This Article Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Moon, T. R. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Myth 16: High-Stakes Tests Are Synonymous With Rigor and Difficulty

Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, trm2k{at}virginia.edu

References

• Center on Education Policy. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on Public Schools. Retrieved January 12, 2008 from http://www.cepdc.org/document/docWindow.cfm?fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=29&documentFormatId=596
• Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment. ( 2001, October). Building tests to support instruction and accountability: A guide for policymakers. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from http://www.testaccountability.org/
• Gunzenhauser, M.G. ( 2003). High-stakes testing and the default philosophy of education. Theory Into Practice, 42, 51-58.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Jones, G., Jones, B.D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. ( 1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 199-203.[Web of Science]
• National Commission on Excellence in Education. ( 1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: Author.
• National Research Council. (2003). Assessment in support of instruction and learning: Bridging the gap between large-scale and classroom assessment. (Workshop report, Committee on Assessment in Support of Learning). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Pub Law no. 107-110 (2002, January). Retrieved January 12, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.
• Passow, A.H. ( 1982). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/ talented. In Curricula for the gifted: Selected proceedings for the First National Conference on Curricula for the Gifted/ Talented (pp. 4-20). Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented.
• Pedulla, J.J., Abrams, L.M., Madaus, G.F., Russell, M.K., Ramos, M.A., & Miao, J. ( 2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. Boston: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.
• Stecher, B.M., & Chun, T. ( 2001). School and classroom practices during two years of education reform in Washington state (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 550). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
• Stiggins, R. ( 2003). Balanced assessment: The key to accountability and improved student learning. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
• Webb, N.L. ( 1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessment in four states. (Research Monograph No. 18). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 4, 277-279 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0016986209346945


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Moon, T. R. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?