When science counts as much as reading and mathematics: An examination of differing state accountability policies;Cuando la ciencia cuenta tanto como lectura y matemáticas: Un estudio de las políticas estatales diferenciadas de rendición de cuentas

Education Policy Analysis Archives

Volumn 20, Issue , 2012, Pages

  Judson, Eugene ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Assessment; Educational policy; Large scale assessment; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866542205     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10682341     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v20n26.2012     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2009). The unintended, pernicious consequences of "staying the course" on the United States' no child left behind policy. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 4(6), 1-13.
2. Ballou, D., & Springer, M. G. (2008, April). Achievement trade-offs and no child left behind. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Finance Association, Denver, CO. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/documents/achievement_tradeoffs.pdf
3. Bandeira de Mello, V. (2011), Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: Variation and change in state standards for reading and mathematics 2005-2009 (NCES 2011-458). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
4. Blank, R. K., & Hovanetz, C. (2009, April). State accountability systems under NCLB at year 6: Do they report useful information? What is the role of state policy? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
5. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268.
6. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A crossstate analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
7. Cavanagh, S. (2007, October 13). Federal rule yields hope for science: Testing mandate is expected to increase time for subject. Education Week, 27(7), pp. 1, 13.
8. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166-173.
9. Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294-304.
10. Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. (2004). High-stake accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145-1176.
11. Flores, A. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or opportunity gap? The High School Journal, 91(1), 29-42.
12. Gross, P.R., Goodenough, U., Haack, S., Lerner, L. S., Schwartz, M., Schwartz, R. (2005). The state of state science standards 2005. Washington (DC): The Thomas B Fordham Institute.
13. Hoff, D. J. (2009, January 7). Schools struggling to meet key goal on accountability. Education Week, 28(16), pp. 1, 14-15.
14. Jacob, B. (2007). Test-based accountability and student achievement: An investigation of differential performance on NAEP and state assessments. NBER Working Paper 12817. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://closup.umich.edu/files/closup-wp-17-test-basedaccountability.pdf
15. Judson, E. (2010). Science education as a contributor to adequate yearly progress and accountability programs. Science Education, 94(5), 888-902.
16. Kingsbury, A. (2007, July 25). Schools cut other subjects to teach reading and math. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/articles/070725/25nclb.htm
17. Lee, J. (2008). Is test-driven external accountability effective? Synthesizing the evidence from cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 608-644.
18. Linn, R. L. (2008). Toward a more effective definition of adequate yearly progress. In G. L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, and school reform (pp. 27-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
19. Magnuson, K., Rosenbaum, D. T., & Waldfogel, J. (2008). Inequality and black-white achievement trends in the NAEP. In K. Magnuson and J. Waldfogel (Eds.), Steady Gains and Stalled Progress: Inequality and the Black-White Test Score Gap (pp. 33-65). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
20. McGraw, R., Lubienski, S. T., & Strutchens, M. E. (2006). A closer look at gender in NAEP mathematics achievement and affect data: Intersections with achievement,race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(2), 129-150.
21. McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=312
22. McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes in specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=309
23. Milner, A. R., Sondergeld, T. A., Demir, A., Johnson, C. C., Czerniak, C. M. (2011). Elementary teachers' beliefs about teaching science and classroom practice: An examination of pre/post NCLB testing in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/5954494r44ll6825/
24. National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Science framework for the 2009 national assessment of educational progress. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/science-09.pdf
25. National Governors Association. (2007). Innovation America: A final report. National Governors Association, Washington DC.
26. National Research Council. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academies Press, Washington DC.
27. National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
28. National Science Teachers Association (2007, October). Make science count - Include science in the No Child Left Behind adequate yearly progress. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2007_10_22_makesciencecount.htm
29. Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and testbased accountability. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 263-283.
30. Nicholas, J. (June, 2005). Use of the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress results as an indicator of state adequate yearly progress. Paper presented at the CCSSO National Conference on Large Scale Assessment, San Antonio, TX.
31. Kingsbury, A. (2007, July 25). Schools cut other subjects to teach reading and math. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/articles/070725/25nclb.htm
32. Lee, J. (2008). Is test-driven external accountability effective? Synthesizing the evidence from cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 608-644.
33. Linn, R. L. (2008). Toward a more effective definition of adequate yearly progress. In G. L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, and school reform (pp. 27-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
34. Magnuson, K., Rosenbaum, D. T., & Waldfogel, J. (2008). Inequality and black-white achievement trends in the NAEP. In K. Magnuson and J. Waldfogel (Eds.), Steady Gains and Stalled Progress: Inequality and the Black-White Test Score Gap (pp. 33-65). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
35. McGraw, R., Lubienski, S. T., & Strutchens, M. E. (2006). A closer look at gender in NAEP mathematics achievement and affect data: Intersections with achievement, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(2), 129-150.
36. McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=312
37. McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes in specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=309
38. Milner, A. R., Sondergeld, T. A., Demir, A., Johnson, C. C., Czerniak, C. M. (2011). Elementary teachers' beliefs about teaching science and classroom practice: An examination of pre/post NCLB testing in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/5954494r44ll6825/
39. National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Science framework for the 2009 national assessment of educational progress. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/science-09.pdf
40. National Governors Association. (2007). Innovation America: A final report. National Governors Association, Washington DC.
41. National Research Council. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academies Press, Washington DC.
42. National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
43. National Science Teachers Association (2007, October). Make science count - Include science in the No Child Left Behind adequate yearly progress. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2007_10_22_makesciencecount.htm
44. Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and testbased accountability. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 263-283.
45. Nicholas, J. (June, 2005). Use of the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress results as an indicator of state adequate yearly progress. Paper presented at the CCSSO National Conference on Large Scale Assessment, San Antonio, TX. When Science Counts as Much as Reading and Mathematics 17
46. Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1). Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n1
47. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
48. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2004). Making sense of adequate yearly progress. Portland, OR: Author. Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://nwrcc.educationnorthwest.org/filesnwrcc/webfm/docs/AYP.pdf
49. Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2010). Does the SES of the school matter? An examination of socioeconomic status and student achievement using PISA 2003. Teachers College Record, 112(4), 1137-1162.
50. Reback, R. (2008). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5/6), 1394-1415.
51. Robelen, E. W. (2011, July 19). New science framework paves way for standards. Education Week, 30(37). Retrieved March 9, 2012, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/07/19/37science.h30.html?tkn=NXLF84%2BGWb96XT8cVTiWy9AqtICk76XPN0FL&cmp=clp-edweek
52. Science Accountability Act of 2006, H.R. 5442, 109th Cong. (2006).
53. Science Accountability Act of 2007, H.R. 35, 110th Cong. (2007).
54. Science Accountability Act of 2009, H.R. 2511, 111th Cong. (2009).
55. Shaul, M. S., & Ganson, H. C. (2005). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The federal government's role in strengthening accountability for student performance. Review of Research in Education, 29, 151-154.
56. Spellings, Margaret (2007). Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of Education.
57. Springer, M.G. (2007). Accountability incentives: Do failing schools practice educational triage? Education Next, 8(1), 74-79.
58. Stevens, J. C. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
59. Stipek, D. J., & Ryan, R. H. (1997). Economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Ready to learn but further to go. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 711-723.
60. Stoneberg, B. D. (2007). Using NAEP to confirm state test results in the No Child Left Behind Act. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(5). Retrieved March 19, 2012 from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v12n5.pdf
61. Willms, J. D. (2003). Literacy proficiency of youth: Evidence of converging socioeconomic gradients. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(3), 247-252.