Assessment Policy and Politics of Information

Handbook of Education Policy Research

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 319-332

  Lindle, Jane Clark ^a  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145833730     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203880968-30     Document Type: Chapter

References (278)

1. About EPE. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www2. edweek.org/info/about/
2. About NAEP. (2007). Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://nces. ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
3. Althaus, S. L., Edy, J. A., & Phalen, P. F. (2001). Using substitutes for full-text news stories in content analysis: Which text is best? American Journal of Political Science, 45, 707-723.
4. Anderson, G. L. (2007). Media’s impact on educational policies and practices: Political spectacle and social control. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 103-120.
5. *Anderson, N. (2005, March 24). Scrutiny increases at ailing schools; 4 in Pr. George’s may get assistance. Washington Post, Final metro edition, p. B01.
6. *Anderson, N. (2005, November 11). Md. test of English reveals wide gaps; Pr. George’s falters; Howard leads state. Washington Post, Final edition, p. B01.
7. *Anderson, N. (2005, November 11). New Md. test of English shows wide disparities. Washington Post, Final edition, p. B06.
8. *Anderson, N. (2006, January 24). The ‘No Child’ Law’s flexible enforcer; As she assesses progress, the Education Secretary who helped craft the measure develops a lighter touch. Washington Post, Final edition, p. A10.
9. *Anderson, N. (2006, February 25). Districts in Md. miss special-ed testing targets. Washington Post, p. B01.
10. *Anderson, N. (2006, August 20). Proposal to boost schools’ offerings; Pr. George’s chief would expand AP. Washington Post, Final edition, p. C01.
11. *Anderson, N., & Aratani, L. (2005, June 21). Maryland releases schools watch list; 39 in Prince George’s face stricter oversight. Washington Post, Final edition, p. B01.
12. *Archer, J. (2005, May 25). States eyeing expense of hand-scored tests in light of NCLB rules. Education Week, 24(38), 1, 21.
13. Armstrong, J. (2002, May). “Next-generation” accountability models:Principles from interviews (3 p.). Education Commission of the States Briefing Paper. Retrieved July15, 2003, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/40/29/4029.htm
14. *Baker, P. (2007, September 27). An extra ‘S’ on the report card; Hailing a singular achievement, President gets pluralistic. Washington Post, Met 2 Edition, p. A10.
15. Bane, M. J. (2001). Expertise, advocacy and deliberation: Lessons from welfare reform. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 191-197.
16. Baumgartner, F. R., Green-Pedersen, C., & Jones, B. D. (2006). Comparative studies of policy agendas. Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 959-974.
17. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. L. (2001). Interest niches and policy bandwagons: Patterns of interest group involvement in national politics. The Journal of Politics, 63, 1191-1213.
19. Beck, M. D. (2007). Review and other views: “Alignment” as a psychometric issue. Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 127-135.
20. Berkman, M. B., & Plutzer, E. (2005). Ten thousand democracies: Politics and public opinion in America’s school districts. Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press.
21. Birkland, T. A. (2001). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
22. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Lessons from around the world: How policies, politics and cultures constrain and afford assessment practices. The Curriculum Journal, 16, 249-261.
23. Bohman, J. (1999). Democracy as inquiry, inquiry as democratic: Pragmatism, social science, and the cognitive division of labor. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 590-607.
24. Borja, R. R. (2007, February 21). Nebraska swims hard against testing’s tides. Education Week, 26(24), 32-34.
25. *Bradley, A. (2005, May 25). Union campaigns to change how NCLB assesses progress. Education Week, 24(38), 4.
26. Buckendahl, C., Huynh, H., Siskind, T., & Saunders, J. (2005). A case study of vertically moderated standard setting for a state science assessment program. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 83-98.
27. Burke, M., & Christie, K. (2006). State data systems. Denver, CO: Educational Commission of the States. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=913
28. *Bush, J., & Bloomberg, M. R. (2006, August 13). How to help our students; Building on the ‘No Child’ law. Washington Post, Final edition, p. B07.
29. California Department of Education. (2007, May). Spotlight on STAR 2007: Standardized testing and reporting (STAR) program. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/spotlightstar.doc
30. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
31. *Cavanaugh, S. (2006, July 12). California study questions validity of gains under NCLB. Education Week, 25(42), 19.
32. *Cavanaugh, S. (2006, August 9). Perkins Bill is approved by Congress. Education Week, 25(44), 1, 27.
33. *Cavanaugh, S. (2007, May 23). Test gains reigniting old debate: Did NCLB law play a role in history, civics scores? Education Week, 26(38), 1, 16.
34. Cavanaugh, S., & Manzo, K. K. (2007, October 3). NAEP gains: Experts mull significance. Education Week, 27(6), 1, 16-17.
35. Cech, S. J. (2007a, June 13). Florida scoring glitch sparks broad debate. Education Week, 26(41), 19.
36. *Cech, S. J. (2007b, June 13). Nebraska moves to statewide reading, math exams. Education Week, 26(41), 18, 21.
37. *Cech, S. J. (2007c, August 1). 12-state study finds falloff in testing gains after NCLB. Education Week, 26(44), 9.
38. Cech, S. J. (2007d, August 15). 10-state pilot preparing teachers to develop tests. Education Week, 26(45), 10.
39. *Cech, S. J. (2008, January 30). Tests of tech literacy still not widespread despite NCLB goals. Education Week, 27(1), 1, 12.
40. *Chan, S. (2004, October 1). New D.C. learning standards weighed; Schools will adopt Mass. or Calif. Plan. Washington Post, Final edition, p. A19.
41. Cizek, G. J. (2001). Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Cizek, G. J. (2005). Adapting testing technology to serve accountability aims: The case of vertically moderated standard setting. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 1-9.
43. Cobb, C. D. (2002, February). Performance-based accountability systems for public education. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.nhpolicy.org/reports/caseyreport.pdf
44. Cobb, C. D. (2004). Looking across the states: Perspectives on school accountability. Educational Foundations, 18(3/4), 59-79.
45. Colorado Department of Education. (1995). Colorado model content standards:Reading and writing. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/documents/standards/reading.pdf
46. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2002). No Child Left Behind Act: A description of state responsibilities. Washington, DC:Division of State Services and Technical Assistance.
47. Cox, M. L., Demczyk, M. J., & Nieberding, J. J. (2006). Provision of testing accommodations for students with disabilities on statewide assessments: Statistical links with participation and discipline rates. Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 346-354.
48. Crane, E., & Winter, P. C. (2006). Setting coherent performance standards. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=338
49. Cuban, L. (2004). Looking through the rearview mirror at school accountability. In K. A. Sirotnik (Ed.), Holding accountability accountable:What ought to matter in public education (pp.18-34). New York:Teachers College Press.
50. Darmofal, D. (2005). Elite cues and citizen disagreement with expert opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 381-395.
51. Data collection booms, but states need systems to use effectively. (2006, June 2). Electronic Education Report, 13(10), 4-5.
52. *Davis, M. R. (2005, February 9). Utah is unlikely fly in Bush’s school ointment. Education Week, 24(22), 1, 21.
53. *Davis, M. R. (2006, May 3). Spellings addresses testing, NCLB issues. Education Week, 25(34), 27, 29.
54. *Davis, M. R. (2006, May 17). NCLB panel gathers views on testing and data collection. Education Week, 25(37), 25.
55. *Davis, M. R. (2006, May 24). Displaced students’ test scores won’t count for AYP. Education Week, 25(38), 27-28.
56. *Davis, M. R. (2006, June 21). Ed. Dept. to weigh NCLB subgroup issues. Education Week, 25(41), 33, 35.
57. *Davis, M. R. (2006, September 20). Students displaced by storms score lower on state tests. Education Week, 26(4), 22.
58. *Davis, M. R., & Archer, J. (2005, May 11). Complaint targets Utah NCLB law. Education Week, 24(36), 22.
59. *Davis, M. R., & Hoff, D. J. (2005, April 20). Questions linger over NCLB policy shifts. Education Week, 24(32), 21-22.
60. *Davis, M. R., & Richard, A. (2004, September 15). Bush test proposal for high schoolers joins wider trend. Education Week, 24(3), 1, 32-33.
61. DeBray, E. H., McDermott, K. A., & Wohlstetter, P. (2005). Introduction to the special issue on federalism reconsidered: That case of the No Child Left Behind Act. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 1-18.
62. Delandshere, G. (2001). Implicit theories, unexamined assumptions and the status quo of educational assessment. Assessment in Education:Principles, Policy & Practice, 8(2), 113-133.
63. Denham, A., & Garnett, M. (2006, April). ‘What works’? British think tanks and the ‘end of ideology.' Political Quarterly, 77, 156-165.
64. Dewey, J. (1954.) The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow.
65. *Dobbs, M. (2005, May 8). Conn. stands in defiance on enforcing ‘No Child.' Washington Post, Final edition, p. A10.
66. Editorial Projects in Education History. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www2.edweek.org/info/about/history.html
67. Education Commission of the States (ECS). (2002). No state left behind:The challenges and opportunities of ESEA 2001. ECS Special Report. Denver, CO: Author.
68. Education Commission of the States (ECS). (2004). ECS report to the nation:State implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act-Respecting the diversity among states. Denver, CO: Author.
69. Education Trust. (1996). Education watch: The 1996 Education Trust state and national data book. Washington, DC: Author.
70. Elmore, R. F., Abelmann, C. H., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performancebased reform in education (pp.65-99). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
71. *Fletcher, M. A. (2002, August, 29). Failing schools find hole in law; Ark. shows Bush initiative’s limits. Washington Post, Final edition, p. A01.
72. *Fletcher, M. A. (2003, January 2). States worry new law sets schools up to fail; Use of test scores would label most poor performers. Washington Post, Final edition, p. A01.
73. *Florida Department of Education. (2005, December). FCAT achievement levels. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://fcat.fldoe.org/pdf/achieveleveldefine.pdf
74. Fuhrman, S. H. (1999). The new accountability. CPRE Policy Briefs (CPRE RB-27). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
75. Fuhrman, S. H. (2003). Redesigning accountability systems for education. CPRE Policy Briefs (CPRE RB-38). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
76. Fulton, M. (2007, September 5). Who’s saying what about NCLB reauthorization? ECS reauthorization database. ECS Briefing Report. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.ecs.org/html/educationIssues/NCLBreauthorization/NCLBReauthBriefingRpt.pdf
77. *Gewertz, C. (2003, November 26). Educators endorse rules on accountability. Education Week, 23(13), 16.
78. *Gewertz, C. (2005, April 6). Urban districts report steady academic gains. Education Week, 24(30), 5.
79. *Gewertz, C. (2005, May 11). Urban districts create “subsets” of schools. Education Week, 24(36), 3, 15.
80. *Gewertz, C. (2006, August 30). 3 Houston schools fight to keep doors open. Education Week, 26(1), 5, 20.
81. Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24, 355-392.
82. Glenn, D. (2007). Scholars who counsel candidates wield power but face risks. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(7), A1-A16.
83. Goertz, M. E. (2005). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the states. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 73-89.
84. Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of highstakes testing and accountability programs. Theory into Practice, 42, 4-11.
85. Goldschmidt, P., Roschewski, P., Choi, K., Auty, W., Hebbler, S., Blank, R., et al. (2005). Policymakers’ guide to growth models for school accountability: How do accountability models differ? Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
86. Goren, P. (1997). Political expertise and issue voting in presidential elections. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 387-412.
87. Haas, E. (2007). False equivalency: Think tank references on education in the news media. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 63-102.
88. Haertel, E., & Herman, J. (2005). A historical perspective on validity arguments for accountability testing. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 104(2), 1-34.
89. Hamilton, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27, 25-68.
90. Haycock, K., Jerald, C., & Huang, S. (2001). Closing the gap: Done in a decade. Thinking K-16, 5(2), 3-21.
91. *Haynes, V. D. (2005, August 6). D.C. elementary scores rise as secondary results decline. Washington Post, Final edition, p. B01.
92. Heck, R. H. (2006). Assessing school achievement progress: Comparing alternative approaches. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 667-699.
93. *Hoff, D. J. (2002, October 19). Budget woes force states to scale back testing programs. Education Week, 22(6), 24.
94. *Hoff, D. J. (2005, March 9). Texas stands behind own testing rule. Education Week, 24(26), 1, 23.
95. *Hoff, D. J. (2005, April 13). States to get new options on NCLB law. Education Week, 24(31), 1, 38.
96. *Hoff, D. J. (2005, April 27). Chiefs’ group, federal department on better terms. Education Week, 24(33), 22, 25.
97. *Hoff, D. J. (2005, September 28). States address academic concerns. Education Week, 25(5), 1, 17.
98. *Hoff, D. J. (2006, March 1). Foreseeing errors in test industry. Education Week, 25(25), 18.
99. *Hoff, D. J. (2006, October 4). NCLB panel favors retaining law’s core measures. Education Week, 26(6), 21-22.
100. *Hoff, D. J. (2006, October 18). Big business going to bat for NCLB. Education Week, 26(8), 1, 24.
101. *Hoff, D. J. (2006, October 25). State chiefs offer views on NCLB renewal. Education Week, 26(9), 31, 33.
102. *Hoff, D. J. (2006, November 8). Education Dept. poised to approve more states for growth-model pilot. Education Week, 26(11), 21.
103. *Hoff, D. J. (2006, December 13). GOP era wrought unexpected changes. Education Week, 26(15), 10-11.
104. *Hoff, D. J. (2006, December 20). Miller brings ambition to helm of ed. panel. Education Week, 26(16), 22, 24-25.
105. *Hoff, D. J. (2007, February 4). State chiefs offer their prescription for renewing NCLB. Education Week, 26(22), 21.
106. *Hoff, D. J. (2007b, February 7). The view from Rockland. Education Week, 26(22), 22-25.
107. *Hoff, D. J. (2007, March 28). Growth models for NCLB accountability are weighed. Education Week, 26(29), 20.
108. *Hoff, D. J. (2007, April 18). Not all agree on meaning of NCLB proficiency. Education Week, 26(33), 1, 23.
109. *Hoff, D. J. (2007, June 6). State tests show gains since NCLB. Education Week, 26(39), 1, 20.
110. *Hoff, D. J. (2007, September 5). Draft bill heats up NCLB-renewal debate. Education Week, 27(2), 1, 20.
111. *Hoff, D. J. (2007, September 12). Spellings takes issue with NCLB draft. Education Week, 27(3), 21-22.
112. *Hoff, D. J. (2007, October 3). Bush pushes NCLB as renewal percolates. Education Week, 27(6), 23-24.
113. *Hoff, D. J. (2007, October 17). Bush, others want law to go beyond basics. Education Week, 27(8), 18, 21.
114. *Hoff, D. J. (2007a, November 7). The next education president? Education Week, 27(11), 24-27.
115. *Hoff, D. J. (2007, December 18). “Growth models” gaining in accountability debate. Education Week, 27(16), 22-25.
116. *Hoff, D. J., & Manzo, K. K. (2007, March 9). Bush claims about NCLB questioned. Education Week, 26(27), 1, 26-27.
117. *Hoff, D. J., & Richard, A. (2005, October 5). Storms force Louisiana, Mississippi to review K-12 policies. Education Week, 25(6), 21.
118. *Honawar, V. (2006, March 22). SAT glitches prompt broader testing worries. Education Week, 25(28), 8-9.
119. Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2006). Understanding the historical turn in the policy sciences: A critique of stochastic, narrative, path dependency and process-sequencing models of policy-making over time. Policy Sciences, 39, 1-18.
120. Hursh, D. (2005). The growth of high-stakes testing in the USA: Accountability, markets, and the decline in educational equality. British Educational Research Journal, 31, 605-622.
121. *Hurst, M. D. (2004, October 4). Nevada report reveals spike in test irregularities. Education Week, 24(6), 19, 22.
122. *Jacobson, L. (2006, November 15). Early-childhood issues raised for NCLB law. Education Week, 26(12), 24, 26.
123. Jennings, J. (2003). From the White House to the schoolhouse: Greater demands and new roles. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 102(1), 291-309.
124. Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. S. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 110-113.
125. Johnson, B. L., Jr. (1999). Politics of research-information use in the education policy arena. In B. S. Cooper & E. V. Randall (Eds.), Accuracy or advocacy: The politics of research in education (pp.17-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
126. Joint Study Group on Adequate Yearly Progress. (2002). Making valid and reliable decisions in determining Adequate Yearly Progress. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
127. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2004). Representation and agenda setting. The Policy Studies Journal, 32, 1-24.
128. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention:How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
129. *Keller, B. (2006, July 26). States’ standards, tests are a mismatch, study finds. Education Week, 25(43), 5, 20.
130. *Kennedy, E. M. (2007, March 26). No retreat on school reform. Washington Post, Regional edition, p. A15.
131. Kentucky Department of Education. (2007, April 5). Progress in the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.kentuckyschools.net/KDE/HomePageRepository/Proof+of+Progress/CATS+Progress.htm
132. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Longman, Pearson.
133. *Klein, A. (2006, March 29). U.S. Panel weighs accountability in higher education. Education Week, 25(29), 32, 34.
134. *Klein, A. (2006, June 7). Indian students outperform blacks on NAEP. Education Week, 25(39), 16-17.
135. *Klein, A. (2006, October 25). No Child Left Behind on the campaign trail. Education Week, 26(9), 34-36.
136. *Klein, A. (2006, December 20). Democratic Congress to step up department oversight. Education Week, 26(16), 22, 24-25.
137. *Klein, A. (2007, February 7). School board members hit D.C. to weigh in on NCLB. Education Week, 26(22), 19-20.
138. *Klein, A. (2007, February 12). Bush budget would boost NCLB efforts. Education Week, 26(23), 1, 25.
139. *Klein, A. (2007, February 23). Critics of NCLB ask Congress to overhaul it. Education Week, 26(25), 1, 26.
140. *Klein, A. (2007, March 14). Texan nominated for key K-12 post. Education Week, 26(27), 21.
141. *Klein, A. (2007, April 6). Governors enter fray over NCLB. Education Week, 26(32), 1, 28.
142. *Klein, A. (2007, April 18). Education Trust offers NCLB renewal plan. Education Week, 26(33), 21-22.
143. *Klein, A. (2007, May 9). House OKs reauthorization of Head Start. Education Week, 26(36), 25-26.
144. *Klein, A. (2007, June 20). Accountability forum backs local tests. Education Week, 26(42), 30.
145. *Klein, A. (2007, June 20). Panel: “persistently dangerous” tag for schools needs to be reworked. Education Week, 26(42), 30.
146. *Klein, A. (2007, September 5). Host of lawmakers offer bills to revise NCLB. Education Week, 27(2), 19.
147. *Klein, A. (2007, September 26). On senate panel, a different dynamic for NCLB renewal. Education Week, 27(5), 20-22.
148. *Klein, A. (2007, December 19). Impact is slight for early states using “growth.” Education Week, 27(16), 24-25.
149. Knight, J., & Johnson, J. (1999). Inquiry into democracy: What might a pragmatist make of rational choice theories? American Journal of Political Science, 43, 566-589.
150. Koretz, D., & Barton, K. (2003-2004). Assessing students with disabilities:Issues and evidence. Educational Assessment, 9(1 & 2), 29-60.
151. *Labb, T. (2007, September 14). Eastern High’s missing scores scrutinized. Washington Post, Metro Edition, p. B04.
152. La Marca, P. M., Redfield, D., Winter, P. C., Bailey, A., & Despriet, L. H. (2000). State standards and state assessment systems: A guide to alignment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
153. Larocca, R. (2004). Strategic diversion in political communication. The Journal of Politics, 66, 469-491.
154. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of using cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951-971.
155. Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.
156. Linn, R. L. (2005a). Conflicting demands of No Child Left Behind and state systems: Mixed messages about school performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(33), 1-17.
157. Linn, R. L. (2005b). Issues in the design of accountability systems. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 104(2), 78-98.
158. 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.
159. Lissitz, R. W., & Huynh, H. (2003). Vertical equating for state assessments:Issues and solutions in determination of adequate yearly progress and school accountability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(10). Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=10
160. Manzo, K. K. (2005, January 19). Texas takes aim at tainted testing program. Education Week, 24(19), 1, 14.
161. Manzo, K. K. (2005, September 25). Union-funded study finds fault with high-stakes testing. Education Week, 25(5), 9.
162. Manzo, K. K. (2006, June 21). Study questions NCLB law’s links to achievement gains. Education Week, 25(41), 11.
163. *Manzo, K. K. (2007, October 10). Report pans how states set the bar. Education Week, 27(7), 1, 16.
164. *Manzo, K. K., & Cavanaugh, S. (2005, July 27). South posts big gains on long-term NAEP in reading and math. Education Week, 24(43), 1, 16.
165. *Matthews, J. (2004, November 4). No one need feel left behind by federal education mandate. Washington Post, Final edition, Fairfax Extra, p. T08.
166. McDermott, K. A. (2007). “Expanding the moral community” or “blaming the victim”? The politics of state education accountability policy. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 77-111.
167. McDonnell, L. M. (1994). Assessment policy as persuasion and regulation. American Journal of Education, 102, 394-420.
168. McDonnell, L. M. (2005). No Child Left Behind and the federal role in education: Evolution or revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.
169. McGuinn, P. (2006). Swing issues and policy regimes: Federal education policy and the politics of policy change. The Journal of Policy History, 18, 205-240.
170. *McNeil, M. (2007, April 25). State lawmakers weigh issue of national standards. Education Week, 26(34), 20, 22.
171. Michigan Department of Education. (2006). Mathematics content grade level expectations, v. 12.05. Lansing, MI: Author. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Math-GLCE_140486_7.pdf
172. NAEP-Frequently Asked Questions. (2007). Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/faq.asp
173. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales (NCES 2007-482). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
174. National Research Council. (1998). Uncommon measures: Equivalence and linkage among educational tests. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
175. Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. The Journal of Politics, 61, 1040-1067.
176. New York State Department of Education. (2000, November 17). Elementary science core curriculum K-4. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/pub/elecoresci.pdf
177. *Olson, L. (2002, September 4). Secretary picks fellow Texan to head assessment board. Education Week, 22(10), 40-41.
178. *Olson, L. (2003, December 10). In ESEA wake, school data flowing forth. Education Week, 23(15), 1, 16-18.
179. Olson, L. (2004, September 8). Data show schools making progress on federal goals. Education Week, 24(2), 1, 24-25, 28.
180. *Olson, L. (2004, September 22). No Child Left Behind Act changes weighed. Education Week, 24 (4), 31, 34.
181. *Olson, L. (2004, October 13). Wyoming signs innovative test contract with Harcourt assessment. Education Week, 24(7), 20.
182. *Olson, L. (2004, December 8). Taking root; Despite ongoing complaints. Education Week, 24(15), S1, S3, S7.
183. *Olson, L. (2005, February 2). States revive efforts to coax NCLB changes. Education Week, 24(21), 1, 29.
184. Olson, L. (2005a, May 18). States hoping to “grow” into AYP success. Education Week, 24(37), 15, 20.
185. *Olson, L. (2005, July 13). Education Department convenes working group on “growth” models. Education Week, 24(42), 20-21.
186. *Olson, L. (2005, July 13). Requests win more leeway under NCLB. Education Week, 24(42), 1, 20-21.
187. *Olson, L. (2005, September 7). Defying predictions, state trends prove mixed on schools making NCLB targets. Education Week, 25(2), 1, 26-27.
188. *Olson, L. (2005, September 14). Secretary to weigh NCLB waivers for crisis on a case-by-case basis. Education Week, 25(3), 21.
189. *Olson, L. (2005, September 21). AYP rules miss many in spec. ed. Education Week, 25(4), 1, 24-25.
190. *Olson, L. (2005, October 19). Small states find benefits in jointly developed tests. Education Week, 25(8), 1, 14.
191. Olson, L. (2005b, November 30). Benchmark assessments offer regular checkups on student achievement. Education Week, 25(13), 13-14.
192. *Olson, L. (2006, February 24). 20 States seek to join pilot on NCLB “growth models.” Education Week, 25(25), 21.
193. *Olson, L. (2006, November 15). 3 states get OK to use “growth model” to gauge AYP. Education Week, 26(12), 24.
194. *Olson, L. (2007, January 31). School accountability systems seen as unlikely to face major overhaul. Education Week, 26(21), 11.
195. *Olson, L., & Jacobson, L. (2006, April 28). Analysis finds minority NCLB scores widely excluded. Education Week, 25(33), 5, 21.
196. Opfer, D. (2007). Developing a research agenda on the media and education. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 166-177.
197. *Paige, R. (2004, February 27). Focus on the children. Washington Post, Final edition, editorial copy, p. A23.
198. Palmer, S. R., & Coleman, A. L. (2003). NCLB Work Plan. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/NCLBWorkplan. pdf
199. *Popham, W. J. (2003, September 24). Commentary, The ‘No Child’ noose tightens-but some states are slipping it. Education Week, 23(4), 48.
200. Popkewitz, T. (2004). Educational standards: Mapping who we are and are to become. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 243-256.
201. Popkewitz, T., & Lindblad, S. (2004). Historicizing the future: Educational reform, systems of reason, and the making of children who are the future citizens. Journal of Educational Change, 5, 229-247.
202. Reckase, M. D. (2004). The real world is more complicated than we would like. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 117-120.
203. Resnick, L. (2006). Making accountability really count. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 25(1), 33-37.
204. *Richard, A. (2004, September 15). NCLB law’s focus turns to districts. Education Week, 24(3), 1, 20.
205. *Richard, A. (2005, May 18). Press secretary; Spellings offers her thoughts on news coverage of education. Education Week, 24(37), 22.
206. Riddle, W., & Stedman, J. (2001, December). Elementary and secondary education: Reconsideration of the federal role by the 107th Congress (CRS Issue Brief). Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/32/01/3201.pdf
207. *Robelen, E. W. (2002, March 13). Agency looks for balance policing ESEA. Education Week, 21(26), 1, 21.
208. *Robelen, E. W. (2002, September 9). An ESEA primer. Education Week, 21(16), 28-29.
209. *Robelen, E. W. (2002, September 18). Kress update. Education Week, 22(3), 22.
210. *Robelen, E. W. (2003, September 3). State reports on progress vary widely. Education Week, 23(1), 1, 37.
211. *Robelen, E. W. (2004, October 4). Paige: It’s not too early to call school law a success. Education Week, 24(6), 23, 25.
212. Robelen, E. W. (2005, April 13). 40 years after ESEA. Education Week, 24(31), 1, 42.
213. *Robelen, E. W. (2005, February 9). Bush’s high school agenda faces obstacles. Education Week, 24(22), 22, 24.
214. Roeber, E. D. (2003). Assessment models for No Child Left Behind. Retrieved June 10, 2007, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/40/09/4009.doc
215. Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., Vranek, J. L., & Resnick, L. B. (2002). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing (CSE Technical Report 566). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
216. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
217. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117-166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press
218. *Sack, J. L. (2005, April 27). Utah passes bill to trump “No Child” law. Education Week, 24(33), 22, 25.
219. *Samuels, C. A. (2006, March 15). Study: States including special education students in tests. Education Week, 25(27), 11.
220. *Samuels, C. A. (2006, March 29). Wide variation seen in testing of students with disabilities. Education Week, 25(29), 11.
221. *Samuels, C. A. (2006, August 9). GAO: Growth models promising. Education Week, 25(44), 26.
222. *Samuels, C. A. (2006, September 13). Regulations on "2 percent” testing awaited. Education Week, 26(3), 31-32.
223. *Samuels, C. A. (2006, October 11). Alternate assessments proving to be a challenge for states. Education Week, 26(7), 12.
224. *Samuels, C. A.. (2007, April 4). Panel weighs NCLB and students with disabilities. Education Week, 26(31), 22.
225. *Samuels, C. A. (2007, September 5). Plan would codify several rules adopted to ease testing of students with disabilities. Education Week, 27(2), 20.
226. *Samuels, C. A. (2008, January 28). Report: NCLB may be aiding students with disabilities. Education Week, 27(22), 9.
227. *Samuels, C. A., & Davis, M. R. (2006, May 24). 2 states selected for “growth model” pilot. Education Week, 25(38), 27-28.
228. Schafer, W. D. (2005). Criteria for standards setting from the sponsor’s perspective. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 61-81.
229. Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 226-244.
230. *Spellings, M. (2005, April 2). Our high schools need help. Washington Post, Final edition, p. A21.
231. Spring, J. (1993). Conflict of interests: The politics of American education (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
232. Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. C. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right-Using it well. Portland, OR: Educational Testing Service.
233. *Strauss, V. (2005, October 24). As “No Child” answer, tutoring generates complex questions; Schools, state officials question accountability of providers. Washington Post, Final edition, p. A10.
234. Tedesco, J. C. (2005). Issue and strategy agenda setting in the 2004 presidential election: Exploring the candidate-journalist relationship. Journalism Studies, 6, 187-201.
235. Thorn, C. A., & Meyer, R. H. (2006). Longitudinal data systems to support data-informed decision making: A tri-state partnership between Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (WCER Working Paper No. 2006-1). Retrieved February 21, 2007, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/Working_Paper_No_2006_1.swf
236. *Trotter, A., & Davis, M. R. (2006, January 18). At 4, NCLB gets praise and fresh call to amend it. Education Week, 25(19), 26, 30.
237. United States Department of Education. (2003, March 10). Standards and assessment: Non regulatory guidance. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaguidance03.doc
238. United States Department of Education. (2004, January 14). Charting the course: States decide major provisions under No Child Left Behind [Press release]. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/print/news/pressreleases/2004/01/01142004.html
239. United States Department of Education. (2005, February). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Annual report to Congress. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/nclb/nclbrpt2005.pdf
240. *Viadero, D. (2005, February 2). Researchers connect lower achievement, high school exit tests. Education Week, 24(21), 10.
241. *Viadero, D. (2005, April 13). Researchers compare Florida testing, NCLB, but critics pan study. Education Week, 24(31), 12.
242. *Viadero, D. (2005, May 11). Second look at tougher accountability yields new results. Education Week, 24(36), 12.
243. *Viadero, D. (2005, June 15). Ed. Dept. seeks bids for new NCLB help centers. Education Week, 24(40), 22.
244. *Viadero, D. (2007, June 20). Teachers say NCLB has changed classroom practice. Education Week, 26(42), 6, 22.
245. *Viadero, D. (2007, November 14). No easy answers about NCLB’s effect on “poverty gap.” Education Week, 27(12), 12.
246. Wainer, H. (Ed.). (2004). Value-added assessment [Special issue]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1).
247. *Walsh, M., & Klein, A. (2007, August 15). Miller’s NCLB priorities spark fresh debate. Education Week, 26(45), 23-24.
248. *Washington Post. (2004, September 23). The choice on schooling. Final edition, editorial copy, p. A28.
249. *Washington Post. (2005, January 16). High school reform. Editorial copy, p. B06.
250. *Washington Post. (2005, January 22). Elected and accountable. Editorial copy, p. A16.
251. *Washington Post. (2006, December 7). Students with disabilities benefit from challenging curricula. Montgomery extra, p. T08.
252. *Washington Post. (2007, February 15). Cheating on tests; Geography should not determine standards of learning. Final edition, p. A26.
253. *Washington Post. (2007, June 10). Measurable progress in school; No Child Left Behind is helping. The next step will take courage. Bulldog edition, p. B06.
254. *Washington Post. (2007, August 14). A vote for “no child” Welcome support in the house for the law that brought accountability to public education. Regional edition, p. A12.
255. *Washington Post. (2007, September 10). Leaving No Child Behind. Regional edition, p. A15.
256. Save school standards; Congress should resist attempts to water down the No Child Left Behind law. Regional edition, p. A14.
257. *Washington Post. (2007, September 11). Editorial copy. Regional edition.
258. *Washington Post. (2007, September 27). Individual student improvement should trump all else. p. LZ08.
259. Weaver, R. K., & McGann, J. (2000). Think tanks and civil societies in a time of change. In R. K. Weaver & J. McGann (Eds.), Think tanks and civil societies: Catalysts for action (pp.1-35). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
260. White, L. G. (1994). Policy analysis as discourse. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(3), 506-525.
261. *Whorisky, P. (2006, October 23). Political backlash builds over high-stakes testing; Public support wanes for tests seen as punitive. Washington Post, Final edition, p. A03.
262. Wiliam, D. (2000). The meanings and consequences of educational assessments. Critical Quarterly, 42(1), 105-127.
263. *Wills, G. (2003, March 2). Shame: School reform’s weak weapon. Washington Post. Final edition, editorial copy, p. B07.
264. Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (1992). Schools in conflict: The politics of education (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA; McCutchan.
265. Woolley, J. T. (2000). Using media-based data in studies of politics. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 156-173.
266. Wong, K. K., & Nicotera, A. (2004) Educational quality and policy redesign:Reconsidering the NAR and federal Title I policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1), 87-104.
267. Wong, K. K., & Nicotera, A. (2007). Successful schools and educational accountability: Concepts and skills to meet leadership challenges. Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
268. *Zehr, M. A. (2003, November 26). States developing tests for Englishlearners. Education Week, 23(13), 13, 15.
269. *Zehr, M. A. (2005, June 15). State testing of English-learners scrutinized. Education Week, 24(40), 3, 12.
270. *Zehr, M. A. (2005, December 7). Spellings: English-learners need more help. Education Week, 25(14), 30.
271. *Zehr, M. A. (2006, January 11). Scholars seek best ways to assess Englishlearners. Education Week, 25(18), 10.
272. *Zehr, M. A. (2006, September 20). Spellings issues final regulations for testing of English-learners. Education Week, 26(4), 29.
273. *Zehr, M. A. (2006, November 15). Reacting to reviews, states cut portfolio assessments for ELL students. Education Week, 26(12), 7.
274. *Zehr, M. A. (2007, January 24). States adopt new tests for English-learners. Education Week. 26(20), 26, 31.
275. *Zehr, M. A. (2007, February 7). Pilot program could help English-learners. Education Week, 26(22), 15-16.
276. *Zehr, M. A. (2007, March 28). California launches new ELL assessment. Education Week, 26 (29), 11.
277. *Zehr, M. A. (2007b, May 9). NCLB seen a damper on bilingual programs. Education Week, 26(36), 5, 12.
278. *Zehr, M. A. (2007a, September 5). Language provision in NCLB draft plan criticized. Education Week, 27(2), 21.