References
Blanc, S., Christman, J.B., Hugh, R., Mitchell, C., and Travers, E. (2010). Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 205-225.
Bulkley, K., Christman, J., Goertz, M., and Lawrence, N. (2010). Building with benchmarks: The role of the district in Philadelphia’s benchmark assessment system. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 186-204.
Christman, J., Neild, R., Bulkley, K., Blanc, S., Liu, R., Mitchell, C., and Travers, E. (2009). Making the Most of Interim Assessment Data: Lessons from Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.
Chudowsky, N., and Chudowsky, V. (2007). No Child Left Behind at Five: A Review of Changes to State Accountability Plans. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Clune, W.H., and White, P.A. (2008). Policy Effectiveness of Interim Assessments in Providence Public Schools. WCER Working Paper No. 2008-10, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Cronin, J., Dahlin, M., Xiang, Y., and McCahon, D. (2009). The Accountability Illusion. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Elmore, R.F. (2003). Accountability and capacity. In M. Carnoy, R.F. Elmore, and L.S. Siskin (Eds.), High Schools and the New Accountability (pp. 188-209). NewYork: Routledge/Falmer.
Ferrara, S. (2009). The Maryland School Performance Assessment Performance (MSPAP), 1991-2002: Political Considerations. Paper prepared for the Workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, December 10-11, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/BOTA/Steve_Ferrara_Paper.pdf [accessed May 2010].
Fuller, B., Gesicki, K., Kang, E., and Wright, J. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind Act Working?: The Reliability of How States Track Achievement. Working Paper No. 06-1. Berkeley: University of California and Stanford University, Policy Analysis for California Education.
Goertz, M.E. (2009). Overview of Current Assessment Practices. Paper prepared for the Workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, December 10-11, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/BOTA/Peg_Goertz_Paper.pdf [accessed May 2010].
Goertz, M.E., Olah, L.N., and Riggan, M. (2009). Can Interim Assessments Be Used for Instructional Change? CPRE Policy Briefs: Reporting on Issues and Research in Education Policy and Finance. Available: http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rb_51_role%20policy%20brief_final%20web.pdf [accessed May 2010].
Gong, B. (2010). Innovative Assessment in Kentucky’s KIRIS System: Political Considerations. Presentation to the Workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, December 1011, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/BOTA/Brian%20Gong.pdf [accessed May 2010].
Hambleton, R.K. (2009). Using Common Standards to Enable Cross-National Comparisons. Presentation to the Workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, December 10-11, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Ron_Hambleton.pdf [accessed May 2010].
Ho, A.D. (2008). The problem with “proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy under No Child Left Behind. Education Researcher, 37(6), 351-360.
Jennings, J., and Rentner, D.S. (2006). Ten big effects of No Child Left Behind on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110-113.
Kirst, M., and Mazzeo, J. (1996). The rise, fall, and rise of state assessment in California: 1993-1996. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(4), 319-323.
Koretz, D., and Barron, S. (1998). The Validity of Gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Koretz, D. Mitchell., K., Barron, S., and Keith, S. (1996) Perceived Effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program. Final Report, Project 3.2 State Accountability Models in Action. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Research on Evaluation.
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K.L., and Reiser, B. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
Krajcik, J., Stevens, S., and Shin, N. (2009). Developing Standards That Lead to Better Instruction and Learning. Presentation to the Workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, December 10-11, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/BOTA/Joe%20Krajcik%20and%20Shawn%20Stevens.pdf [accessed May 2010].
Lai, E.R., and Waltman, K. (2008). The Impact of NCLB on Instruction: A Comparison of Results for 2004-05 to 2006-07. IARP Report #7. Iowa City: Center for Evaluation and Assessment, University of Iowa.
Lane, S. (1999). Impact of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP): Evidence from the Principal, Teacher, and Student Questionnaires (Reading, Writing, and Science). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, April 19-23, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Lazer, S. (2010). Technical Challenges with Innovative Item Types. Presentation to the Workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, December 10-11, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/BOTA/Steve%20Lazer.pdf [accessed May 2010].
Marion, S. (2010). Changes in Assessments and Assessment Systems Since 2002. Presentation to the Workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, December 10-11, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/BOTA/Scott%20Marion.pdf [accessed May 2010].
Mattson, D. (2010). Science Assessment in Minnesota. Presentation to the Workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, December 10-11, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/BOTA/Dirk_Mattson.pdf [accessed May 2010].
McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, Changes, and Challenges; Curriculum and Instruction in the NCLB Era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Mislevy, R. (1998). Foundations of a new test theory. In N. Fredericksen, R.J. Mislevy, and I.I. Bejar (Eds.), Test Theory for a New Generation of Tests (pp. 19-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mislevy, R.J., and Riconscente, M. (2005). Evidence-centered Assessment Design: Layers, Structures, and Terminology. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
National Research Council. (1995). Anticipating Goals 2000: Standards, Aassessment, and Public Policy: Summary of a Workshop. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1999a). Embedding Questions: The Pursuit of a Common Measure in Uncommon Tests. Committee on Embedding Common Test Items in State and District Assessments. D.M. Koretz, M.W. Berthenthal, and B.F. Green (Eds.). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1999b). Uncommon Measures: Equivalence and Linkage Among Educational Tests. Committee on Equivalency and Linkage of Educational Tests. M.J. Feuer, P.W. Holland, B.F. Green, M.W. Berthenthal, and F.C. Hemphill (Eds.). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2005). Systems for State Science Assessment. Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. M.R. Wilson and M.W. Berthenthal (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2008). Common Standards for K-12 Education? Considering the Evidence: Summary of a Workshop Series. A. Beatty, Rapporteur. Committee on State Standards in Education: A Workshop Series. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Olah, L., Lawrence, N., and Riggan, M. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: How teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 226-245.
Perie, M., Marion, S., and Gong, B. (2007). The Role of Interim Assessments in a Comprehensive Assessment System: A Policy Brief. Aspen, CO: Center for Assessment, The Aspen Institute, and Achieve, Inc. Available: http://www.achieve.org/files/TheRoleofInterimAssessments.pdf [accessed March 2010].
Porter, A.C., Polikoff, M.S., and Smithson, J. (2009). Is there a de facto national intended curriculum? Evidence from state content standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 238-268.
Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., and McKnight, C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525-559.
Shepard, L. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19(1), 405-450.
Shepard, L. (2010). Research Priorities for Next-Generation Assessment Systems. Presentation to the Workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, December 10-11, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/BOTA/Lorrie_Shepard.pdf [accessed May 2010].
Shin, N., Stevens, S., and Krajcik, J. (in press). Using Construct-Centered Design as a Systematic Approach for Tracking Student Learning Over Time. London, England: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Smith, C.L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C.W. and Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4(1), 1-98.
Smith, M., and O’Day, J. (1991). Systematic school reform. In S. Fuhrman and B. Malen (Eds.), The Politics of Curriculum and Testing (pp. 233-267). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Stecher, B., and Hamilton, L. (2009). What Have We Learned from Pioneers in Innovative Assessment? Paper prepared for the Workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, December 10-11, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Brian_Stecher_and_Laura_Hamilton.pdf [accessed May 2010].
Stecher, B.M., Epstein, S., Hamilton, L.S., Marsh, J.A., Robyn, A., McCombs, J.S., Russell, J.L., and Naftel, S. (2008). Pain and Gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, 2004 to 2006. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Stevens, S., Sutherland, L., and Krajcik, J.S., (2009). The Big Ideas of Nanoscale Science and Engineering: A Guidebook for Secondary Teachers. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Sunderman, G. (Ed.). (2008). Holding NCLB Accountable: Achieving Accountability, Equity, and School Reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Toch, T. (2006). Margins of Error: The Testing Industry in the No Child Left Behind Era. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top Program Executive Summary. Available: http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/resources.html [accessed January 2010].
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). No Child Left Behind Act: Enhancements in the Department of Education’s Review Process Could Improve State Academic Assessments. GAO Report-09-911. Available: http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-911 [accessed November 2009].
U.S. Government Accounting Office. (2003). Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses: Information Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO Report-03-389. Available: http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-389 [accessed November 2009].
Wiggins, G., and McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wilson, M. (Ed.). (2004). Towards Coherence between Classroom Assessment and Accountability, 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing Measures: An Item-Response Modeling Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wilson, M. (2009). Developing Assessment Tasks That Lead to Better Instruction and Learning. Presentation to the Workshop for the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, December 10-11, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Mark_Wilson.pdf [accessed May 2010].
Wise, L. (2009). How Common Standards Might Support Improved State Assessments. Paper prepared for the Workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, December 10-11, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/BOTA/Laurie_Wise_Paper.pdf [accessed May 2010].
Zwick, R. (2009). State Achievement Comparisons: Is the Time Right? Paper prepared for the Workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, December 10-11, National Research Council. Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Rebecca_Zwick_Paper.pdf [accessed May 2010].