2. For details on TIMSS methodology and findings, see W.H. Schmidt et al., Characterizing Pedagogical Flow: An Investigation of Mathematics and Science Teaching in Six Countries. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996; National Center for Education Statistics, Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S. Fourth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement in International Context. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, June 1997 (NCES 97-255); and I.V.S. Mullis et al., Mathematics and Science Achievement in the Final Year of Secondary School: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center, February 1998. The Commissioner of Education Statistics has also responded to criticisms of the TIMSS methodology and interpretation of findings. See Center for Education Reform and Empower America, Achievement in the United States: Progress Since A Nation at Risk? Washington, DC, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, April 3, 1998: 11 <http://nces.ed.gov>.
3. The following is distilled from W.H. Schmidt, Executive Director, U.S. National Center for TIMSS, presentation to the National Science Board, May 7, 1998. Also see G.A. Valverde and W.H. Schmidt, “Refocusing U.S. Math and Science Education,” Issues in Science and Technology (Winter 1997-98): 60-66; and W.H. Schmidt and C.C. McKnight, “What Can We Really Learn from TIMSS?” Science, 282, Dec. 4, 1998: 1830-1831. These characteristics appear to be necessary, but not sufficient conditions for high student performance.
4. National Science Board, The Federal Role in Science and Engineering Graduate and Postdoctoral Education (Arlington, VA: Feb. 26, 1998, NSB 97-235); and K. Olson, “Despite Increases, Women and Minorities Still Underrepresented in Undergraduate and Graduate S&E Education,” SRS Data Brief, Jan. 15, 1999, NSF 99-320.
5. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education--1995, Indicator 46: Student Mobility <//nces.ed.gov/pubs/ce/c9546a01.html>.
6. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology (Washington, DC: AAAS, 1990); National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Reston, VA: NCTM, 1989); National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (Reston, VA: NCTM, 1991); and National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996). At a White House “Education Announcement/Roundtable” on April 2, 1997, the President remarked that “240 companies have endorsed this national standards movement” <http://library.whitehouse.gov/>. NCTM is currently revising and updating the mathematics standards. A draft is available for public comment at <www.nctm.org/standards2000/>.
8. C.T. Cross, “The Standards War: Some Lessons Learned,” Education Week, Oct. 21, 1998 <//www.edweek.org/ew/current/08cross.h19>.
9. K.K. Manzo, “Report for Goals Panel Calls for Consensus on Standards,” Education Week, Sept. 9, 1998 <www.edweek.org/ew/current/01stand.h18>. Also see K.K. Manzo, “Think Tank Inks Blueprint to Lift Achievement,” Education Week, Nov. 18, 1998: 6, reporting on the Consortium on Renewing Education’s 20/20 Vision: A Strategy for Doubling America’s Academic Achievement by the Year 2020.
11. Education Week, Quality Counts ’99 (January 11, 1999) <www.edweek.org/sreports/qc99/exsum.htm>.
15. D. Rich, “You Can’t Teach What You Don’t Know,” Education Week, Sept. 16, 1998 <www.edweek.org/ew/current/02rich.h18>.
16. “In State of the Union Speech, President Urges Testing of Prospective Teachers,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 20, 1999 <//chronicle.com/daily/99/01/99012001n.html>.
21. R.W. Riley, “An End to ‘Quiet Backwaters’: Universities Must Make Teacher Education a Much Higher Day-to-Day Priority,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 2, 1998: B10. Also see C. Pipho, “A ‘Real’ Teacher Shortage,” Phi Delta Kappan, November 1998: 181-182. Also see N. Lane, “The Integral Role of Two-Year Colleges in Science and Mathematics Preparation of Prospective Teachers,” SACNAS Journal, Summer 1998 <www.sacnas.org/journal/su98/page5.htm>.
22. See R.L. Linn, “Standards-Based Accountability: Ten Suggestions,” CRESST Policy Brief, adaptation of Technical Report 490, Assessments and Accountability, 1998, available at <www.cse.ucla.edu>.
23. For example, see “Good Teaching Matters: How Well-Qualified Teachers Can Close the Gap,” Thinking K-16 (A Publication of The Education Trust), Summer 1998: 1-15; and H.J. Walberg, “Incentivized School Standards Work,” Education Week, Nov. 4, 1998: 48, 51.
28. For example, see S. Hebel, “Report Urges State Universities to Become Engaged with Their Communities,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 4, 1999 and <www.intervisage.com/Kellogg/STATEMENTS/index.html>.
30. M.W. Kirst, “Bridging the Remediation Gap,” Education Week, Sept. 9, 1998 <www.edweek.org/ew/current/01kirst.h18>.
31. For example, see The National Center for Education Statistics, The 1994 High School Transcript Study Tabulations: Comparative Data on Credits Earned and Demographics for 1994, 1990, 1987, and 1982 High School Graduates. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Education, 1997 (NCES 97-260).
32. See and National Research Council, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, Mathematics and Science Education Around the World--What Can We Learn? Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996; and J.M. Atkin and P. Black, “Policy Perils of International Comparisons: The TIMSS Case,” Phi Delta Kappan, September 1997: 22-28.
34. L. Cuban, “The Myth of Failed School Reform,” Education Week, Nov. 6, 1995: 41, 51; and J.J. Gallagher, “Education, Alone, Is a Weak Treatment,” Education Week, July 8, 1998. <www.edweek.org/ew/current/42callag.h17>.
35. For example, National Academy of Sciences, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, March 1999 (forthcoming). Also see Council of Economic Advisors, “The First Three Years: Investments That Pay,” White Paper, Apr. 17, 1997.
36. Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education 1995. L.E. Suter, ed. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 1996 (NSF 96-52), p. 109. Also see R.L. Linn and E.L. Baker, “Back to Basics - Indicators as a System,” The CRESST Line (UCLA Newsletter of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing), Winter 1998: 1-3.
37. For example, see M.A.Vinovskis, Changing Federal Strategies for Supporting Educational Research, Development, and Statistics (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Educational Research Policy and Priori-ties Board, September 1998), esp. Appendix C.
38. R. Evans, “The Great Accountability Fallacy,” Education Week, Feb. 3, 1999 <www.edweek.org/ew/current/21revans.h18>.
40. National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, Educating Americans for the 21st Century: A Plan of Action for Improving Mathematics, Science and Technology Education for all American Elementary and Secondary Students so that Their Achievement is the Best in the World by 1995 (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1983, CPCE-NSF-03): v.