SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science., (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • American Educational Research Association. (2008). Alternate definition of scientifically based research. Retrieved August 8, 2010, from http://www.aera.net/Default.aspx?id=6790.
  • Aronson, I. (2007). Negotiating the terrain of high-stakes accountability in science teaching (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (UMI No. 3297419)
  • Aronson, I., & Miller, J. (2007). Competing horizons. The Science Teacher, 74(7), 6467.
  • Baker, E., Linn, R., Herman, J., & Koretz, D. (2002). Standards for educational accountability systems (Policy Brief 5). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Retrieved January 20, 2010, from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/policy/cresst_policy5.pdf.
  • Batt, L., Kim, J., & Sunderman, G. (2005). Limited English proficient students: Increased accountability under NCLB. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
  • Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Leonard, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577616.
  • Brinthaupt, T. M., & Erwin, L. J. (1992). Reporting about the self: Issues and implications. In T. M. Brinthaupt & R. P. Lipka, (Eds.). The self: definitional and methodological issues (pp. 137171). Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Cavanagh, S. (2009). Science panel seeks ways to fan student innovation. Education Week. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/09/02/02stem-2.h29.html/&destination= or http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/09/02/02stem-2.h29.html/&levelId=2100
  • Coble, J. (2006). Curricular constraints, high-stakes testing and the reality of reform in high school science classrooms (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (UMI No. 3207430)
  • Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145170.
  • Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Policy and practice: An overview. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 233239.
  • Committee on Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards. (2010). A framework for science education: Preliminary public draft. Board of Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the National Research Council. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://www.aapt.org/Resources/upload/Draft-Framework-Science-Education.pdf.
  • Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academies. Retrieved August 15, 2010, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463.
  • Cooper, H. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 291302.
  • Cooper, H. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2009). Research synthesis as scientific process. In H. M. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 316). New York: Russell Sage.
  • Costigan, A. T., & Crocco, M. S. (2004). Learning to teach in an age of accountability. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • DeNovellis, R. L., & Lewis, A. J. (1974). Schools become accountable: A PACT approach. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging of reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 11451176.
    Direct Link:
  • Donnelly, L. A., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). High school science teachers' views of standards and accountability. Science Education, 93(6), 10501075.
  • Ellis, P., Jablonski, E., Levy, A., & Mansfield, A. (2009). High school science performance assessments: an examination of instruments for Massachusetts. Newton, MA: Education Development Center. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/handle/2452/58025.
  • Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work. Policy, practice, and the reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved August 15, 2010, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2007/R3574.pdf.
  • Font-Rivera, M. J. (2003). A descriptive study of the reported effects of state-mandated testing on the instructional practices and beliefs of middle school science teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (UMI No. 3091147).
  • Fu, A. C., Raizen, S. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (2009). The nation's report card: A vision of large-scale science assessment. Science, 326(5960), 16371638.
  • Galton, M. (2002). Continuity and progression in science teaching at key stages 2 and 3. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 249265.
  • Gamoran, A. (2007). Introduction: Can standards-based reform reduce the poverty gap in education? In A. Gamoran (Ed.), Standards-based reform and the poverty gap: Lessons for No Child Left Behind (pp. 316). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  • Goetz Shuler, S., Backman, J., & Olson, S. (2009). The role of assessments and accountability. In B. B. Berns & J. O. Sandler, (Eds.). Making science curriculum matter: Wisdom for the reform road ahead (pp. 4959). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Goldstein, L. S. (2008). Kindergarten teachers making “street-level” educational policy in the wake of No Child Left Behind. Early Education and Development, 19(3), 448478.
  • Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
  • Ingels, S. J., & Dalton, B. W. (2008). Trends among high school seniors, 1972–2004 (Report No. 2008-320). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved January 20, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008320.pdf.
  • International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2009). Brief history of IEA. Retrieved January 15, 2010, from http://www.iea.nl/brief_history_of_iea.html.
  • Jenkins, E. W. (2000). The impact of the national curriculum on secondary school science teaching in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 325336.
  • Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110113.
  • Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 199203.
  • Judson, E. (2010). Science education as a contributor to adequate yearly progress and accountability programs. Science Education, 94(5), 888902.
  • Kahle, J. B. (2004). Will girls be left behind? Gender differences and accountability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 961969.
  • Katzmann, J. M. (2007). The influences of implementing state-mandated science assessment on teacher practice. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (UMI No. 3280260)
  • Kersaint, G., Borman, K. M., Lee, R., & Boydston, T. L. (2001). Balancing the contradictions between accountability and systemic reform. Journal of School Leadership, 11(3), 217240.
  • Klassen, S. (2006). Contextual assessment in science education: Background, issues, and policy. Science Education, 90(5), 820851.
  • Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
  • Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2005). Dilemmas in scaling up innovations in science instruction with nonmainstream elementary students. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 411438.
  • Linn, R. (2006). Educational accountability systems (Report No. 687). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/r687.pdf.
  • Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability, responsibility, and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 313.
  • Loveless, T. (2007). The peculiar politics of No Child Left Behind. In A. Gamoran, (Ed.), Standards-based reform and the poverty gap: Lessons for No Child Left Behind (pp. 253285). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  • Louis, K. S., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers' interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 27(2), 177204.
  • Lynch, S. J. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy (CEP).
  • Merrill, R. J. (1972). Accountability and the science teacher. The Science Teacher, 39(8), 23.
  • Mintrop, H. (2004). Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn't work). New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement—and why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353364.
  • National Commission on Excellence in Education., (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
  • National Research Council., (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Paige, R. (2002). Key policy letters signed by the education secretary or deputy secretary. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved October 20, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/020724.html.
  • Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaer, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Penfield, R. D., & Lee, O. (2010). Test-based accountability: Potential benefits and pitfalls of science assessment with student diversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 624.
  • Perlstein, L. (2007). Tested: One American school struggles to make the grade. New York: Henry Holt.
  • Peter, Z. (2008). Science fairs getting left behind. Albuquerque Journal. Retrieved January 18, 2009, from http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/303282metro04-28-08.htm.
  • Peterson, J. (2002). No Child Left Behind—How will it affect science educators? Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(2), 93.
  • Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479502.
  • Pinder, P. J. (2008). A critique analysis of NCLB, increased testing, and past Maryland mathematics and science HAS exams: What are Maryland's practitioner's perspectives? Paper presented at the 16th annual Association for Science Teacher Education Conference, St. Louis, MO.
  • Pringle, R. M., & Martin, S. C. (2005). The potential impacts of upcoming high-stakes testing on the teaching of science in elementary classrooms. Research in Science Education, 35(3), 347361.
  • Rentner, D. S., Scott, C., Kobler, N., Chudowsky, N., Chudowsky, V., Joftus, S., et al. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Center on Education Policy. Retrieved January 5, 2010, from http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=540&nodeID=1.
  • Ripley, A. (2004). Beating the bubble test. Time, 163 (March 1), 5253.
  • Rodgers, P. E. (2006). What goal is of most worth? The effects of the implementation of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills on elementary science teaching (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (UMI No. 3219180)
  • Saka, Y. (2007). Exploring the interaction of personal and contextual factors during the induction period of science teachers and how this interaction shapes their enactment of science reform (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (UMI No. 3312780)
  • Settlage, J., & Meadows, L. (2002). Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences: Implications for science education within America's urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 114127.
  • Shaver, A., Cuevas, P., Lee, O., & Avalos, M. (2007). Teachers' perceptions of policy influences on science instruction with culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 725746.
  • Shepard, L., & Dougherty, K. C. (1991). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the 58th annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
  • Sirotnik, K. A. (2004). Holding accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Smith, L. K., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms? Elementary teachers' response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 396423.
  • Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 811.
  • Southerland, S. A., Smith, L. K., Sowell, S. P., & Kittleson, J. M. (2007). Resisting unlearning—Understanding science education's response to the United States' national accountability movement. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 4577.
  • Stecher, B. M., & Barron, S. I. (1999). Quadrennial milepost: Accountability testing in Kentucky (Report No. 505). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/Reports/TECH505.pdf.
  • Stuart Hammer, K. E. (2004). An assessment of standards-based reform in Florida's middle school science programs (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (UMI No. 3146258)
  • Sykes, G., O'Day, J., & Ford, T. G. (2009). The district role in instructional improvement. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank, (Eds.). Handbook of educational policy research (pp. 767784). New York: Routledge.
  • Taylor, A. R., Jones, M. G., Broadwell, B., & Oppewal, T. (2008). Creativity, inquiry or accountability? Scientists' and teachers' perceptions of science education. Science Education, 92(6), 10581075.
  • Tye, B. B., & O'Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 2432.
  • Vogler, K. E. (2002). The impact of high-stakes, state-mandated student performance assessment on teachers' instructional practices. Education, 123(1), 3955.
  • Wideen, M. F., O'shea, T., Pye, I., & Ivany, G. (1997). High-stakes testing and the teaching of science. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 428444.
  • Wood, T. (1988). State-mandated accountability as a constraint on teaching and learning science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 631641.