Adams, J. (1992). Policy implementation through teacher professional networks: The case of Math A in California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Blank, R., & Pechman, E. (1995). State curriculum frameworks in mathematics and science: How are they changing across the states? Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Goertz, M. (1993). The role of state policy in mathematics and science reform. Background paper prepared for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Washington, D.C.

Kirst, M., Anhalt, B, & Marine, R. (1993). Science for all Americans: A political blueprint. Paper prepared for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Washington, D.C.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teacher professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129.

Massell, D., & Hetrick, B. (1993). Design and implementation in Project 2061: Lessons from the field. Background paper prepared for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Washington, D.C.

National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Author.

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

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Porter, A. (1993). State and district leadership for the implementation of Project 2061. Background paper prepared for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Washington, D.C.

Porter, A., Kirst, M., Osthoff, J., & Schneider, S. (1993). Reform up close: A classroom analysis. (Final report to the National Science Foundation, Grant No. SPA-8953446.) Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.

Schmidt, W., McKnight, C, & Raizen, S. (1996). A splintered vision: An investigation of U. S. science and mathematics education. Boston, MA: The NETWORK, Inc.

Sclan, E. & Darling-Hammond, L. (1992, March). Beginning teacher performance evaluation: An overview of state policies. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.

Spillane, J. P. (1994, April). Districts matter: The local school district and state instructional policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Stake, R. E., Easely, J. A., & Anastasiou, C. (1978). Case studies in science education, Vols. I and II. Champagne-Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation.

Webb, N., Heck, D., & Tate, W. (1996). The Urban Mathematics Collaborative Project: A study of teacher, community, and reform. In S. A. Raizen & E. D. Britton (Eds.), Bold ventures, Volume 3, Case studies of U. S. innovations in mathematics education. (pp. 245-360.) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bibliography

Adams, J. (1992). Policy implementation through teacher professional networks: The case of Math A in California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Blank, R. K. & Dalkalic, M. (1992). State policies on science and mathematics education, 1992. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers, State Education Assessment Center.

Choy, S. P. et al. (1993). America's teachers: Profile of a profession. (NCES 93-025). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Coley, R.J., & Goertz, M.E. (1990). Educational standards in the 50 states: 1990. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Curry, B., & Temple, T. (1992). Using curriculum frameworks for systemic reform. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Elmore, R.F. (1993). The development and implementation of large-scale curriculum reforms. Background paper prepared for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Washington, D.C.

Feistritzer, E. (1993). National overview of alternative teacher certification. Education and Urban Society, 26(1), 18.

Firestone, W. A. (1991). Schools to facilitate professionals: Implications of the organizational and cognitive research on teaching. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Fuhrman, S. & Elmore, R. (Eds.) (1994). The governance of curriculum, 1994 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Fuhrman, S. & Massell, D. (1992). Issues and strategies in systemic reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education

Fullan, Michael G. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.

Goertz, M. (1993). The role of state policy in mathematics and science reform. Background paper prepared for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Washington, D.C.

Green, J. (1987). The next wave: A synopsis of recent education reform reports. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Jackson, P. (1983, Spring). The reform of science education: A cautionary tale. Daedalus, 112(2), 143-166.

Kirst, M., Anhalt, B. & Marine, R. (1993). Science for all Americans: A political blueprint. Background paper prepared for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Washington, D.C..

Koretz, D.M., Madaus, G., Haertel, E., & Beaton, A. (1992). National educational standards and testing: A response to the recommendations of the National Council on Educational Standards and Testing. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Langland, C. (1992, July 26). A bold new goal for schools. The Philadelphia Inquirer, F1-F4.

Lichtenstein, G., McLaughlin, M. & Knudsen, J. (1991). Teacher empowerment and professional knowledge. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129.

Little, J.W. (1989). District policy choices and teachers' professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 165-179.

Marsh, P. (1964). The Physical Science Study Committee: A case history of nationwide curriculum development, 1956-1961. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.

Massell, D., with Hetrick, B.(1993). Design and implementation in Project 2061: Lessons from the field. Background paper. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Massell, D. & Fuhrman, S. (1993). Ten years of reform: Update with four case studies. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Massell, D. (1994). Achieving consensus: Setting the agenda for state curriculum reform. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), The governance of curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Massell, D. (1994, February). Setting standards in mathematics and social studies. Education and Urban Society.

McCarthy, M. & Langdon, C. (1993, June). Challenges to the curriculum in Indiana's public schools. (PB-B20). Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center.

McLaughlin, M.W. (1991). The RAND change agent study: Ten years later. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp.143-155). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Millsap, M.A., Moss, M., & Gamse, B. (1992). The Chapter 1 implementation study: Chapter 1 in public schools. Draft final report to the U.S. Department of Education. Cambridge, MA: ABT Associates, Inc.

Moore, D. & Hyde, A. (1981). Making sense of staff development: An analysis of staff development programs and their costs in three urban school districts. Chicago, IL: Designs for Change.

Murphy, J. (1990). The educational reform movement of the 1980s: A comprehensive analysis. In J. Murphy (Ed). The educational reform movement of the 1980s: Perspectives and cases. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corp.

Pechman, E. & Laguarda, K. (1993). Status of new curriculum frameworks, standards, assessments, and monitoring systems. Washington, D.C.: Policy Studies Associates, Inc.

Porter, A., M., Kirst, E., Osthoff, & Smithson, J. (1993). Reform up close: A classroom analysis. Report to the National Science Foundation, Grant No. SPA-8953446.

Porter, A. (1993). State and district leadership for the implementation of Project 2061. Background paper prepared for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Washington, D.C.

Scannell, M.M. (1988). Factors influencing state policies restricting entry to teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University.

Smith, M. & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. Politics of Education Association yearbook 1990 (pp.233-267). New York: Taylor and Francis Ltd.

Stake, R., Easely, J. et al. (1978). Case studies in science education, Volume I and II. Urbana, IL: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois.

Walker, D. (1990). Fundamentals of curriculum. Saddle Brook, NJ: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Weiss, I.R. (1987). Report of the 1985-86 national survey of science and mathematics education. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

Wohlstedter, P. (1993). Georgia case study. In D. Massell & S. Fuhrman (Eds.), Ten years of reform: Update with four case studies. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Yee, G. & Kirst, M. (1994, February). Lessons from the new science curriculum of the 1950s and 1960s. Education and Urban Society.

Copyright © 1998 by American Association for the Advancement of Science