BruceB.OsbornJ.CommeyrasM. (1993). Contention and consensus: The development of the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress in reading. Educational Assessment, 1, 225–253.
4.
CalfeeR.HiebertE. (1991). Classroom assessment of reading. In BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP.PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 281–309). New York: Longman.
5.
ColeN. (1988). A realist's appraisal of the prospects for unifying instruction and assessment. In BundersonC. V. (Ed.), Assessment in the service of learning (pp. 103–117) Princeton, NJ: ETS.
6.
Darling-HammondL. (1991). The implications of testing policy for quality and equity. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 220–225.
7.
Darling-HammondL.WiseA.E. (1985). Beyond standardization: State standards and school improvement. Elementary School Journal, 85, 315–336.
8.
DelpitL. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.
9.
Dorr-BremmeD. W.HermanJ. L. (1986). Assessing student achievement: A profile of classroom practices. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
10.
FarrR. (1992). Putting it all together: Solving the reading assessment puzzle. Reading Teacher, 46, 26–37.
11.
FeinbergL. (1990). Multiple-choice and its critics: Are the alternatives any better?Commentaries from the College Board, 3–15.
12.
GarciaG. E.PearsonP. D. (1991). The role of assessment in a diverse society. In HiebertE. H. (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society (pp. 253–278). New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
GarciaM. W.VervilleK. (1994). Redesigning teaching and learning: The Arizona Student Assessment Program. In ValenciaS. W.HiebertE. H.AfflerbachP. P. (Eds.), Authentic reading assessment: Practices and possibilities (pp. 228–246). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
14.
HaneyW. (1991). We must take care: Fitting assessments to functions. In PeroneV. (Ed.), Expanding student assessment (pp. 142–163). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
15.
HowardK. (1990). Making the writing portfolio real. Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, 12, 4–7, 27.
16.
IRA/NCTE Task Force on Literacy Assessment (1994). Standards for the assessment of literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
17.
JohnstonP. (1993). Assessment as social practice. In LeuD. J.KinzerC. K. (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory and practice. Forty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 11–23). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
18.
JohnstonP. H. (1989). Constructive evaluation and the improvement of teaching and learning. Teachers College, 90, 509–528.
19.
JohnstonP. H.AfflerbachP.WeissP.B. (1993). Teachers' Assessment of the teaching and learning of literacy. Educational Assessment, 1, 91–117.
20.
KapinusB. A.CollierG. V.KruglanskiH. (1994). The Maryland School Performance Assessment Program: A new view of assessment. In ValenciaS. W.HiebertE. H.AfflerbachP. P. (Eds.), Authentic reading assessment: Practices and possibilities (pp. 255–276). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
21.
KeanM. H., (1992). ESEA Chapter 1 reauthorization: Testimony before the advisory committee on testing in Chapter 1. New York: Association of American Publishers.
22.
KoretzD.LinnR. L.DunbarS. B.ShepardL. A. (1991, April). The effects of high-stakes testing on achievement: Preliminary findings about generalization across tests. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
23.
LinekW. M.NelsonO. G.McConnellPryorE. G.ChurchB. K.PadakN. (1991, December). Case studies of teachers' reading and writing assessment practices. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Palm Springs, CA.
24.
LinnR. L. (1985). Standards and expectations: The role of testing (summary). In Proceedings of a National Forum on Educational Reform (pp. 88–95). New York: College Board.
25.
LinnR. L.BakerE. L.DunbarS. B. (1991). Complex, performance based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Leadership, 20(8), 15–23.
26.
MadausG. F. (1993, October). Assessment issues around the reauthorization of Chapter 1. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Academic of Education, School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
27.
McNeilL. (1988). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
28.
MitchellR. (1992). Testing for learning: New approaches to evaluation can improve American schools. New York: Free Press.
29.
MossP. A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62, 229–258.
30.
National Council on Education Standards and Testing (1992). Raising standards for American education: A report to Congress, the secretary of education, the national education goals panel, and the American people. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
31.
National Commission on Testing and Public Policy (1990). From gatekeeper to gateway: Transforming testing in America. Chestnut Hills, MA: National Commission on Testing and Public Policy, Boston College.
PearsonP.D.ValenciaS. (1989). Assessment, accountability, and professional prerogative. In ReadenceJ.BaldwinR. S. (Eds.), Research in literacy: Merging perspectives. Thirty-sixth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 3–16). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
34.
PophamJ. W. (1987). The merits of measurement-driven instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 679–682.
35.
PophamJ. W. (1993). Circumventing the high costs of authentic assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 470–473.
36.
PorterA. (1988). Indicators: Objective data or political tool. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 503–508.
37.
ResnickL. B.ResnickD. L. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In GiffordB. R.O'ConnorM. C. (Eds.), Future assessments: Changing views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 37–75). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
38.
SchaferW. D.LissitzR. W. (1987). Measurement training for school personnel: Recommendations and reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 57–63.
39.
ShavelsonR.BaxterG. P. (1992). What we've learned about assessing hands-on science. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 20–25.
40.
ShavelsonR. J.BaxterG. P.PineJ. (1992). Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 21(4), 2–27.
41.
ShepardL. (1990). Inflated tests score gains: Is the problem old norms or teaching the test. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9(3), 15–22.
42.
ShepardL. (1991). Psychometricians' beliefs about learning. Educational Researcher, 20, 2–16.
43.
ShepardL. A. (1989). Why we need better assessment. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 4–7.
44.
SmithM. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8–11.
45.
StigginsR. J.ConklinN. F. (1992). In teachers' hands: Investigating the practices of classroom assessment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
46.
TaylorC. (in press). Assessment for measurement or standards: The peril and promise of large-scale assessment reforms. American Educational Research Journal.
47.
ValenciaS. W. (1990). National Survey of the use of test data for educational decision-making. In AfflerbachP. (Ed.), Issues in Statewide Assessment (pp. 75–100). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
48.
ValenciaS. W. (1991, April). Testimony session on the validity of National Assessment of Educational Progress. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
49.
ValenciaS.PearsonP. D. (1987). Reading assessment: Time for a change. Reading Teacher, 40, 726–732.
50.
WeissB. (1994). California's new English—language arts assessment. In ValenciaS. W.HiebertE. H.AfflerbachP. P. (Eds.), Authentic reading assessment: Practices and possibilities (pp. 197–217). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.