Teacher and administrator responses to standards-based reform

Teachers College Record

Volumn 115, Issue 8, 2013, Pages

  Desimone, Laura M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890672668     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: 14679620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (175)

1. Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the Classroom: Teachers' Opinions of Statewide Testing Programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 18-29.
2. Achinstein, B., Ogawa, R., & Spiegelman, A. (2004). Are We Creating Separate and Unequal Tracks of Teachers?. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 557-603.
3. Adams, S., Heywood, J., & Rothstein, R. (2009). Teachers, performance pay, and accountability: What education should learn from other sectors. Washington, DC: EPI.
4. Alexander, R. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
5. American Federation of Teachers. (2001). Making Standards Matter 2001. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 4, 2002, from http://www.aft.org/edissues/standards/ MSM2001/downloads/whole.pdf
6. Archbald, D. A., & Porter, A. C. (1994). Curriculum control and teachers' perceptions of autonomy and satisfaction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(1), 21-39.
7. Ary et al. (2006). Qualitative research: Data analysis, rigor, and reporting. In D. Ary, L. C. Jacobs, A., Razavieh, & C. K. Sorensen (Eds.), Introduction to Research in Education (7th ed.) (pp. 489-536). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
8. Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., & Delamont. S. (2003). Key themes in qualitative research: continuities and change. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
9. Ball, D. L., 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), 6-8.
10. Baxter, J., Woodward, J., & Olson, D. (2001). The effects of reform-based mathematics instruction on low achievers in five third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 101, 529-548.
11. Belden Russonello & Steward Research and Communication. (2000). Tables for EdWeek Survey-1. Washington, DC: Author.
12. Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. N. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American Schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
13. 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.
14. Bishop, J. H., & Mane, F. (1999). The New York state reform strategy: The incentive effects of minimum competency exams. Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Education in Inner Cities.
15. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system. American Education Research Journal, 4, 231-268.
16. Borko, H., & Elliott, R. (1999). Hands-on pedagogy versus hands-off accountability: Tensions between competing commitments for exemplary math teachers in Kentucky. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 394-400.
17. Borko, H., Wolf, S. A., Simone, G., & Uchiyama, K. (2003). Schools in transition: Reform efforts and school capacity in Washington state. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 171-202.
18. Brozo, W. G., & Hargis, C. H. (2003). Taking seriously the idea of reform: One high school's efforts to make reading more responsive to all Students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(1), 14-23.
19. Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.
20. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
21. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P. & Loef, M. (1989). Using Knowledge of Children's Mathematics Thinking in Classroom Teaching: An Experimental Study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.
22. Center on Education Policy. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
23. Center on Education Policy. (2007). Moving beyond identification: Assisting schools in improvement. Washington, DC: Author.
24. Center on Education Policy. (2009). Is the emphasis on "proficiency" shortchanging higher- and lower-achieving students? State Test Score Trends Through 2007-08, Part 1. Washington, DC: Author.
25. Cizek, G. J. (2001). Conjectures on the rise and call of standard setting: An introduction to context and practice. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 3-17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. 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.
27. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2006). Troubling images of teaching in No Child Left Behind. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 668-697.
28. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making Sense of Qualitative Data Analysis: Complementary Strategies. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
29. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 327-345.
30. Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform?. Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11-17.
31. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343.
32. Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A.T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-535.
33. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Standards and assessments: Where we are and what we need. Teachers College Record [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content. asp?ContentID=11109.
34. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047-1085.
35. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of whole school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357-374.
36. Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446.
37. Desimone, L. (2000). The role of teachers in urban school reform. Clearinghouse on Urban Education Digest, 154.
38. Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433-479.
39. Desimone, L. M. (2006). Consider the source: Response differences among teachers, principals, and districts on survey questions about their education policy environment. Educational Policy, 20(4), 640-676.
40. Desimone, L. M., Smith, T., Baker, D., & Ueno, K. (2005). The distribution of teaching quality in mathematics: Assessing barriers to the reform of United States mathematics instruction from an international perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 501-535.
41. Desimone, L., Smith, T., & Frisvold, D. (2007). Is NCLB increasing teacher quality for students in poverty? In A. Gamoran (Ed.), Will standards-based reform in education help close the poverty gap? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
42. Desimone, L. M., Smith, T. S., Hayes, S., & Frisvold, D. (2005). Beyond Accountability and Average Math Scores: Relating Multiple State Education Policy Attributes to Changes in Student Achievement in Procedural Knowledge, Conceptual Understanding and Problem Solving in Mathematics. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(4), 5-18.
43. Diamond, J. B. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high stakes accountability policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80(4), 285-313.
44. Diamond, J. B., Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality?. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145-1176.
45. Eisenhart, M. (2006). Representing qualitative data. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 567-581). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye. Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
47. Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
48. Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
49. Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago's low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 594-629.
50. Firestone, W. A. (2003). The governance of teaching and standards-based reform from the 1970s to the new millennium. In Hallinan, M., Gamoran, A., Kubitschek, W., & Loveless, T. (Ed.) Stability and change in American education: Structure, process and outcomes. Clinton Corners, NY: Elliot Werner Publications.
51. Firestone, W., Camilli, G., Yurecko, M., Monfils, L., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). State standards, socio-fiscal context and opportunity to learn in New Jersey. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(35).
52. Firestone, W., Mangin, M., Martinez, M., & Polovsky, T. (2005). Leading coherent professional development: A comparison of three districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 413-448.
53. Firestone, W., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-133.
54. Firestone, W.A., & Schorr, R., (2004). Introduction. In W.A. Firestone, W. A., R. Schorr, & L. F. Monfils (Eds.), The ambiguity of teaching to the test: Standards, assessment and educational reform (pp. 1-17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55. Floden, R. E., Porter, A. C., Schmidt, W. H., Freeman, D. J., & Schwille, J. R. (1981). Responses to curriculum pressures: Policy-capturing study of teacher decisions about content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 129-141.
56. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: probing the depth of educational reform. New York: Routledge Falmer.
57. Gallagher, K. (2010, November). Why I won't teach to the test. Education Week, 30(12), 29, 36.
58. Gamoran, A. (Ed.) (2007). Standards-based reform and the poverty gap: Lessons for No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
59. Gill, M. G., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2004). Changing preservice teachers' epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 164-185.
60. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
61. Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
62. Gold, B. (2002). Social construction of urban education: New Jersey whole school reform and teachers' understanding of social class and race. New York: Pace University.
63. Grant, S. G., Peterson, P. L., & Shojgreen-Downer, A. (1996). Learning to teach mathematics in the context of systemic reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 509-541.
64. Green, J., Dixon, C., & Zaharlock, A. (2002). Ethnography as a logic of inquiry. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook for methods of research on English language arts teaching (pp. 201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
65. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
66. Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers' cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 147-179.
67. Hamilton, L. S. (2004). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27, 25-68.
68. Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D., Klein, S. P., Stecher, B. M., Robyn, A., & Bugliari, D. (2003). Studying large-scale reforms of instructional practice: An example from mathematics and science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 1-29.
69. Hamilton, L., & Stecher, B. (2004). Responding Effectively to Test-Based Accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(8), 578.
70. Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B. M. (2006). Measuring instructional responses to standards-based accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
71. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J., Naftel, S., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
72. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Russell, J. L., Marsh, J. A. & Miles, J. (2008). Accountability and teaching practices: School-level actions and teacher responses. Research in Sociology of Education, 16, 31-66.
73. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Yuan, K. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
74. Hannaway, J. (2003). Accountability, assessment, and performance issues: we've come a long way .. or have we? In W. L. Boyd, D. & Miretzky (Eds), American Educational Governance on Trial: Change and Challenges, 102nd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
75. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297-327.
76. Hassel, B. C., & Hassel, E. A. (2010). Low-performing schools. Race to the Top: Accelerating College and Career Readiness in States. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc.
77. Hauser, R. M. (1999, April). What if we ended social promotion?. Education Week, 18(30), 34-36.
78. Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., & Darwin, M. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide (NCEE #2008- 4020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides.
79. Hilliard, A. G., III. (2000). Excellence in education versus high-stakes standardized testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(4), 293-304.
80. Huberman, A. M., Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.428-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
81. Ingram, D., Louis, K. S., Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1258-1287.
82. Jennings, N., Swidler, S., & Koliba, C. (2005). Place-based education in the standards-based reform era-conflict or complement?. American Journal of Education, 112(1), 44.
83. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
84. Jones, B. D., & Egley, R. J. (2006). Looking through different lenses: Teachers' and administrators' views of accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 767-771.
85. Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 199-203.
86. Klein, S., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D., & Stretcher, B. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us?. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
87. Knapp, M. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 227-266.
88. Knapp, M. S., Elfers, A. M., Plecki, M. L., Loeb, H., Boatright, B., Cabot, N., & Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, S. (2004). Preparing for Reform, Supporting Teachers' Work: Surveys of Washington State Teachers, 2003-04 School Year. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
89. Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
90. Koretz, D. M., Barron, S., Mitchell, K., & Stecher, B. M. (1996). Perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
91. Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In R. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (pp. 531-578). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
92. Koretz, D., McCaffrey, D., & Hamilton, L. (2001). Toward a framework for validating gains under high-stakes conditions (CSE Technical Report 551). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
93. Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., & McCaffrey, D. (1994). The Vermont portfolio assessment program: Findings and implications. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(3), 5-16.
94. Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly, Hills, CA: Sage.
95. Ladd, H. F., & Zelli, A. (2002). School based accountability in North Carolina: The responses of school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 494-529.
96. Lane, S., Parke, C.S., & Stone, C.A. (2002). The impact of a state performance-based assessment and accountability program on mathematics instruction and student learning: Evidence from survey data and school performance. Educational Assessment, 8(4), 279-315.
97. Le Floch, K.C., Martinez, F., O'Day, J., Stecher, B., Taylor, J., & Cook, A. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Vol. III-accountability under NCLB. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
98. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly, Hills, CA: Sage.
99. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
100. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002) Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-16.
101. Loeb, H., Knapp, M. S., & Elfers, A. M. (2008). Teachers' response to standards-based reform: Probing reform assumptions in Washington State. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(8), 1-29.
102. Louis, K. S., Dentler, R. A. (1988). Knowledge use and school improvement. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(1), 33-62.
103. Louis, K. S., Febey, K., Schroeder, R. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers' interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 177-204.
104. Loveless, T. (Eds.) (2001). The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math? Washington, DC: Brookings.
105. McCann, T., M., Jones, A. C., & Aronoff, G. (2010). TRUTHS hidden in plain view. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 65-67.
106. McCombs, J. S. (2005). Progress in implementing standards, assessments, and the highly qualified teacher provisions of NCLB: Perspectives from California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
107. McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record, 77(3), 339-351.
108. McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
109. McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study Revisited: Macro Perspectives and Micro Realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
110. McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
111. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routeledge.
112. Measuring Up. (2002, January). Education Week, 21(16), 26. Retrieved from http://www. edweek.org/ew/articles/2002/01/09/16testbox1.h21.html?qs=Testing+systems+in+m ost+states+not+ESEA+ready
113. Mehrens, W. A., Popham, W. J., & Ryan, J. (1998). How to prepare students for performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 17, 18-22.
114. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
115. 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.
116. Minnici, A., & Hill, D. D. (2007). Educational architects: Do state education agencies have the tools necessary to implement NCLB? Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
117. Monfils, L. F., Firestone, W. A., Hicks, J. E., Martinez, M. C., Schorr, R. Y., & Camilli, G. (2004). Teaching to the test. In W. A. Firestone, R. Schorr, & L. F. Monfils (Eds.). The ambiguity of teaching to the test: Standards, assessment and educational reform (pp. 37-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
118. National Council on Education Standards and Testing. (1992). Raising standards for American education. A report to Congress, the Secretary of Education, the National Education Goals Panel, and the American people. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
119. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
120. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
121. Nave, B., Miech, E., & Mosteller, F. (2000). A lapse in standards: Linking standards-based reform with student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(2), 128-132.
122. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
123. No Child Left Behind. (2004, August). Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek. org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/
124. O'Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.
125. Parke, C. S., & Lane, S. (2008). Examining alignment between state performance assessment and mathematics classroom activities. Journal of Educational Research, 101(3), 132-147.
126. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
127. Pellegrino, J. W., Baxter, G. P., & Glaser, R. (1999). Addressing the "two disciplines" problem: Linking theories of cognition and learning with assessment and instructional practice. Review of Research in Education, 24(9), 307-353.
128. Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator's call to action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
129. Porter, A. (1993). School delivery standards. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 24-30.
130. Porter, A. C. (1998). The effects of upgrading policies on high school mathematics and science. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 1998 (pp. 123-172). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
131. Porter, A. (2000). Doing high-stakes assessment right. The School Administrator, 11(57), 28-31.
132. Porter, A. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
133. Porter, A., Floden, R., Freeman, D., Schmidt, W., & Schwille, J. (1988). Content determinants in elementary school mathematics. In D. A. Grouws & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematical teaching (pp. 96-113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
134. Porter, A., 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. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
135. Ravitch, D. (2010). The Death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
136. Remillard, J. T. (2005) Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246.
137. Resnick, L. B., Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., & Vranek, J. (2004). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing. Educational Assessment, 9(1-2), 1-27.
138. Reys, B., Reys, R., & Rubenstein, R. (2010). Mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions, 72nd Yearbook. Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
139. Richardson, V., Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905-947). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.
140. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed.) (pp 259-309). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
141. Sandholtz, J. H., Ogawa, R., & Scribner, S. P. (2004). Standards gaps: Unintended consequences of local standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1177-1202.
142. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
143. Sheldon, K. M., & Biddle, B. J. (1998). Standards, accountability, and school reform: Perils and pitfalls. Teachers College Record, 100, 164-180.
144. Shepard, L., Hannaway, J., & Baker, E. (2009). Standards, assessments, and accountability: Education policy white paper. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education. Retrieved from http://www.naeducation.org/Standards_Assessments_Accountability_ White_Paper.pdf
145. Smith, T., Desimone, L., & Ueno, K. (2005). "Highly Qualified" to Do What? The Relationship between NCLB Teacher Quality Mandates and the Use of Reformoriented Instruction in Middle School Math. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 75-109.
146. Smith, M., & O'Day, J. (1991a). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). London: The Falmer Press.
147. Smith, M., & O'Day, J. (1991b). Putting the pieces together: Systemic school reform (CPRE Policy Brief). New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics.
148. Spillane, J. (2005). Primary school leadership practice: How the subject matters. School Leadership & Management, 25(4), 383-397.
149. Spillane, J., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing on implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.
150. Spillane, J., & Zeuli, J. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.
151. Stecher, B. M., Barron, S. L., Chun, T. & Ross, K. (2000). The effects of the Washington state education reform on schools and classrooms (CSE Technical Report No. 525). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
152. Stecher, B., Barron, S., Chun, T., & Ross, K. (2005). The effects of Washington state education reform on schools and classrooms. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
153. Stecher, B. M., Barron, S., Kaganoff, T., & Goodwin, J. (1998). The effects of standards-based assessment on classroom practices: Results of the 1996-97 RAND survey of Kentucky teachers of mathematics and writing (CSE Technical Report No. 482). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
154. Stecher, B. M., & Borko, H. (2002). Integrating findings from survey sand case studies: Examples from a study of standards-based educational reform. Journal of Education Policy, 17(5), 547-569.
155. Stecher, B. M., & Chun, T. (2001, April) The effects of the Washington education reform on school and classroom practice, 1999-2000. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
156. Stecher, B. M., Epstein, S., Hamilton, L. S., Marsh, J. A., Robyn, A., McCombs, J. S., Russell, J., et al. (2008). Pain and gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in three states, 2004-2006. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
157. Stecher, B. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2002). Putting theory to the test: Systems of "educational accountability" should be held accountable. RAND Review, 26(1), 17-23.
158. Stecher, B. M., Hamilton, L. S., Ryan, G. W., Le, V., Williams, V. L., Robyn, A. & Alonzo, A. (2002). Measuring reform-oriented instructional practices in mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
159. Stecher, B. M., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors [Monograph]. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http:// www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG136.sum.pdf.
160. Stecher, B. M., & Mitchell, K. (1995). Portfolio-driven reform: Vermont teachers' understanding of mathematical problem solving and related changes to classroom practice (RP-539). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
161. Stevenson, H., & Stigler, J. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.
162. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
163. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
164. Swanson, C., & Stevenson, D. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 1-27.
165. Taylor, J., Stecher, B., O'Day, J., Naftel, S., & Le Floch, K. C. (2010). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Vol. IX-Accountability under NCLB: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
166. Tyack, D., Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
167. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Fact sheet on the major provisions of the conference report to H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/ intro/factsheet.html
168. Valli, L., Croninger, R., & Walters, K. (2007). Who (else) is the teacher? Cautionary notes on teacher accountability systems. American Journal of Education, 113, 635-662.
169. Watanabe, M. (2007). Displaced teacher and state priorities in a highstakes accountability context. Educational Policy, 21(2), 311-368.
170. Weast, J. D. (2011). Engage educators in order to achieve the best results for students. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(4), 39-42.
171. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation research: Methods for studying programs and policies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
172. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
173. Weiss, I. R., Knapp, M. S., Hollweg, K. S., & Burril, G. (2002). Investigating the influence of standards: A framework for research in mathematics, science, and technology education. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
174. Wolf, S. A., & McIver, M. (1999). When process becomes policy: The paradox of Kentucky state reform for exemplary teachers of writing. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(5), 401-406.
175. Wong, K. K., Anagnostopoulos, D., Rutledge, S., & Edwards, C. (2003). The challenge of improving instruction in urban high schools: Case studies of the implementation of the Chicago academic standards. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(3), 39-87.