BallouD., SandersW., and WrightP. (2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1).
2.
BishopJohn H., and WoessmannL. (2001). Institutional effects in a simple model of educational production. Kiel Working Paper 1085.
3.
CarneiroP., and HeckmanJ.J. (2003). Human capital policy. In FriedmanB. M. (Ed.), Inequality in America: What role for human capital policies?, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 77–239.
4.
DoltonP (2002). Improving education quality: How best to evaluate our schools? A discussion. Presented at “Taking Account of Accountability: Assessing Politics and Policy Program on Education Policy and Governance Education Reform conference,” Harvard 2002, available online at http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf47/dolton.pdf.
5.
GlennC (1995). The roots of character in civil society. In EberlyD. E. (Ed.), The content of America's character.Madison Books, Lanham, New York: London, p. 112.
6.
GlennC., and de GroofJ. (2003). Finding the right balance. Freedom, autonomy and accountability in education, Lemma, Utrecht.
7.
GoldhaberD (2002). The Mistery of Good Teaching. Education Next, Spring.
8.
GoldsteinH., and SpiegelhalterD.J. (1996). League tables and their limitations: Statistical issues in comparisons of institutional performance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A, 8(part 3), 385–443.
9.
HanushekE. A. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. Economic Journal, 113(485), February, 64–98.
10.
HanushekE.A., and KimkoD.D. (2000). Schooling, labor-force quality, and the growth of nations. American Economic Review, 90(5), December, 1184–208.
11.
HanushekE.A., and RaymondM.E. (2004). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Available online at http://www.nber.org/papers/w10591, National Bureau of Economic Research.
12.
HeckmanJ. J. (2003). Policies to foster human capital.University of California at Berkeley, available online at http://www.nber.org/papers/w7288.
13.
HeckmanJ.J., and MasterovD. (2005). Skill policies for Scotland. The Allander Series.
14.
LinacreJ. M. (1989). Many-facet Rasch measurement.Chicago: MESA Press.
15.
LinacreJ.M., and WrightB.D. (1987). Item bias: Mantel-Haenszel and the Rasch Model. Technical Reports, Research Notes and Memos #39, UIC, available online at www.rasch.org/memo39.pdf.
16.
LunzM.E., WrightB.D., and LinacreJ.M. (1990). Measuring the impact of judge severity on examination scores. Applied Measurement in Education, 3(4), 331–345.
17.
MessickS (1989). Validity. In LinnR. (Ed.), Educational measurement, 3rd ed., Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 13–100.
18.
MillJ. S. (1806–73). On liberty. Chapter V, The Harvard Classics: 1909–14.
19.
PowellA.G., FarrarE., and CohenD.K. (1985). The shopping mall high school.Boston: Houghton Mifflin, p. 313.
20.
RaschG. A. (1968). Mathematical theory of objectivity and its consequences for model construction. In “Report from the European Meeting on Statistics, Econometrics and Management Sciences,” Amsterdam.
21.
RogosaD (1995). Myths and methods: Myths about longitudinal research plus supplemental questions. In MordechaiG.J. (Ed.), The Analysis of Change, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
22.
RowanB., CorrentiR., and MillerR.J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. CPRE Research Report Series RR-051, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, available online at http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rr51.pdf.
23.
RoweK (2005). Evidence for the kinds of feedback data that support both student and teacher learning, ACER Press.
24.
SaulG., and StudleyR. (2002). UC and the SAT: Predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California. Educational Assessment, 8(1), 1–26.
25.
ScheerensJ., and BoskerR.J. (1997). The Foundations of educational effectiveness.Oxford: Pergamon.