Curriculum coherence and national control of education: Issue or non-issue?

Journal of Curriculum Studies

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 641-658

  Schmidt, William H ^a   Prawat, Richard S ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Curriculum coherence; National control of education; Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845264132     PISSN: 00220272     EISSN: 13665839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220270600682804     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Ball, D. L. and Cohen, D. K. (1996) Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25((9)), pp. 6-8.
2. Ben-Peretz, M.(1990) The Teacher-Curriculum Encounter: Freeing Teachers from the Tyranny of Texts. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
3. Cochran-Smith, M. and Fries, M. K. (2001) Sticks, stones, and ideology: the discourse of reform in teacher education Educational Researcher, 30((8)), pp. 3-15.
4. Hill, H. C. (2001) Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards American Educational Research Journal, 38((2)), pp. 289-318.
5. Judge, H. and Lemosse, M. and Paine, L. and Sedlak, M.(1994) The University and the Teachers: France, the United States, England. Oxford: Triangle Books.
6. Linn, R. L. and Baker, E. L. and Betebenner, D. W. (2002) Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Educational Researcher, 31((6)), pp. 3-16.
7. Newman, F. M. and Smith, B. and Allensworth, E. and Bryk, A. S. (2001) Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23((4)), pp. 297-321.
8. O'Day, J. A. and Smith, M. S.(1993) Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System. (pp. 250-312). San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
9. Prawat, R. S.(1995) 1990s curriculum reform: Déjà vu all over again. In Advances in Research on Teaching: Vol. 5. Learning and Teaching Elementary Subjects. (pp. 13-33). Greenwich CT: JAI Press),.
10. (1999) Facing the Consequences: Using TIMSS for a Closer Look at U.S. Mathematics and Science Education. Boston MA: Kluwer.
11. Schmidt, W. H. and McKnight, C. C. and Houang, R. T. and Wang, H.-C. and Wiley, D. E. and Cogan, L. S. and Wolfe, R. G.(2001) Why Schools Matter: A Cross-National Comparison of Curriculum and Learning. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
12. Schmidt, W. H. and McKnight, C. C. and Valverde, G. A. and Houang, R. T. and Wiley, D. E.(1997) A Cross-national Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School Mathematics: Vol. 1. Many Visions, Many Aims. Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Kluwer.
13. Stevenson, D. L. and Baker, D. P. (1991) State control of the curriculum and classroom instruction Sociology of Education, 64((1)), pp. 1-10.
14. Stevenson, D. L. and Baker, D. P. (1996) Does state control of the curriculum matter? A response to Westbury and Hsu Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18((4)), pp. 339-342.
15. Stevenson, H. W. and Stigler, J. W.(1992) The Learning Gap: Why Our Schools are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education. New York: Summit Books.
16. Timar, T. and Kirp, D. and Kirst, M.(1998) Institutionalizing Mathematics and Science Reform: Do State Education Agencies Matter?. San Francisco CA: WestEd.
17. Westbury, I. and Hsu, C.-S. (1996) Structures of curriculum governance and classroom mathematics Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18((2)), pp. 123-139.