References

References

Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. The Annals of Statistics, 29(4), 1165–1188.

Borman, G., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.

Boser, J., & Clark, S. (1995). Factors influencing mail survey response rates: What do we really know? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS.

Browder, D. M., Fallin, K., Davis, S., & Karvonen, M. (2003). Consideration of what may influence student outcomes on alternate assessments. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 255–270.

Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 62–79.

Collins, R., Ellickson, P., Hays, R. D., & McCaffrey, D. F. (2000). Effects of incentive size and timing on response rates to a follow-up wave of a longitudinal mailed survey. Evaluation Review, 24(4), 347–363.

Dillihunt, V. C. (1984). Tactics and factors that increase response rates to mailed questionnaires. Memphis, TN: Memphis State University.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dillman, D. A., Christenson, J. A., Carpenter, E. H.., & Brooks, R. (1974). Increasing mail questionnaire response: A four-state comparison. American Sociological Review, 39, 744–756.

Elmore, R. F., & Rothman, R. (Eds.). (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: A guide for states and school districts. Committee on Title I Testing and Assessment, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D., & Spooner, F. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 30(2), 81–92.

Geenan, K., Thurlow, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (1995). A disability perspective on five years of education reform. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes.

Goertz, M. E. (2001). Standards-based accountability: Horse trade or horse whip? In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the Capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Green, K. E., & Hutchinson, S. R. (1996). Reviewing the research on mail survey response rates: Meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Gullatt, D. E. (2006). Block scheduling: The effects on curriculum and student productivity. National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 250–267.

Heberlein, T. A. & Baumgartner, R. M. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43, 447–462.

Hopkins, K. D., & Gullickson, A. R. (1989). Monetary gratuities in survey research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Hopkins, K. D., & Gullickson, A. R. (1992). Response rates in survey research: A meta-analysis of the effects of monetary gratuities. Journal of Experimental Education, 61(1), 52–62.

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation. (2005 April 22). Guidelines for incentives for NCEE impact evaluations. Unpublished policy document.

James, J. M., & Bolstein, R. (1990). The effect of monetary incentives and follow-up mailings on response rates and response quality in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 346–361.

James, J. M., & Bolstein, R. (1992). Large monetary incentives and their effect on mail survey responses. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 442–453.

James, J. M., & Bolstein, R. (1990). The effect of monetary incentives and follow-up mailings on response rates and response quality in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 346–361.

Karvonen, M., Flowers, C., Browder, D., Wakeman, S., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Case study of influences on alternate assessment outcomes for students with disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(2), 95–110.

Karvonen, M., Flowers, C., Browder, D., & Wakeman, S. (2007). Measuring the enacted curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities: A preliminary investigation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(1), 29–38.

Marion, S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2006). A validity framework for evaluating the technical quality of alternate assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 47–57.

McLaughlin, M. J., & Thurlow, M. (2003). Educational accountability and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 17(4), 431–451.

Mirrel, J. (1994). High standards for all: The struggle for equality in the American high school curriculum. American Educator, 18 (2), 40-42.

National Alternate Assessment Center (NAAC). (2007). State department of educations’ Curriculum Indicator Survey (CIS) results. Charlotte, NC: Author.

Nettles, S. M., & Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724–736.

Office of Management and Budget. (2006). Questions and answers when designing surveys for information collections. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/pmc_survey_guidance_2006.pdf

Quenemoen, R., Rigney, S., & Thurlow, M. (2002). Use of alternate assessment results in reporting and accountability systems: Conditions for use based on research and practice (Synthesis Report 43). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis43.html

Resnick, L., & Zurawsky, C. (2005). Getting back on course: Standards-based reform and accountability. American Educator. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring05/resnick.htm

Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2001). 2001 state special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved July 28, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2001StateReport.html

Towles-Reeves, E., Kearns, J., Kleinert, H., & Kleinert, J. (in press). An analysis of the learning characteristics of students taking alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. Journal of Special Education.

Wakeman, S., Browder, D. M., Flowers, C., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). Principals’ knowledge of fundamental and current issues in special education. National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP Bulletin, 90(2), 153–174.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Wilde, J. B. (1988). Survey research: Why respond? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.