61 Wilson, S. (2011). See note 57.
62 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 09-911. Washington, DC: Author. Quote taken from page 20.
63 Ibid. Quote taken from page 23.
64 National Research Council. (2006a). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Quote taken from page 4.
65 Ibid. Quote taken from page 5.
66 Center on Education Policy. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Author.
67 Center on Education Policy. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
68 Dorph, R., Goldstein, D., Lee, S., Lepori, K., Schneider, S., and Venkatesan, S. (2007). The status of science education in the Bay Area: Research brief. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley. Quote taken from page 1.
69 Ibid. Quote taken from page 4.
70 Maltese, A.V., and Tai, R.H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669-685.
71 Hill et al. (2008). See note 8.
72 National Research Council. (2006b). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
73 Schmidt, W.H. (2011). See note 7.
74 National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). See note 41.
75 Gamoran, A. (2010). Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice. In M. Apple, S.J. Ball, and L.A. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education, (pp. 213-228). London: Routledge.
76 Burris, C.C., Heubert, J.P., and Levin, H.M. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 105-136.
Burris, C.C., Wiley, E., Welner, K., and Murphy, J. (2008). Accountability, rigor, and detracking: Achievement effects of embracing a challenging curriculum as a universal good for all students. Teachers College Record, 110, 571-607.
77 McLaughlin, M.W., and Talbert, J.E. (2006). Building school based teacher learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
78 Newmann, F.M. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Elmore, R.F., Peterson, P.L., and McCarthey, S.J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gamoran, A., Anderson, C.W., Quiroz, P.A., Secada, W.G., Williams, T., and Ashman, S. (2003). Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change. New York: Teachers College Press.
79 Bryk et al. (2010). See note 2.
82 National Research Council. (2010). See note 53. Quote taken from page 73.