Influencing public school policy in the United States: the role of large-scale assessments

References

• Abdulkadiroglu, A., W. Hu, and P. Pathak. 2013. “Small High Schools and Student Achievement: Lottery-based Evidence from New York City.” Working Paper No. 19576. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19576.
   Google Scholar
• American Statistical Association. 2014. “ASA Statement on Using Value-added Models for Educational Assessment.” April 8. http://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/asa_vam_statement.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, B. D., J. O. Oluwole, and P. C. Green. 2013. “The Legal Consequences of Mandating High Stakes Decisions Based on Low Quality Information: Teacher Evaluation in the Race-to-the-top Era.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 21 (5): 1–71.
   Google Scholar
• Ballou, D., and M. G. Springer. 2015. “Using Student Test Scores to Measure Teacher Performance: Some Problems in the Design and Implementation of Evaluation Systems.” Educational Researcher 44 (2): 77–86.10.3102/0013189X15574904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bifulco, R., and H. Ladd. 2006. “The Impact of Charter Schools on Student Achievement: Evidence from North Carolina.” Education Finance and Policy 1 (1): 50–90.10.1162/edfp.2006.1.1.50
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, D., P. L. Grossman, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff. 2009. “Teacher Preparation and Student Achievement.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31 (4): 416–440.10.3102/0162373709353129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chetty, R., J. N. Friedman, and J. E. Rockoff. 2011. “The Long-term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood.” Working Paper No. 17699. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17699.
   Google Scholar
• Chetty, R., J. N. Friedman, and J. E. Rockoff. 2014a. “Measuring the Impacts of Teachers I: Evaluating Bias in Teacher Value-added Estimates.” American Economic Review 104 (9): 2593–2632.10.1257/aer.104.9.2593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chetty, R., J. N. Friedman, and J. E. Rockoff. 2014b. “Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Teacher Value-added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood.” American Economic Review 104 (9): 2633–2679.10.1257/aer.104.9.2633
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clotfelter, C. T., H. F. Ladd, and J. L. Vigdor. 2007. “Teacher Credential and Student Achievement: Longitudinal Analysis with Student Fixed Effects.” Economics of Education Review 26: 673–682.10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darling-Hammond, L., A. Amrein-Beardsley, E. H. Haertel, and J. Rothstein. 2011. “Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: A Background Paper for Policymakers.” American Educational Research Association and National Academy of Education Research Briefing. http://tx.aft.org/files/gettingteacherevaluationright.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Dee, T. S., and B. Jacob. 2011. “The Impact of No Child Left behind on Student Achievement.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30 (3): 418–446.10.1002/pam.20586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dee, T., and J. Wyckoff. 2013. “Incentives, Selection, and Teacher Performance: Evidence from IMPACT.” Working Paper No. 19529. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19529.
   Google Scholar
• Fryer, R. G. 2011. “Teacher Incentives and Student Achievement: Evidence from New York City Public Schools.” Working Paper No. 16850. National Bureau of Economic Research website. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16850.
   Google Scholar
• Goldhaber, D. 2015. “Exploring the Potential of Value-added Performance Measures to Affect the Quality of the Teacher Workforce.” Education Researcher 44 (2): 87–95.10.3102/0013189X15574905
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldhaber, D., and J. Walch. 2012. “Strategic Pay Reform: A Student Outcomes-based Evaluation of Denver’s ProComp Teacher Pay Initiative.” Economics of Education Review 31: 1067–1083.10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.06.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guarino, C. M., M. D. Reckase, and J. M. Woolridge. 2015. “Can Value-added Measures of Teacher Performance Be Trusted?” Education Finance and Policy 10 (1): 117–156.10.1162/EDFP_a_00153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallgren, K., S. James-Burdumy, and I. Perez-Johnson. 2014. “State Requirement for Teacher Evaluation Policies Promoted by Race to the Top.” NCEE Evaluation Brief, Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144016/pdf/20144016.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton, L. S., B. M. Stecher, and K. Yuan. 2008. “Standards-based Reform in the United States: History, Research, and Future Directions.” Rand Corporation. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reprints/2009/RAND_RP1384.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A. 2009. “Teacher Deselection.” In Creating a New Teaching Profession, edited by D. Goldhaber and J. Hannaway, 165–180. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, D. N., and T. R. Sass. 2011. “Teacher Training, Teacher Quality, and Student Achievement.” Journal of Public Economics 95: 798–812.10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hout, M., and S. W. Elliott. 2011. Incentives and Test-based Accountability in Education. National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, C. K., and E. Bruegmann. 2009. “Teaching Students and Teaching Each Other: The Importance of Peer Learning for Teachers.” Working Paper No. 15202. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w15202.
   Google Scholar
• Jiang, J. Y., S. E. Sporte, and S. Luppescu. 2015. “Teacher Perspectives on Evaluation Reform: Chicago’s REACH Students.” Education Researcher 44 (2): 105–116.10.3102/0013189X15575517
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. T., S. Lipscomb, and B. Gill. 2015. “Sensitivity of Teacher Value-added Estimates to Student and Peer Control Variables.” Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 8: 60–83.10.1080/19345747.2014.967898
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koedel, C., K. Mihaly, and J. E. Rockoff. 2015. “Value-added Modeling: A Review.” Economics of Education Review 47: 180–195. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauen, D. L., and S. M. Gaddis. 2012. “Shining a Light or Fumbling in the Dark? The Effects of NCLB’s Subgroup-specific Accountability on Student Achievement.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 34 (2): 185–208.10.3102/0162373711429989
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J., and T. Reeves. 2012. “Revisiting the Impact of NCLB High-stakes School Accountability, Capacity, and Resources: State NAEP 1990–2009 Reading and Math Achievement Gaps and Trends.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 34 (2): 209–231.10.3102/0162373711431604
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubienski, S., C. Lubienski, and C. Crane. 2008. “Achievement Differences among Public and Private Schools: The Role of School Climate, Teacher Certification and Instruction.” American Journal of Education 115 (1): 97–138.10.1086/590677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Nation at Risk. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 2006. Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics. Reston, VA: Authors.
   Google Scholar
• National Forum on Education Statistics. 2015. Forum Guide to Alternative Measures of Socioeconomic Status in Education Data Systems ( NFES 2015-158). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. 2010. “Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.” http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standards.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National Mathematics Advisory Panel. 2008. Foundations for Success. Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. 2012. “A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.” Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. 2002. Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425.
   Google Scholar
• Obama, B. 2012. “Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address.” Presented at January 24, 2012. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-president-state-union-address.
   Google Scholar
• Pil, F., and C. Leana. 2009. “Applying Organizational Research to Public School Reform: The Effects of Teacher Human and Social Capital on Student Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 52 (6): 1101–1124.10.5465/AMJ.2009.47084647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polikoff, M. S., A. C. Porter, and J. Smithson. 2011. “How Well Aligned are State Assessments of Student Achievement with State Content Standards?” American Educational Research Journal 48 (4): 965–995.10.3102/0002831211410684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronfeldt, M., S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff. 2012. “How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement.” American Educational Research Journal 50 (1): 4–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, W. H., N. A. Burroughs, P. Zoido, and R. T. Houang. 2015. “The Role of Schooling in Perpetuating Educational Inequality: An International Perspective.” Educational Researcher 44 (7): 371–386.10.3102/0013189X15603982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, W. H., R. Houang, and L. Cogan. 2002. “A Coherent Curriculum: The Case of Mathematics.” American Educator, Summer, 1–17.10.3102/0013189X15603982
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, W. H., and C. C. McKnight. 2012. Inequality for All: The Challenge of Unequal Opportunity in American Schools. New York: Teachers College.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, W. H., C. C. McKnight, and S. A. Raizen. 1997. Splintered Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education: Executive Summary. East Lansing: Michigan State University, U.S. National Research Center for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, W. H., H. C. Wang, and C. C. McKnight. 2005. “Curriculum Coherence: An Examination of US Mathematics and Science Content Standards from an International Perspective.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 37 (5): 525–559.10.1080/0022027042000294682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schochet, P. Z., and H. S. Chiang. 2010. Error Rates in Measuring Teacher and School Performance Based on Student Test Score Gains ( NCEE 2010–4004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Springer, M. G., D. Ballou, L. Hamilton, V.-N. Le, J. R. Lockwood, D. F. McCaffrey, M. Pepper, and B. M. Stecher. 2010. Teacher Pay for Performance: Experimental Evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Stigler, J., P. Gonzales, T. Kawanaka, S. Knoll, and A. Serrano. 1999. “The TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study: Methods and Findings from an Exploratory Research Project on Eighth-grade Mathematics Instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States.” ( NCES 1999-074). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Valverde, G. A., and W. H. Schmidt. 2000. “Greater Expectations: Learning from Other Nations in the Quest for ‘World-class Standards’ in US School Mathematics and Science.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 32 (5): 651–687.10.1080/00220270050116932
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise, S. L., and C. E. DeMars. 2005. “Low Examinee Effort in Low-stakes Assessment: Problems and Potential Solutions.” Educational Assessment 10 (1): 1–17.10.1207/s15326977ea1001_1
   Google Scholar
• Yuan, K., V.-N. Le, D. F. McCaffrey, J. A. Marsh, L. S. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, and M. G. Springer. 2013. “Incentive Pay Programs Do Not Affect Teacher Motivation or Reported Practices: Results from Three Randomized Studies.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 35 (1): 3–22.10.3102/0162373712462625
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar