Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better a Large-Scale Study of Middle Grades Practices and Student Outcomes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D • FEBRUARY 2010 Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better A Large-Scale Study of Middle Grades Practices and Student Outcomes 520 San Antonio Rd, Suite 200, Mountain View, CA 94040-1217 | 650/917-9481 Fax: 650/917-9482 | [email protected] www.edsource.org | www.ed-data.org Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better TECHNICAL APPENDIX D TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPENDIX D – FULL RESEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... D FULL RESEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix D• Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better © EdSource, Inc. 2010 Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better APPENDIX D – Full Research Bibliography This appendix contains the full bibliography of all research and policy documents consulted during the development of the ten research domains and three survey instruments for this study, and during the subsequent conduct of the study. Appendix D• Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better © EdSource, Inc. 2010 Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better Appendix D - Full research bibliography Abbott, C., & Ganahl, J. (2008). Taking center stage—Act II: Building effective programs for English learners in the middle grades. Webinar presented October 30, 2008. SchoolsMovingUp, WestEd. http://www.schoolsmovingup.net/ Abelmann, C., & Elmore, R.F. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer? Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. ACT. (2008). The forgotten middle: Ensuring that all students are on target for college and career readiness before high school. Iowa City, IA. Allensworth, E.M., & Easton, J.Q. (2005). The on-track indicator as a predictor of high school graduation. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. Allensworth, E.M., & Easton, J.Q. (2007). What matters for staying on-track and graduating in Chicago public high schools: A close look at course grades, failures, and attendance in the freshman year. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. Allensworth, E.M., Nomi, T., et al. (2009). College preparatory curriculum for all: Academic consequences of requiring Algebra and English I for ninth graders in Chicago. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31(3), 367–391. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004a). How to know a good adolescent literacy program when you see one: Quality criteria to consider. Issue brief. Washington, DC. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004b). Reading for the 21st century: Adolescent literacy teaching and learning strategies. Issue brief. Washington, DC. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2006). Reading and writing in academic content areas. Issue brief. Washington, DC. Alspaugh, J.W. (1998a). Achievement loss associated with the transition to middle school and high school. Journal of Educational Research 92(1), 20–25. Alspaugh, J.W. (1998b). The relationship of school-to-school transitions and school size to high school dropout rates. High School Journal 81(3), 154–164. Alt, M.N., & Hammer, C.H. (2000). In the middle: Characteristics of public schools with a focus on middle schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. American Federation of Teachers. (2008). Sizing up state standards 2008. Washington, DC. Anderson, E., & Newell, M. (2008). Course placement of students entering middle school proficient in math. Policy brief. Long Beach, CA: Office of Research, Planning and Evaluation, Long Beach Unified School District. Armstrong, J., & Anthes, K. (2001). Identifying the factors, conditions and policies that support schools’ use of data for decision-making and school improvement. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Augustine, C.H., Gonzalez, G., et al. (2009). Improving school leadership: The promise of cohesive leadership systems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Balfanz, R. (2009). Putting middle grades students on the graduation path: A policy and practice brief. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2006). Closing the mathematics achievement gap in high-poverty middle schools: Enablers and constraints. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 11(2), 143–159. Appendix D1• Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better ©EdSource, Inc. 2010 Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., et al. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist 42(4), 223–235. Balfanz, R., McPartland, J., et al. (2002). Re-conceptualizing extra help for high school students in a high-standards era. Prepared for the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. Balfanz, R., Ruby, A., et al. (2004). Essential components and next steps for comprehensive whole school reform in high poverty middle schools. Yearbook for the National Society for the Study of Education 101(2), 128–147. Balfanz, R., Spiridakis, K., et al. (2002). Will converting high-poverty middle schools to K–8 schools facilitate achievement gains? A research brief for the School District of Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Education Fund. Beane, J. A. (2002). Curriculum matters: Organizing the middle school curriculum. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Bedard, K., & Do, C. (2005). Are middle schools more effective? The impact of school structure on student outcomes. Journal of Human Resources 40(3), 660–682. Behn, R.D. (2003). Rethinking accountability in education: How should who hold whom accountable for what? International Public Management Journal 6(1), 43–73. Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C.E. (2006). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Second edition. Washington, D.C: Alliance for Excellent Education. Bottoms, G., Cooney, S., et al. (2003). Improving the middle grades: Actions that can be taken now. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Bottoms, G., Cooney, S. et al. (2007). We know what works in the middle grades: Smart district leadership can make it happen. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Brown, C.G. (2002). Opportunities and accountability to leave no child behind in the middle grades: An examination of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. New York, NY: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. Burris, C.C., Heubert, J.P., et al. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal 43(1), 137–154. Byrnes, V., & Ruby, A. (2007). Comparing achievement between K–8 and middle schools: A large-scale empirical study. American Journal of Education 114(1), 101–135. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2008a). Assignment monitoring of certificated employees in California by county offices of education 2003-2007, A Report to the Legislature. Sacramento, CA. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2008b). Professional Services Committee—Authorizations to Teach Mathematics (Item 2D), October 2008. Sacramento, CA. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2008c). Professional Services Committee—The Mathematics Specialist Credential: Discussion of Current Authorization, Adopted Standards, and Possible Future Uses of this Authorization (Item 3G), December 2008. Sacramento, CA. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2009a). Professional Services Committee—Authorizations for Teaching Mathematics (Item 3E), January 2009. Sacramento, CA. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2009b). Professional Services Committee—Subject Matter Competence of Teachers of Mathematics (Item 3E), April 2009. Sacramento, CA. Appendix D2• Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better ©EdSource, Inc. 2010 Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2009c). Professional Services Committee—Update on the Work of the Teaching Mathematics Advisory Panel (Item 3F), December 2009. Sacramento, CA. California Council on Science and Technology & Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2007). Critical path analysis of California's science and mathematics teacher preparation system. Sacramento, CA: California Council of Science and Technology. California Department of Education. (1997a). English-language arts content standards for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Adopted by the California State Board of Education, December 1997. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Education. (1997b). Mathematics content standards for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Adopted by the California State Board of Education, December 1997. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Education. (2001a). Adopted programs mathematics 2001 primary adoption. Sacramento, CA. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/im/math2001adopted.asp California Department of Education. (2001b). Taking center stage: A commitment to standards-based education for California’s middle grades students. Sacramento, CA. California