Comparing state high school assessments to standards for success in entry-level university courses

Educational Assessment

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 137-160

  Brown, Richard S ^a   Conley, David T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34249670738     PISSN: 10627197     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10627190701232811     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. American Diploma Project. (2006). Closing the expectations gap 2006: An annual 50-state progress report on the alignment of high school policies with the demands of college and work. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc.
2. Blanco, C., Crowe, E., Lingenfelter, P. E., Longanecker, D. A., L'Orange, H. P., Rainwater, T., et al. (2003). Student success; Statewide P-16 systems. Boulder, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.
3. Center on Education Policy. (2006). State high school exit exams: A challenging year. Washington, DC: Author.
4. City University of New York. (2006). Admission guide-CUNY. New York: Author.
5. Clune, W. (1998). Toward a theory of systemic reform: The case of nine NSF statewide systemic initiatives (Research Monograph No. 16). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.
6. Commission on the Skills of the American Work Force. (1990). America's choice: High skills or low wages! Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.
7. Conley, D. T. (2003). Understanding university success. Eugene: University of Oregon, Center for Educational Policy Research.
8. Conley, D. T. (2004). Proficiency-based admissions. In W. J. Camara & E. W. Kimmel (Eds.), Choosing students: Higher education tools for the 21st century (pp. 313-330). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9. Conley, D. T., & Goldman, P. (2000). Half full, half empty? Educator response over time to state-level systemic reform initiatives. International Journal of Educational Reform, 9, 249-269.
10. Fuhrman, S. (Ed.). (2001). From the capital to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Fuhrman, S. H. E. (1993). Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12. Goertz, M. E., Floden, R., & O'Day, J. ( 1996). The bumpy road to education reform (CPRE Policy Brief RB-20). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
13. Impara, J. C. (2001, April). Alignment: One element of an assessment's instructional utility. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
14. Keller, B. (2005, October, 5). Michigan chooses ACT as high school exam. Education Week, 25, 20.
15. Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. ( 1995). The systematic identification and articulation of content standards and benchmarks. Update. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Regional Educational Lab.
16. Kirst, M. W, & Venezia, A. (2004). From high school to college: Improving opportunities for success in postsecondary education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17. Koretz, D. M., Mitchell, K. J., Barron, S., & Keith, S. (1996). Perceived effects of the Maryland state assessment program (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 406). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
18. La Marca, P., Redfield, D., Winter, P., Bailey, A., & Despriet, L. (2000). State standards and state assessment systems: A guide to alignment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
19. Lane, S., Stone, C., Parke, C., Hansen, M., & Cerillo, T. (2000, April). Consequential evidence for MSPAP from the teacher, principal, and student perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
20. Le, V., Hamilton, L., & Robyn, A. (2000). Alignment among secondary and post-secondary assessments in California. In Crucial issues in California education 2000 (pp. 177- 206). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
21. Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives: Experts in assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. McDonnell, L. M., & Choisser, C. (1997). Testing and teaching: Local implementation of new state assessments (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 442). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
23. National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Conditions of education 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
25. Shavelson, R. J.,& Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park.CA: Sage.
26. Spillane, J. P. ( 1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 33-63.
27. Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 141-179.
28. Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: What district policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 401-425.
29. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2003). Subchapter C: Texas success initiative. Austin, TX: Author.
30. Webb, N. L. ( 1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Research Monograph No. 6). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
31. Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states (Research Monograph No. 18). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
32. Webb, N. L. (2002, April). An analysis of the alignment between mathematics standards and assessments for three states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
33. Weick, K. ( 1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 1-19.