Curricular Coherence and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

Educational Researcher

Volumn 41, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 294-308

  Schmidt, William H ^a   Houang, Richard T ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

achievement; correlational analysis; curriculum; NAEP; regression analyses

Indexed keywords

EID: 84868029784     PISSN: 0013189X     EISSN: 1935102X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X12464517     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bandeira de Mello V.Mapping state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales: Variation and change in state standards for reading and mathematics, 2005-2009. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 2011:.
2. Bruner J. S.On learning mathematics.Mathematics Teacher. 1995;88:330-335.
3. Carmichael S. B.,Martino G.,Porter-Magee K.,Wilson W. S.Fairchild D.,Haydel E.,Senechal D.,Winkler M. A.The State of State Standards-and the Common Core-in 2010. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute; 2010:.
4. Cobb P.,Jackson K.Assessing the quality of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.Educational Researcher. 2011;40:183-185.
5. Loveless T.The 2012 Brown Center Report on American education: How well are American Students Learning?. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; 2012:.
6. Milgram R. J.,Stotsky S.Fair to middling: A national standards progress report. Boston, MA: Pioneer Institute; 2010:.
7. Porter A. C.Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice.Educational Researcher. 2002;31 (7): 3-14.
8. Porter A.In Common Core, little to cheer about.Education Week. 2011;30 (37): 24-25.
9. Porter A.,McMaken J.,Hwang J.,Yang R.Common core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum.Educational Researcher. 2011;40:103-116.
10. Schmidt W. H.,Houang R. T.Lessons learned: What international assessments tell us about math achievement. Loveless T., ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Press; 2007:65-84.
11. Schmidt W. H.,Houang R. T.,Shakrani S.International lessons about national standards. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute; 2009:.
12. Schmidt W. H.,Maier A.Handbook of education policy research. Sykes G.Schneider B.Plank D. N., ed. New York, NY: Rutledge for American Educational Research Association; 2009:541-559.
13. Schmidt W. H.,McKnight C. C.,Houang R. T.,Wang H. A.,Wiley D. E.,Cogan L. S.,Wolfe R. G.Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2001:.
14. Schmidt W. H.,McKnight C.,Raizen S.Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1997:.
15. Schmidt W. H.,McKnight C.,Valverde G. A.,Houang R. T.,Wiley D. E.Many visions, many aims, Volume I: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1997:.
16. Schmidt W. H.,Wang H. C.,McKnight C. C.Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective.Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2005;35:528-529.
17. Schwille J. R.,Porter A. C.,Belli G.,Floden R. E.,Freeman D. J.,Knappen L. B., Schmidt W. H.Handbook of teaching and policy. Shulman L.Sykes G., ed. New York, NY: Longman; 1983:370-391.
18. Stotsky S.,Wurman Z.Common Core's Standards still don't make the grade: Why Massachusetts and California must regain control over their academic destinies. Boston, MA: Pioneer Institute; 2010:.
19. WhitehurstR. (2009). Don't forget the curriculum (Brown Center Letters on Education No. 3). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/1014_curriculum_whitehurst.aspx.
20. WillG. F. (2012, March9). Those pesky things called laws [Opinion]. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com.
21. Wurman Z.,Evers B.National standards would harm math curriculum.San Francisco Chronicle. 2010;:A14.