From Policy to Practice: The Evolution of One Approach to Describing and Using Curriculum Data

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for All Americans (Project 2061 Rep. on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology). Washington, DC: Author.

American Educational Research Association. (2003). Standards and tests: Keeping them aligned (Research Points, Vol. 1, No. 1). Washington, DC: Author.

Blank R.K. , Porter A.C. , & Smithson J.L. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics and science. (Rep. from the Survey of Enacted Curriculum Project, National Science Foundation REC98-03080). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Burstein L. , McDonnell L. , Van Winkle J. , Ormseth T. , Mirocha J. , & Guiton G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Carroll J. (1963). A model for school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.

Clune W. , White P. , Sun S. , & Patterson J. (1991). Changes in high school course-taking, 1982–88: A study of transcript data from selected schools and states. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.

Cohen D.K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 327–345.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2000). Using data on enacted curriculum in mathematics and science: Sample results from a study of classroom practices and subject content. (Summary Rep. of the Survey of Enacted Curriculum, with Wisconsin Center for Education Research and 11 States). Washington, DC: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002). Experimental design to measure effects of assisting teachers in using data on enacted curriculum to improve effectiveness of instruction in mathematics and science education (DEC Project: Year 2 Rep. to the National Science Foundation on Grant REC No. 0087562). Washington, DC: Author.

Debra P. v. Turlington. 474 F. Supp 244 (M.D. Fla. 1979); aff'd in part 644 F.2d 397 (5th Cir., 1981).

Firestone W.A. , Fuhrman S.H. , & Kirst M.W. (1989). The progress of reform: An appraisal of state educational initiatives. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Policy Research in Education.

Floden R.E. , Porter A.C. , Schmidt W.H. , Freeman D.J. , & Schwille J.R. (1981). Responses to curriculum pressures: A policy capturing study of teacher decisions about content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 129–141.

Gamoran A. , Porter A.C. , Smithson J.L. , & White P.A. (1997). Upgrading mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325–338.

Herman J.L. , Klein D.C.D. , & Abedi J. (2000). Assessing students’ opportunity to learn: Teacher and student perspectives. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(4), 16–24.

Loucks-Horsley S. , Hewson P.W. , Love N. , & Stiles K.E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Love N. (2000). Using data getting results. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.

Mayer D.P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.

McCaffrey D.F. , Hamilton L.S. , Stecher B.M. , Klein S.P. , Bugliari D. , & Robyn A. (2001). Interactions among instructional practices, curriculum, and student achievement: The case of standards-based high school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 493–517.

McDonnell L.M. , Burstein L. , Ormseth T. , Catterall J.M. , & Moody D. (1990). Discovering what schools really teach. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Murnane R.J. , & Raizen S.A. (Eds.). (1988). Improving indicators of the quality of science and mathematics education in grades K–12. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Porter A.C. (1991). Creating a system of school process indicators. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(1), 13–29.

Porter A.C. (1993). School delivery standards. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 24–30.

Porter A.C. (1995). The uses and misuses of opportunity-to-learn standards. Educational Researcher, 24(1), 21–27.

Porter A.C. (1998). The effects of upgrading policies on high school mathematics and science. In Ravitch D. (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 123–172). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Porter A.C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.

Porter A.C. , Floden R. , Freeman D. , Schmidt W. , & Schwille J. (1988). Content determinants in elementary school mathematics. In Grouws D. A. , & Cooney T.J. (Eds.) Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching (pp. 96–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; (Research Series 179). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.

Porter A.C. , Kirst M.W. , Osthoff E.J. , Smithson J.L. , & Schneider S.A. (1993). Reform Up Close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. (Final Rep. to the National Science Foundation on Grant No. SAP–8953446 to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Porter A.C. , & Smithson J.L. (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In Fuhrman S.H. (Ed.), From the Capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. The One Hundredth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 60–80) Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.

Raizen S.A. , & Jones L.V. (Eds.). (1985). Indicators of precollege education in science and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Rothman R. , Slattery J.B. , Vranek J.L. , & Resnick L.B. (2002). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing (CSE Tech. Rep. 566) Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Teaching.

Rowan B. , Camburn E. , & Correnti R. (2002, April). Using teacher logs to measure the enacted curriculum in large-scale surveys: Insights from the Study of Instructional Improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Scherpenzeel A. , & Saris W.E. (1997). The validity and reliability of survey questions: A meta-analysis of MTMM studies. Sociological Methods and Research, 25(3), 341–383.

Schmidt W.H. , McKnight C.C. , Houang R.T. , Wang H.C. , Wiley D.E. , Cogan L.S. , & Wolfe R.G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shavelson R. , McDonnell L. , Oakes J. , Carey N. , & Picus L. (1987). Indicator systems for monitoring mathematics and science education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Smithson J.L. , & Porter A.C. (1994). Measuring classroom practice: Lessons learned from efforts to describe the enacted curriculum. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Smithson J.L. , Porter A.C. , & Blank R.K. (1995). Describing the enacted curriculum: Development and dissemination of opportunity of learn indicators in science education. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Spillane J.P. , & Zeuli J.S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1–27.

Stecher B.M. , & Koretz D.M. (1996). Issues in building an indicator system for mathematics and science education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Sudman S. , Bradburn N.M. , & Schwarz N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Webb N.L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states (Research Monograph No.18). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.

White P. , Gamoran A. , Smithson J.L. , & Porter A.C. (1996). Upgrading the high school mathematics curriculum: Math course-taking patterns in seven high schools in California and New York. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 285–307.