This article has been retrieved
times since July 26, 2000
This article has been retrieved
Education Policy Analysis Archives | ||
Volume 8 Number 35 |
July 26, 2000 |
ISSN 1068-2341 |
|
Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University
Copyright 2000, the
EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education. |
State Standards, Socio-fiscal Context and
|
|
Abstract A survey of 245 New Jersey teachers provides a baseline for examining how the introduction of state standards and assessments affects the teaching of math and science in the 4th grade. These policies are promoting teaching of additional topics in both areas. The changes in the delivery of professional development have not yet been sufficient to lead to substantial changes in instructional practice. While inequities in access to material that characterized the state in the early 1990s have diminished, we find a pattern of inquiry-oriented science teaching more prevalent in wealthy districts and teaching to the test more prevalent in poorer ones. We also note some areas where middle-income districts appear disadvantaged. |
|
A central goal of the standards movement has been to help all children learn challenging content (Smith & O'Day, 1991). Forty-four states have now adopted standards for student proficiency in the core academic areas, 41 states have aligned assessment with their math standards, and 25 have aligned assessment with their science standards (Quality Counts, 2000). While great attention is being paid to what students are learning, less scrutiny has been given to what they are taught. Yet, the former depends at least in part on the latter (Wiley & Yoon, 1995). For that reason, state standards are intended to provide guidance on what should be taught, as well as what students should learn (Smith, Fuhrman & O'Day, 1994). The adoption of standards and assessments does not guarantee students access to instruction, especially for poor students. For that reason, people have begun to worry more about "opportunity to learn" (OTL) or "whether or not… students have had an opportunity to study a particular topic or learn how to solve a particular type of problem presented by a test" (Husen as cited in McDonnell, 1995, p. 306). Advocates for minorities have seen the reporting of OTL standards as a way of ensuring that poor and minority students are not disadvantaged inappropriately when standards are raised. As one observer noted, without OTL standards, "you don't know if the school if failing, or if students are failing" when test scores are low (Rothman, 1993, p. 21). Both the federal and state governments have been much more willing to adopt student performance standards than OTL standards since the latter specify the government's obligation to deliver services to students (McDonnell, 1995). Moreover, the legal mandate for guaranteeing that OTL be provided is ambiguous, even though the issue arose in the early years of state testing. According to Millman and Green (1989, p. 356): The court decision in the Debra P. vs. Turlington (1981) case seems to have established the necessity that, at least for certification tests for high school graduation, the tested material must consist of content that is currently taught, that is, the student must have been provided adequate preparation and, thus, had a fair opportunity to learn the material.Precise requirements of a fair opportunity to learn remain ambiguous. Several decades of research have indicated how difficult it is to change teaching practice (McLaughlin, 1990; Cuban, 1993). Simply imposing standards by decree is not likely to modify teaching practice if teachers do not understand what is expected of them or have the resources to carry out a standards-based program of instruction. The situation can be especially challenging in mathematics and the sciences where elementary education teachers may lack the background knowledge to effectively teach more challenging content. |
|
This article introduces a project designed to explore how state standards and related policies influence teaching practice. In May, 1996, New Jersey announced a new set of "core curriculum content standards" (NJSDE, 1996). These standards began to take practical reality for elementary school teachers when state assessments aligned with these standards were introduced in 1998. In the Spring of 1999, as the state administered its new fourth grade mathematics and science assessments for the second time (the first time for which results would actually be released publicly), we began a three-year study to examine how teachers in those grades teach mathematics and science. Using a state-wide representative survey, this article describes three dimensions of teaching practice: the content taught, access to and use of materials, and teaching to the test. In each area, we investigate what in being taught and how equitably practices are distributed among wealthy and poor districts. We also explore teachers' background knowledge and opportunities to learn about new practices. Our preliminary conclusions are that:
The Policy ContextIn the last decade educational policy in New Jersey has been driven by two related phenomena: school finance litigation and the development of standards and related assessments. Whereas financial resources can influence the distribution of OTL, legal battles surrounding the school finance issue also motivated the adoption of standards. |
|
School Finance Litigation Since school finance litigation began in New Jersey thirty years ago, there have been two court cases, eleven decisions, numerous school finance bills, and other laws and regulations (Goertz & Malik, 1999). The litigation and related legislation has focused on whether the state was obligated to provide all children therein a "thorough and efficient education." While these actions have had a number of implications for education in New Jersey, two are especially critical here: the definition of a thorough and efficient education, and the financial provisions to ensure that all children could receive one. The court has been reluctant to define a thorough and efficient education except in the broadest terms: For those special needs districts [the approximately 30 poor urban districts identified by the court as inequitably served by the state], a thorough and efficient education—one that will enable their students to function effectively in the same society with their richer peers both as citizens and as competitors in the labor market—is an education that is the substantial equivalent of that afforded in the richer districts (Abbott v. Burke, 643 A.2d 575, 580 (1994) ) (Abbott III)Beyond stating that children in poor districts should get the same education as those in wealthy districts, this decision provided very little guidance; and the court continued its multi-year effort to urge the state department of education to specify criteria in more detail. This was accomplished in part in the Comprehensive Plan for Educational Improvement and Financing (CEIFA), the school funding law of 1996, which defined a thorough education as one in which children succeeded in meeting the 56 outcomes specified in the Core Curriculum Content Standards. Thus, the standards became the criteria for educational effectiveness, and state tests administered in 4th, 8th, and 11th grade would operationalize those criteria. The court found that these standards and assessments were "the first real effort on the part of the legislative and executive branches to define and implement the educational opportunity required by the Constitution… and are facially adequate as a reasonable legislative definition of a thorough and efficient education" [Abbott v. Burke, 693A.2d 417, 428 (1997) (Abbott IV)]. This effort was not sufficient to clarify what constituted adequate educational funding for all children in the state. Thus, the court continued to use a two-part yardstick. First, the poorest districts in the state should spend essentially the same per capita as the wealthiest districts (Goertz & Malik, 1999). The state had developed a classification of districts (District Factor Group or DFG) based on a composite measure of community, social, and economic variables such as the educational and occupational background of the population, per-capita income of the district, and mobility. The DFGs were designated by letter with the poorest districts labeled "A" and the wealthiest labeled "J". Per-pupil spending in the special needs districts designated by the court was expected to match that of the highest DFG districts. As late as 1993-94, the 14% of districts were spending 22% more than the poorest although their collective tax rate was 43% lower (Firestone, Goertz & Natriello, 1997). Second, in addition to equal base spending, the court required the state to support a series of supplemental programs for the poor urban, districts. Urban schools were expected to implement a whole school reform program model such as Success for All (Porter, 1999), extend early childhood education services to 3- and 4-year olds, and began programs to refurbish aging and decaying buildings. Since these programs could not be supported locally, they had to be underwritten by the state (Goertz & Malik,1999; Erlichson, Goertz, & Turnbull, 1999). By the 1999-2000 school year, the equal base funding provisions were in place and implementation of the special programs had begun although not without disputes about the local level of funding and district discretion in designing their whole-school reform and early childhood programs. Equal basic funding is an important development, and extremely unusual in a state noted for inequities in education. In 1996 only two states had a greater dollar gap in spending between the fifth and 95th percentile districts than New Jersey (Quality Counts, 2000). However, the court remedies and new funding formula did not extend to all districts. Schools in DFGs as low as B and into the middle of the fiscal distribution were spending less per child than either the wealthiest or the poorest districts in the state. Standards and Assessments As a normative perspective, standards theory recommends that state standards become the criteria with which assessments are aligned. However, like many American states, New Jersey began with assessments rather than standards. Its first testing system, begun in the late 1970s, was designed to measure "minimum basic skills" as a means of maintaining the accountability of poor urban districts, who at that point were receiving a new infusion of state funds. Several revisions ensued, and by the early '90s the keystone of the state's testing system was the High School Proficiency Test (HSPT), administered in 11 th grade as a partial requirement for high school graduation. This test covered mathematics, reading, and writing at a more challenging level than the earliest test, but passing score was still set at a basic skills level. The HSPT was accompanied by an Early Warning Test (EWT), given in 8th grade to help schools identify children at risk of failing the graduation test. These tests had special significance to educators because patterns of low scores on these tests could become grounds for state takeover of a district. Districts were also expected to administer conventional achievement tests of their own choice at grades not tested by the state (Firestone et al., 1997). |
|
During the 1990s as the standards movement took hold nationally, teams of content experts and teachers were formed within the state to write the core curriculum content standards in seven curricular areas as well as a set of cross-content workplace readiness standards. These efforts were heavily influenced by national standards documents in mathematics and science and became official in May, 1996 (NJSDE, 1996). The resulting standards for mathematics and science are listed in Appendix A. These core standards are accompanied by cumulative progress indicators for grades 4, 8, and 12. Separate documents provide curriculum frameworks to offer guidance to educators in implementing the standards. The state is now phasing in 4th, 8th, and 11th grade tests that are intended to be aligned with the standards in each area. The degree of alignment to the standards is difficult to assess because—as in many states—strict confidentiality is maintained over operational test items. This creates difficulties for educators who wish to be given test results item by item in order to seek an easier method for aligning their instruction more closely with the assessments. The current tests are an effort to move away from the basic skills or advanced basic skills orientation that characterized earlier state tests. The 4th grade mathematics tests include 32 closed-ended and five open-ended items; and the matrix for selecting items includes a dimension of "problem-solving skills" with categories like "procedural knowledge, conceptual understanding, and problem-solving skills" (NJSDE,1998, p. 6). The 4th grade science test is similarly organized. One sample open- ended item and one sample closed-ended item from the test specifications are included in Appendix A. The 4th grade mathematics and science tests were first administered in the spring of 1998, but because of technical problems scores were not released. The following year scores were released in the fall after the spring 1999 administration. The introduction of new standards and assessments in mathematics and science should provide clarity regarding what is expected to be taught in each area, and ensure that these subjects receive consistent attention. Whether this attention takes the form of short-term "teaching to the test" or deeper changes in practice, and whether access to new forms of instruction is equally distributed in the state remains to be seen. Recent court and legislative actions may further stimulate access to new forms of instruction. We turn now to the survey designed to address these issues. Study SampleIn the spring of 1999, we initiated a three-year study to examine teachers' response to the new testing program in the areas of mathematics and science. Data were collected from a statewide sample of 4th grade teachers. Just over 600 teachers were asked to respond to a complex set of instruments. After extensive telephone follow-ups and remailings, 245 teachers completed a telephone survey, 172 completed an additional mailed questionnaire, and 110 provided examples of mathematics and science lessons they taught, including materials given to students and more detailed reports on teacher and student activities conducted with those materials. (Note 1) The sample is highly representative with regard to district wealth as measured by DFG (See Table 1).Past research suggests that successful change in teaching practice depends on opportunities for teachers to learn new practices required by the policy (Cohen & Barnes, 1993; Firestone et al., 1998). However, the kind of professional development that is most likely to lead to substantial change in practice continues to be rare (Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles 1997). In order to assess the effects of professional development, we sought to oversample schools that were known to engage in extensive professional development with respect to mathematics and science. The New Jersey State Systemic Initiative shared with us results of a survey identifying districts engaged in the most extensive professional development in those subjects. We attempted to ensure that 25% of our sample came from these districts. In fact 49 of the completed telephone interviews (20%) and 30 of the completed mailed questionnaires (17%) came from high professional development districts. |
Table 1
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AB: (Poorest) |
CD |
DE |
FG |
GH |
IJ: (Wealthiest) |
Total |
|
| Interviews | 71 | 29 | 32 | 24 | 35 | 54 | 245 |
| Percent | 29% | 12% | 13% | 10% | 14% | 22% | 100% |
| Questionnaires | 49 | 21 | 23 | 14 | 25 | 40 | 172 |
| Percent | 28% | 12% | 13% | 8% | 15% | 23% | 100% |
| 4th Grade Students in State (%) | 30% | 9% | 15% | 13% | 13% | 19% | 100% |
In the following section we explore what content is being
taught, teachers' access to materials, the extent of
teaching to the test, self-reported knowledge about
standards, and teachers' access to professional
development.
Figure 1. Percent Changes in Mathematics Items
Table 2
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abbott* | C-E | F-H | IJ | ||||
| Probability | 27% | 12% | 3% | 19% | |||
| Patterns, functions | 49% | 16% | 21% | 36% | |||
| Open sentences | 46% | 29% | 19% | 41% | |||
| Discrete math | 54% | 25% | 16% | 36% | |||
* District wealth is generally measured by DFG. The Abbott districts are all DFG A or B and have been designated by the state Supreme Court as those where spending must be equalized with wealthy districts in the state. The DFG metric runs from A (districts with large numbers of poor and generally at-risk children) to IJ with large numbers of children from wealthy families. Teachers from DFG-B districts that are not "Abbott districts" have been excluded from this comparison.
Figure 2. Percent Changes in Science Items
Access to MaterialsNew Jersey's Core Curriculum Content Standards place an increased emphasis on a more active role for students to take in learning mathematics and science. The mathematics standards require students to "develop an ability to pose and solve mathematical problems,… develop reasoning ability and… become self reliant independent mathematical thinkers; [and] regularly and routinely use calculators, computers, manipulatives, and other mathematical tools to enhance mathematical thinking, understanding, and power" (New Jersey State Department of Education, 1996, p. 4-9). The science standards require that students "develop problem-solving, decision-making, and inquiry skills, reflected by formulating usable questions and hypotheses, planning experiments, conducting systematic observations, interpreting and analyzing data, drawing conclusions and communicating results" (New Jersey State Department of Education, 1996, p. 5-3). These changes are in keeping with national standards which require more problem solving in mathematics and hands-on inquiry in science. At the same time they place greater demands on districts to provide additional materials—mathematical manipulatives, calculators and computers, the wherewithal for scientific experiments—beyond the basic textbooks that have been so typical of American teaching (Cuban, 1993). In fact, some textbooks include alternatives like science kits or math manipulatives.Access to teaching equipment and supplies has historically been unequal, favoring wealthy districts. In the early 1990s, teachers in poor, urban districts reported less access to both textbooks and computers than their peers in wealthy districts. For a period of time following the passage of the Quality Education Act (QEA) which increased funding to urban districts for a short time in the early 1990s, there was some indication that poor districts were working hard to bridge the gap between themselves and wealthier districts. However, they have not been successful (Firestone et al., 1997). The current study indicates that access to materials may be improving in poor districts. Across DFGs teachers reported having enough materials for most purposes, especially for teaching mathematics. Ninety-five percent of the teachers surveyed reported having enough math textbooks for every child to have one. (Note 2) Ninety-four percent reported having enough manipulatives for children to share, and 97% reported enough calculators for every child. The situation is nearly as good in science where 77% of the teachers reported having enough textbooks for every child, 76% reported enough science kits either for every child or for children to share, and 85% reported enough measurement and observation tools to share. Use tends to lag behind access. Seventy eight percent of teachers report using their math texts almost every day, (Note 3) 66% use manipulatives once or twice a week, and 53% use calculators once or twice a week. The pattern in science is somewhat different. While 36% report using a textbook everyday, 40% report using it once or twice a week. Sixty-five percent report using science kits at least once a week, and 38% report using measurement and observation tools that often. We did not identify any inequities in access to mathematics materials, supported by the high percentage of teachers who reported having enough math textbooks for every child. The situation in science is more complicated because teachers in poor, urban districts appear to emphasize the use of textbooks, while those in the wealthier districts balance textbooks with the use of science kits and other materials (Figure 3). Almost all the teachers in the Abbott districts and mid-wealth districts say they have enough science textbooks for every child and more than four fifths use them weekly. However, less than half the teachers in the wealthy districts have enough textbooks for every child and use them weekly. A third of the teachers in wealthy districts have enough kits for every child and two thirds use them weekly. 
Figure 3. Access To and Use Of Science Materials
Kits are much less accessible in the poor and mid-wealth
districts. Still about half the teachers in urban districts
report using them weekly and use in the mid-wealth districts
is comparable to that in the wealthy districts. The pattern
of access to tools for observation and measurement parallels
that to access to kits with substantially more teachers
reporting having enough for every child in the wealthiest
districts. There is a gradual trend of increasing use as
one moves from the Abbott to the wealthiest districts. The
reasons for these differences are not clear. However, the
fact that most teachers in the state report little change in
their access to materials suggests that this pattern
reflects a difference in philosophy about how to teach
science more than recent changes in funding. Teaching to the TestOne of the greatest concerns with standards- and assessment-based reform has been that this strategy might lead to teaching to the test and its concomitant negative effects such as narrowing the curriculum; constricting instruction time; increasing the amount of drill while undermining efforts to promote higher order thinking skills; and increasing stress for teachers and students (Corbett & Wilson, 1991; Smith, 1991). There is also a fear that teaching to the test will undermine the validity of test results by artificially inflating test scores (Mehrens, 1998). There has been some question about whether these are inevitable effects of high- stakes accountability-oriented tests. Some have suggested that changes in test format should include more performance- oriented items and test items assessing more than mere retention of facts and computation skills might lead to tests worth teaching to and encourage teaching that promoted more conjecture, exploration, and active participation in learning (Baron & Wolf, 1996; Rothman, 1995).To explore the distribution of teaching to the test in the state, we developed a seven-item scale with a mixture of items that seemed to reflect some of the feared negative effects of this practice and others construed as positive. The scale had an alpha coefficient of .71. Specific items included:
|
Figure 4. Teaching to the Test
Familiarity with StandardsWe asked teachers to report how familiar they are with state and national standards in mathematics and science. Teachers' familiarity with state standards could contribute to changes in content taught, although central office staff who understand state standards and assessments can unilaterally change district curriculum. The national standards movement in science, and especially in mathematics precedes New Jersey's efforts by several years; and some districts were using those national standards to guide changes before state standards were adopted or tests were implemented.Teachers were much more familiar with state than national standards. Fifty-seven percent said they understood the state's mathematics standards well, (Note 5) and 53% say they are understand the science standards well. In contrast, only 28% said that they understood the national mathematics standards well and 16 said they understood the national science standards well. Even if teachers overestimated their understanding of the standards, the state's effort has increased attention to standards-based teaching here. For the most part, understanding of standards is equally distributed across wealthy and poor districts. The one exception is the national mathematics standards where there is a complicated pattern of differences between districts (Table 3). Generally, more teachers in the wealthy districts believed that they understandd the national standards well. However, it is not true that most teachers in the Abbott districts have limited familiarity with the national math standards. The largest concentration having moderate familiarity is in the Abbott districts while the almost two thirds of the CE teachers have only limited familiarity with the national standards. One possibility is that the wealthy districts have sought to adopt the national standards for a long time. Growing familiarity in the Abbott districts may reflect a mix of three factors: a side effect of the attention to standards in general from the adoption of state standards, the special pressures placed on the Abbott districts by the state as a by-product of the series of court cases and large amount of state money going to those districts (Firestone & Nagle, 1995), and the additional funds coming from CEIFA after the Abbott IV decision. Table 3
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abbott | C-E | F-H | IJ | ||||
| Limited* | 37% | 63% | 32% | 33% | |||
| Moderate** | 47% | 21% | 29% | 28% | |||
| Extensive*** | 16% | 16% | 40% | 39% | |||
* Awareness only and read through once or twice.
** Understand somewhat (can implement parts in class)
*** Understand well (can implement fully in class) and expert (could lead workshop)
Table 4
|
| More than 2 days PD in year | Follow-up by trainer | Follow-up by principal | PD is very useful | |
| Content and instruction in science | ||||
| Content and instruction in math | |
|||
| Using assessment results | |
|||
| Strategies to score high in math | |
|
||
| Strategies to score high in science |
Where New Jersey teachers
received more professional development, they found it more
useful. The correlation between the amount of time spent in
professional development and its perceived utility were .66
for content and instruction in science, .63 for content and
instruction in mathematics, and .61 for using assessment
results. They were lower for strategies for scoring high in
math and science (.44 and .40, respectively). These findings
suggest that extensive professional development efforts will
be most helpful when helping teachers better understand the
underlying material in a subject and effective strategies
for helping students learn it. Longer time investments may
also pay off for helping teachers to use assessment
strategies to improve practice. Comparable concentrations
are probably not as necessary to give teachers strategies to
raise test scores.
Berman, P.E. (1986). From compliance to learning: Implementing legally-induced reform. In D. Kirp & D. Jensen (Eds.), School days, rule days. (pp. 46-62). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer.
Cohen, D.K., and Barnes, C.A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. in D.K. Cohen, M.W. McLaughlin, & J.E. Talbert (Eds.) Teaching for understanding. (pp. 207-239) San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Corbett, H.D. & Wilson, B.L. (1991). Testing, reform, and rebellion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and
change in American classrooms, 1890-1980.
(2nd
ed.) New York: Teachers College Press.
Erlichson, B.A., Goertz, M. & Turnbull, B. J. (1999)
Implementing whole school reform in New Jersey: year one
in the first cohort schools. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers,
the State University of New Jersey.
Firestone, W. A., & Nagle, B. (1995). Differential
regulation: Clever customization or unequal interference?
Educational and Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
17(1), 97-112.
Firestone, W.A., Goertz, M.E., & Natriello, G.J. (1997)
From cashbox to classroom: The struggle for fiscal reform
and educational change in New Jersey. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Firestone, W.A., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998).
Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The
effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2)95-113.
Goertz, M. & Malik, E. (1999) In search of excellence for
all: the courts and New Jersey school finance reform.
Journal of Education Finance, 25(Summer)5-
32.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E.
(1997) Designing professional development for teachers of
mathematics and science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research
concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305-22.
Mehrens, W. A. (1998). Consequences of Assessment: What is
Evidence? [Online]. Educational Policy Analysis
Archives, 6(13). Available:
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v6n13.html
Millman, J. & Green J. (1989). The specification and
development of tests of achievement and ability. In R. L.
Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 335-366).
New York: Macmillan.
Natriello, G., McDill, E.L. & Pallas, A.M. (1990).
Schooling disadvantaged children: Racing against
catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.
New Jersey State Department of Education. (1996). Core
curriculum standards. Trenton, NJ: Author.
Porter, A. (1999). Creating a system of school process
indicators. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
13(1), 13-29.
Quality Counts 2000. (2000). Education Week,
XIX(18).
Raymond
Arthur Abbott, et al. v. Fred G. Burke, Commissioner of
Education, et al., 643 A.2d 575, 580 (1994) (Abbott
III)
Raymond
Arthur Abbott, et. al. v. Fred G. Burke, Commissioner of
Education, et. al., 693A.2d 417, 428 (1997) (Abbott
IV).
Rothman, R. (1995). Measuring up: standards,
assessment, and school reform. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, W. H., McNight, C. C., Raizen, S. A. (1997) A
splintered vision: an investigation of U.S. science &
mathematics education. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic
Publishers
Smith, M. & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In
S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.) The politics of curriculum
and testing. (pp. 233-67). Bristol, PA: Falmer
Press.
Smith, M.L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of
external testing on students. Educational Researcher,
20(5), 8-12.
Smith, M.S., Fuhrman, S.H. & O'Day, J (1994) National
curriculum standards: Are they desirable and feasible? In
Elmore, R.F. & Fuhrman, S.H. (Eds.) The governance of
curriculum (pp. 12-29). Alexandria, VA; ASCD.
Wiley, D.E. & Yoon, B. (1995). Teacher reports on
opportunity to learn: Analyses of the 1993 California
Learning Assessment System (CLAS). Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 355-70.
Email: wilfires@rci.rutgers.edu
William A. Firestone is Professor of Educational Policy;
Chair of the
Department of Educational Theory, Policy, and Administration
and Director of the Center for Educational Policy Analysis.
His research on the effects of both testing and professional
development on teachers has appeared in the American
Educational Research Journal, Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, and Kappan. His most recent book is From
Cashbox to Classroom: School Finance Reform and Educational
Change in New Jersey (with Margaret E. Goertz and Gary
Natriello).
Gregory Camilli
Email: camilli@rci.rutgers.edu
Gregory Camilli is Professor, Department of Educational
Psychology, at the Rutgers Graduate School of Education.
His areas of research interest
include psychometric issues in educational policy, meta-
analysis, and
differential item functioning. Dr. Camilli is a member of
the editorial Boards of Educational Measurement: Issues
and Practice, Educational Policy Analysis Archives,
and Educational Review. He is a regular reviewer
for Applied Measurement in Education, Journal of
Educational Measurement, Psychometrika, and
Psychological Methods, among others. As a member of the
Technical Advisory Committee of the New Jersey Basic Skills
Assessment Council, he provides expertise on testing and
measurement issues to the state's assessment program.
Michelle Yurecko
Michelle Yurecko, a Ph.D.
candidate in Educational Psychology and a
research associate at the
Center for Educational Policy Analysis. She is a
statistician and focuses on educational testing and measurement.
Lora Monfils, a doctoral candidate in Educational
Statistics and Measurement, is a research associate at the
Center for Educational Policy Analysis and a
mathematics educator. Her research interests
concern large-scale assessment and modeling differential educational
outcomes.
David Mayrowetz
David Mayrowetz is a doctoral
candidate in the Department of Educational Theory, Policy
and Administration, Rutgers University. His interests
include policy implementation, inclusion of students with
disabilities, and
assessment reform. He is the co-author, with William
Firestone of
"Rethinking "High Stakes:" Lessons from the
US and England and Wales"
(Teachers College Record, forthcoming) and with Carol
Weinstein, of "Sources of Leadership for Inclusive
Education: Creating Schools for All Children"
(Educational Administration Quarterly, September 1999). He
will be joining the Policy Studies faculty of the University
of Illinois at Chicago in January 2001.About the Authors
William A. Firestone
Center for Educational Policy Analysis
Rutgers University
Rutgers University
Center for Educational Policy Analysis
Rutgers University
Lora Monfils
Center for Educational Policy Analysis
Rutgers University
Center for Educational Policy Analysis
Rutgers University
Find the exact answer: 110 + 70Newer Mathematics Item:
- 18
- 81
- 180
- 810
Mr. Jones gave each of the students in his class a one-ounce box of raisins. When the students opened the boxes and counted the raisins, they found different amounts. The tally sheet below shows their results.
| Number of Raisins | Tally | Frequency |
| 10 | | | 1 |
| 11 | || | 2 |
| 12 | ||| | 3 |
| 13 | ||||| | 5 |
| 14 | ||| | 3 |
| 15 | || | 2 |
Construct a bar graph to represent the students' findings on the grid in your answer booklet. Be sure to label your graph completely.
Traditional Science Item:
Which thing does a living duck do that a toy duck does not do?Newer Science Item:
- Floats on water
- Breathes air
- Makes a sound
- Sits still
Victor has two glasses. One glass is filled with ice cubes and the other is filled with water. Give three ways the ice and water are different.
Copyright 2000 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, glass@asu.edu or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-0211. (602-965-9644). The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: casey.cobb@unh.edu . EPAA Editorial Board
|