References
Beaton, A.E. 1992 Methodological Issues in Reporting NAEP Results at District and School Levels. Paper commissioned by the National Assessment Governing Board.
DeVito, Pasquale J. 1997 The future of the National Assessment of Educational Progress from the states’ perspective. In Assessment in Transition: Monitoring the Nation’s Educational Progress. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
Donahue, P.L., K.E. Voelkl, J.R. Campbell, and J. Mazzeo 1999 The NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the Nation, NCES 1999-459. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.
Education Week 1998 Quality Counts. 17(17).
Glaser, R., R. Linn, and G. Bohrnstedt 1997 Assessment in Transition: Monitoring the Nation’s Educational Progress. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
Haney, W., and G.F. Madaus 1991 Cautions on the future of NAEP: Arguments against using NAEP tests and data reporting below the state level. In Assessing Student Achievement in the States: Background Studies. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
Haertel, E.H. 1991 Reasonable inferences for the trial state NAEP given the current design: Inferences that can and cannot be made. In Assessing Student Achievement in the States: Background Studies. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
Hartka, L., and F. Stancavage 1994 Perspectives on the impact of the 1994 trial state assessments: State assessment directors, state mathematics specialists, and state reading specialists. In Quality
and Utility: The 1994 Trial State Assessment in Reading, Background Studies. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
Jennings, J., and D. Stark 1997 The future of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In Assessment in Transition: Monitoring the Nation’s Educational Progress. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
Johnson, Eugene G. 1994 Standard Errors for Below-State Reporting of National Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service. Paper prepared for the National Assessment Governing Board.
Koretz, D.M. 1991 State comparisons using NAEP: Large costs, disappointing benefits . Educational Researcher April 19-21.
National Academy of Education 1993 The Trial State Assessment: Prospects and Realities, R. Glaser, R. Linn, and G. Bohrnstedt, eds. Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP Trial State Assessment. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
National Assessment Governing Board 1995a Guidelines for the Conduct of Below-State NAEP Assessments. Policy Statement.
1995b Guidelines for the Conduct of Below-State NAEP Assessments. Draft Implementation Document.
1999 Reporting and Dissemination Committee, Report of August 6.
National Center for Education Statistics 1995a Draft Guidelines and Technical Specifications for the Conduct of Below-State NAEP Assessments.
1995b Technical Specifications for the Conduct of Below-State NAEP Assessments .
National Research Council 1999a Grading the Nation’s Report Card: Evaluating NAEP and Transforming the Assessment of Educational Progress. Committee on the Evaluation of National and State Assessments of Progress. J.W. Pellegrino, L.R. Jones, and K.M. Mitchell, eds. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
1999b 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. Bertenthal, and B.F. Green, eds. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
1999c Uncommon Measures: Equivalence and Linkage Among Educational Tests . Committee on the Equivalency and Linkage of Educational Tests. M.J. Feuer, P.W. Holland, B.F. Green, M.W. Bertenthal, and F.C. Hemphill, eds. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Olson, J.F., L. Bond, and C. Andrews In Press Annual Survey of State Student Assessment Programs: Fall 1998. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Roeber, E.D. 1994 Guidelines for the Use of NAEP at the District and School Levels. Paper prepared for the National Assessment Governing Board.
Rust, K. 1999 NAEP Sample Designs and District Level Reporting. Paper prepared for the Workshop on District Level Reporting, September 16.
Selden, R. 1991 The case for district- and school-level results from NAEP. In Assessing Student Achievement in the States: Background Studies. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
Shaughnessy, C.A., J.E. Nelson, and N.A. Norris 1997 NAEP 1996 Mathematics Cross-State Data Compendium for the Grade 4 and Grade 8 Assessment. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Stancavage, F.B., E. Roeber, and G.H. Bohrnstedt 1992 A study of the impact of reporting the results of the 1990 trial state assessment: First report. In Assessing Student Achievement in the States: Background Studies. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
1993 Impact of the 1990 trial state assessment: A follow up study. In The Trial State Assessment: Prospects and Realities: Background Studies . Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 1997 The NAEP Guide, NCES 97-900. J. Calderone, L.M. King, and N. Horkay, eds. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
