
33. 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
34. Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. Fowler, F. J., Roman, A. M., & Di, Z. X. (1998). Mode effects in a survey of Medicare prostate surgery patients. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62 (1). 29-46.
36. Fuhrman, S., Clune, W., & Elmore, R. (1988). Research on education reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90, 237-257.
37. Garet, M., Birman, B., Porter, A., Yoon, K., & Desimone, L. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38 (3). 915-945.
38. Goertz, M., Massell, D., & Chun, T. (1998, October). District response to state accountability systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, New York, NY.
39. Groves, R. M. (1989). Survey errors and survey costs. New York: John Wiley.
40. Hannaway, J., & Kimball, K. (1997). Reports on reform from the field: District and state survey results. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
41. Herman, J., & Golan, S. (1991). Effects of standardized testing on teachers and learning: another look. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
42. Ingersoll, R. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28 (2). 26 - 37.
43. Jackson, P. W. (1986). The practice of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
44. Kennedy, M. (1999). Approximations to indicators of student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (4). 345-363.
45. Knapp, M. S., Stearns, M. S., Turnbull, B. J., David, J. L., & Peterson, S. M. (1991). Cumulative effects of federal education policies at the local level. In A. K. Odden (Ed.), Educational policy implementation (pp. 105-124). Albany: State University of New York Press.
46. Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Teachers'responses to high-stakes testing and the validity of gains: A pilot study (CSE Report). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
47. Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567.
48. Leighton, M., Mullens, J., Turnbull, B., Weiner, L., & Williams, A. (1995). Measuring instruction, curriculum content, and instructional resources: The status of recent work (Report No. NCES 95-11). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
49. Light, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1990). By design: Planning research on higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51. Massell, D. (1998). State strategies for building capacity in education: Progress and continuing challenges (CPRE Research Report Series, RR-41). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
52. 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 (pp. 148-169). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53. Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (1). 29-45.
54. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
55. Miller, L., Herman, R., Garet, M., Desimone, L., & Zhang, Y. (2002). State mathematics standards: Policies, instructional supports, aligned instruction, and student achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
56. Mullens, J. (1995). Classroom instructional processes: A review of existing measurement approaches and their applicability for the teacher follow-up survey (Report No. NCES 95-15). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
57. Mullens, J. E., & Gayler, K. (1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using survey and case study field test results to improve item construction. (Report No. NCES 1999-08). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
58. Mullens, J., & Kasprzyk, D. (1996). Using qualitative methods to validate quantitative survey instruments. In 1996 Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 638-643). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
59. Mullens, J., & Kasprzyk, D. (1999). Validating item responses on self-report teacher surveys. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
60. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31 (7). 3-14.
61. Porter, A. C., Floden, R., Freeman, D., Schmidt, W., & Schwille, J. (1988). Content determinants in elementary school mathematics. In D. Grouws & T. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
62. 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-Madison.
63. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64. Romberg, T., Zarinnia, E., & Williams, S. (1989). The influence of mandated testing on mathematics instruction: Grade 8 teachers' perceptions. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Center for Research in Mathematical Science Education.
65. Ross, S. M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., & Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8 (1). 95-124.
66. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects study of elementary schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
67. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
68. Schuman, H. H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys. New York: Academic Press.
69. Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 1-36). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
70. Simon, M., & Schifter, D. (1993). Toward a constructivist perspective: The impact of a mathematics teacher inservice program on students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 331-340.
71. Smithson, J. L., & Porter, A. C. (1994). Measuring classroom practice: Lessons learned from efforts to describe the enacted curriculum - the Reform Up Close study (CPRE Research Report Series No. 31). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
72. Spillane, J. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10 (1). 63-87.
73. 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.
74. Spillane, J., & Thompson, C. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19 (2). 185-203.
75. Stecher, B., & Borko, H. (2002). Integrating findings from surveys and case studies: Examples from a study of standards-based education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 17 (5). 547-569.
76. Stodolsky, S. (1996). Should SASS measure instructional processes and teacher effectiveness? Working Paper Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved September 24, 2004, from http://ericae.net/ericdb/ED418153.htm
77. Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
78. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
79. Sweeney, J., & Pinckney, R. (1983). Faculty management: The principal's most important role, Spectrum, 1 (3). 3-6.
80. Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80, 223-241.
81. Turnbull, B., Welsh, M., Heid, C., Davis, W., & Ratnofsky, A. C. (1999). The Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance (LESCP) in Title I schools: Interim report to Congress. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates/Westat.
82. Turner, C. F., & Martin, E. (Eds.). (1984). Surveying subjective phenomena. New York: Russell Sage.
83. Tyack, D. (1990). "Restructuring" in historical perspective: Tinkering toward utopia. Teachers College Record, 92 (2). 170-191.
84. U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Promising practices: New ways to improve teacher quality. Retrieved September 24, 2004, from www.ed.gov/pubs/PromPractice
85. 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.