The ambiguity of teaching to the test: Standards, assessment, and educational reform

The Ambiguity of Teaching to the Test: Standards, Assessment, and Educational Reform

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 1-247

  Firestone, William A ^a   Schorr, Roberta Y ^a   Monfils, Lora F ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890722514     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410609946     Document Type: Book

References (197)

1. AAAS Project 2061. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Abelman, C., & Elmore, R. F. (1999). When accountability knocks will anyone answer? Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
3. Adams, J. E., & Kirst, M. W. (1999). New demands and concepts for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 463-490). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4. Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling. New York: Teachers College Press.
5. Ball, D. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.
6. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 83-104). Westport, CT: Ablex.
7. Barton, P. (2001). Raising achievement and reducing gaps: Reporting progress toward goals for academic achievement. National Educational Goals Panel. Retrieved March 15, 2002, from http://www.negp.gov.
8. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10. Berman, P. E. (1986). From compliance to learning: Implementing legally induced reform. In D. Kirp & D. Jensen (Eds.), School days, rule days (pp. 46-62). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
11. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 7. Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
12. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-74.
13. Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers' perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 143-163.
14. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals' instructional leadership and teacher development: Teacher perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.
15. Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform curriculum and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(4), 239-258.
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(5), 394-400.
17. Bossert, S. T. (1988). School effects. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 341-351). White Plains, NY: Longman.
18. Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
19. Bulgar, S. (2002). Through a teacher's lens: Children's constructions of division of fractions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
20. Bulgar, S., Schorr, R. Y., & Maher, C. A. (2002). Teachers' questions and their role in helping students build an understanding of division of fractions. In Proceedings of Psychology of Mathematics Education-XXVI (pp. 161-168). Norwich, England.
21. Burch, P., & Spillane, J. P. (2001, April). Subject matter and elementary school leadership: Leaders' thinking about mathematics and literacy in the context of their school reform initiatives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
22. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
23. Camara, W., & Schmidt, A. E. (1999). Group differences in standardized testing and social stratification (College Board Rpt. No. 99-5). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
24. Campbell, P. (1995). Project IMPACT: Increasing mathematics power for all children and teachers. Phase 1, final report. College Park: Center for Mathematics Education, University of Maryland.
25. 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.
26. Carpenter, T. P., & Lehrer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 19-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Clotfelter, C. T., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 23-63). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
28. Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective discourse and collective reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 258-277.
29. Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1990). Classrooms as learning environments for teachers and researchers. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 140-168). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
30. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & McNeal, E. (1993). Mathematics as procedural instructions and mathematics as meaningful activity: The reality of teaching for understanding. In R. B. Davis & C. A. Maher (Eds.), Schools, mathematics, and the world of reality (pp.119-133). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
31. Cohen, D., & Barnes, C. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In D. Cohen, M. McLaughlin, & J. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207-239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343.
33. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, J., McPartland, J., & Mood, A. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
34. Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. (1991). Testing, reform, and rebellion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
35. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1980 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
36. Davis, J., Wagner, L. R., & Shafer, M. C. (1997). Classroom observation scale. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
37. Davis, R. B. (1984). Learning mathematics: The cognitive science approach to mathematics education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38. Davis, R. B., & Maher, C. A. (1997). How students think: The role of representations. In L. English (Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images (pp. 93-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Dreeben, R. (1970). The nature of teaching: Schools and the work of teachers. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
40. Dworkin, M. S. (1959). Dewey on education selections. New York: Teachers College Press.
41. Editorial Projects in Education. (2001). A better balance: Standards, tests, and the tools to succeed: Quality Counts 2001. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education.
42. Education Week on the Web. (2002a, April 3). Accountability. Retrieved April 15, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=49.
43. Education Week on the Web. (2002b, April 3). Assessment. Retrieved April 15, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=41.
44. Elmore, R. F. (1995). Teaching, learning, and school organization: Principles of practice and regularities of schooling. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(3), 355-374.
45. Erlichson, B. A., & Goertz, M. E. (2001). Implementing whole school reform in New Jersey: Year 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Government Services.
46. Fairman, J., & Firestone, W. A. (2001). The district role in state assessment policy: An exploratory study. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 124-147). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47. Fennema, E., Sowder, J., & Carpenter, T. A. (1999). Creating classrooms that promote understanding. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 185-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48. Firestone, W. (1989). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151-165.
49. Firestone, W. A. (1990). Continuity and incrementalism after all. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational reform movement of the 1980s: Perspectives and cases (pp. 143-166). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
50. Firestone, W. A. (2003). Educational accountability. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education, (2), 651-656. New York: Macmillan Reference.
51. Firestone, W. A., Camilli, G., Yurecko, M., Monfils, L., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). State standards, socio-fiscal context and opportunity to learn in New Jersey. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(35), http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n35/.
52. Firestone, W. A., Goertz, M. E., & Natriello, G. J. (1997). From cashbox to classroom: The struggle for fiscal reform and educational change in New Jersey. New York: Teachers College Press.
53. Firestone, W. A., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). Rethinking "high stakes": Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 724-749.
54. Firestone, W., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1997). Rethinking high stakes: External obligation in assessment policy. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
55. Firestone, W. A., 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), 95-113.
56. Firestone, W. A., Monfils, L., Camilli, G., Schorr, R., Hicks, J., & Mayrowetz, D. (2002). The ambiguity of test preparation: A multimethod analysis in one state. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1485-1523.
57. Floden, R. E., Porter, A. C., Alford, L. E., Freeman, D. J., Susan, I., Schmidt, W. H., & Schwille, J. R. (1988). Instructional leadership at the district level: A closer look at autonomy and control. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 96-124.
58. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
59. Goertz, M. E. (2002). Accountability in the states: How is it working? (Congressional Briefing). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
60. Goldsmith, L. T., & Schifter, D. (1993). Characteristics of a model for the development of mathematics teaching (Reports and papers in progress). Newton, MA: Center for Learning, Teaching & Technology, Education Development Center.
61. Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 290-294.
62. Hafner, A. L. (1993). Teaching-method scales and mathematics-class achievement: What works with different outcomes? American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 71-94.
63. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. L. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of the empirical research: 1980-95. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
64. Hannaway, J. (1993). Decentralization in two school districts: Challenging the standard paradigm. In J. Hannaway & M. Carnoy (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp. 135-162). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
65. Hannaway, J., & Kimball, K. (2001). Big isn't always bad: School district size, poverty, and standards-based reform. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 99-123). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66. Hannaway, J., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Bringing context into effective school research: Urban-suburban differences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 164-186.
67. Hanushek, E. (1994). Making schools work: Improving performance and controlling costs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
68. Hanushek, E., & Meyer, R. H. (1996). Comments on chapters two, three, and four. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 128-149). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
69. Heller, M., & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who's in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 65-86.
70. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (1998). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
71. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York: Macmillan.
72. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students' learning in second grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393-425.
73. House, E. R., Glass, G. V., McClean, L. D., & Walker, D. F. (1978). No simple answer: A critique of the Follow Through Evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 128-160.
74. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1996). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
75. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
76. Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, J. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., & Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Harper & Row.
77. Kaase, K. J. (2002, April 1-5). School accountability and student accountability: Reducing or exacerbating achievement gaps? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
78. Kane, M. T. (2001). So much remains the same: Conception and status of validation in setting standards. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 53-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
79. Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., & Stecher, B. M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? (IP-202). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
80. Kleine-Kracht, P. (1993). Indirect instructional leadership: An administrator's choice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 187-212.
81. Klinzing, G., Klinzing-Eurich, G., & Teicher, R. P. (1985). Higher cognitive behaviors in classroom discourse: Congruency between teachers' questions and pupils' responses. The Australian Journal of Education, 29(1), 63-75.
82. Knapp, M. S. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
83. Kober, N. (2001). It takes more than testing: Closing the achievement gap. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
84. Koretz, D. M. (1986). Educational achievement: Explanations and implications of recent trends. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
85. Koretz, D. M. (1987). Trends in educational achievement. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
86. Koretz, D., Mitchell, K., Barron, S., & Keith, S. (1996). Final report: Perceived effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
87. Labaree, D. F. (2000). Resisting educational standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(1), 28-33.
88. Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. L. (19991). A century's quest to understand school leadership. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 45-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
89. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
90. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-15.
91. Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.
92. Little, J. W. (1989). District policy choices and teachers' professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 165-180.
93. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
94. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
95. Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
96. Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. B. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.
97. Louis, K. S., Toole, J., & Hargreaves, A. (1999). Rethinking school improvement. In K. S. Louis & J. Murphy (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 251-276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
98. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
99. Madaus, G. F., & Clarke, M. (2001). The adverse impact of high stakes testing on minority students: Evidence from 100 years of test data (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED450183). New York: Century Foundation Press.
100. Maher, C. A. (1998). Kommunikation och konstruktivistisk undervisning [Communication and constructivist teaching]. In A. Engrstom (Ed.), Matematik och reflektion (pp. 124-143). Lund, Sweden: Studenlitteratur.
101. Maher, C. A., Martino, A. M., & Davis, R. B. (1994). Children's different ways of thinking about fractions. Proceedings of Psychology of Mathematics Education XVIII. Lisbon, Portugal.
102. Martino, A., & Maher, C. A. (1999). Teacher questioning to promote justification and generalization in mathematics: What research practice has taught us. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(1), 53-78.
103. McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305-322.
104. McGrath, J. E. (1982). Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and methods. In J. E. McGrath, J. Martin, & R. A. Kulka (Eds.), Judgment calls in research (pp. 69-102). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
105. McLaughlin, M. (1987). Lessons from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
106. McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand Change Agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
107. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
108. McNeil, L., & Valenzuela, A. (1999). The harmful impact to the TAAS system on testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. Retrieved February 15, 2001, from http://www.law.harvard.edu/civilrights/conferences/testing 98.
109. Mehrens, W. A. (1998). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 6(13). Retrieved April 15, 2002, from http:// olam.ed.asu.edu/ epaa/v6n13.html.
110. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
111. Monfils, L., Camilli, G., Firestone, W. A., Yurecko, M., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000, April). Multidimensional analysis of scales developed to measure standards based instruction in response to systemic reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
112. National Alliance of Business. (2000). Improving performance: Competition in American public education. Washington, DC: Author.
113. National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Digest of educational statistics, 1998. Washington, DC: Author.
114. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000a). Digest of Educational Statistics, 2000. Washington, DC: Author.
115. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000b). Statistics in brief: Overview of public elementary and secondary school districts: School year 1998-99. Washington, DC: Author.
116. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
117. National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it's too late. Washington, DC: Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education.
118. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
119. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
120. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
121. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
122. Nelson, B. S., & Sassi, A. (2000). Shifting approaches to supervision: The case of mathematics supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(4), 513-553.
123. New Jersey State Department of Education. (1996). Core Curriculum Content Standards. Trenton, NJ: Author.
124. Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (Eds.). (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
125. Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work: Conflict or coexistence. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
126. Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and school performance: Implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Education Review, 61(1), 41-69.
127. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 STAT. 1425 (2001).
128. O'Day, J., & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
129. Odden, A., & Dougherty, V. (1982). State programs of school improvement: A 50-state survey. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
130. Pennell, J. R., & Firestone, W. A. (1997). Changing practices through teacher networks: Matching program features with teacher characteristics and circumstances. Teachers College Record, 34(5), 209-235.
131. Piciarello, H. (1968). Evaluation of Title I. Washington, DC: American Institute for the Advancement of Science.
132. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2-3), 165-190
133. Porter, A. (1989). External standards and good teaching: The pros and the cons of telling teachers what to do. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4), 343-356.
134. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
135. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2000). HLM5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
136. Razze, J. S. (2001). The influence of New Jersey policy, standards, and assessments on elementary science teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
137. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O'Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 37-75). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
138. Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559-586.
139. Robelen, E. W. (2002). An ESEA primer. Education Week. Retrieved July, 24, 2002, from http://www.edweek.com/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=16eseabox.h21&keywords=ESE A%20Primer.
140. Romberg, T. A., & Kaput, J. J. (1999). Mathematics worth teaching, mathematics worth understanding. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
141. Rosenblum, S., & Louis, K. S. (1981). Stability and change: Innovation in an educational context. New York: Plenum.
142. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schooling. New York: Longman.
143. Rosenstein, J., Caldwell, J., & Crown, W. (Eds.). (1997). New Jersey Mathematics Curriculum Framework. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
144. Rothman, R. (1995). Measuring up: Standards, assessment, and school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
145. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1996). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematic education. East Lansing, MI: U.S. National Research Center for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study.
146. Schorr, R. Y. (2000). Impact at the student level. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 209-231.
147. Schorr, R. Y. (2002). Looking at change in the teaching of mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
148. Schorr, R. Y. (2000). Motion, speed, and other ideas that "should be put in books." Journal of Mathematical Behavior.
149. Schorr R. Y., & Firestone, W. A. (2001). Changing mathematics teaching in response to a state testing program: A fine-grained analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
150. Schorr, R. Y., & Koellner-Clark, K. (2003). Using a modeling approach to consider the ways in which teachers consider new ways to teach mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning: An International Journal, 5(2), 191-210.
151. Schorr, R. Y., & Lesh, R. (1998). Using thought-revealing activities to stimulate new instructional models for teachers. In S. Berenson, K. Dawkins, M. Blanton, W. Coulcombe, J. Kolb, K. Norwood, & L. Stiff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 723-731). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
152. Schorr, R. Y., & Lesh, R. (2002). A models and modeling perspective on classroombased teacher development. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on teaching, learning, and problem solving in mathematics education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
153. Schorr, R. Y., & Lesh, R. (2003). A modeling approach for providing teacher development. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on teaching, learning, and problem solving in mathematics education (pp. 141-157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
154. Schorr, R. Y., Maher, C. A., & Davis, R. B. (1997). Does teaching mathematics as a thoughtful subject influence the problem-solving behaviors of urban students? Proceedings of the 21st International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(4), 136-143. Lahti, Finland.
155. Shafer, M., & Romberg, T. A. (1999). Assessment in classrooms that promote understanding. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 159-184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
156. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 1-22.
157. Silver, E. A., & Stein, M. K. (1996). The QUASAR Project: The "revolution of the possible" in mathematics instructional reform in urban middle schools. Urban Education, 30, 476-521.
158. Simon, M. A., & Tzur, R. (1999). Exploring the teacher's perspective from the researchers' perspectives: generating accounts of mathematics teachers' practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 30(3), 252-264.
159. Simon, M. A., Tzur, R., Heinz, K., Kinzel, M., & Schwan-Smith, M. (2000). Characterizing a perspective underlying the practice of mathematics teachers in transition. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(5), 579-601
160. Smerdon, B. A., Burkam, D. T., & Lee, V. E. (1999). Access to constructivist and didactic teaching: Who gets it? Where is it practiced? Teachers College Record, 101(1), 5-34.
161. Smith, B. (2000). Quantity matters: Annual instructional time in an urban school district. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 652-662.
162. Smith, M. L. (1991a). Meanings of test preparation. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 521-542.
163. Smith, M. L. (1991b). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on students. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8-12.
164. Smith, M. L. (1996). Reforming schools by reforming assessment: Consequences of the Arizona Student Assessment Program. Tempe: Southwest Educational Policy Studies, Arizona State University.
165. Smith, M., & O'Day, J. (1991). Putting the pieces together: Systemic school reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
166. Smylie, M., Conley, S., & Marks, H. M. (2002). Building leadership into the roles of teachers. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 162-188). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
167. Smylie, M. A., & Hart, A. W. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: A human and social capital perspective. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 421-443). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
168. Sowder, J., & Phillip, R. (1999). Promoting learning in middle-grades mathematics. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 89-108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
169. Spillane, J. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87.
170. Spillane, J. (1998a). A cognitive perspective on the role of the local educational agency in implementing instructional policy: Accounting for local variability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 31-57.
171. Spillane, J. (1998b). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.
172. Spillane, J. (2000). District leaders' perceptions of teacher learning. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
173. Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185-203.
174. Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (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.
175. Stecher, B. M., & Barron, S. I. (1999). Quadrennial milepost accountability testing in Kentucky. Los Angeles: CRESST.
176. Stecher, B. M., & Mitchell, K. (1995). Portfolio-driven reform: Vermont teachers' understanding of mathematical problem-solving and related changes in classroom practice (Tech. Rpt. No. 400). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
177. Stein, K. S., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-base mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.
178. Stein, M. K., & D'Amico, L. (2000). How subjects matter in school leadership. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
179. Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 268-276.
180. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 14-21.
181. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
182. Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 227-249.
183. Sullivan, P., & Clarke, D. (1992). Problem solving with conventional mathematics content: Responses of pupils to open mathematical tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 4(1), 42-60.
184. Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 357-384.
185. Swanson, C. B., & Stevenson, D. L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 1-24.
186. Tabachnick, B., & Zeichner, K. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experiment on the development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 21, 165-167.
187. Thompson, A. G. (1985). Teachers' conceptions of mathematics and the teaching of problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematics problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 281-294). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
188. Tobin, K., Tippins, D., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: A project of the National Science Teachers Association (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan.
189. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
190. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
191. Welch, W. W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 7, pp. 282-306). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
192. Westinghouse Learning Corporation and Ohio University. (1969). The impact of Head Start: An evaluation of the effects of Head Start on Children's cognitive and affective development. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Opportunity.
193. Whitford, B. L., & Jones, K. (2000). Kentucky lesson: How high stakes school accountability undermines a performance-based curriculum vision. In B. L. Whitford & K. Jones (Eds.), Accountability, assessment, and teacher commitment: Lessons from kentucky's reform efforts (pp. 9-24). Albany: State University of New York Press.
194. Wolcott, H. F. (1977). Teachers vs. technocrats: An educational innovation in anthropological perspective. Eugene: Center for Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon.
195. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
196. Zhang, L. (2002, April). Examining achievement gap between Black and White students: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
197. Zieky, M. J. (2001). So much has changed: How the setting of cutscores has evolved since the 1980s. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.