|
|
|
Over the last decade, many states and school districts have created
content and performance standards targeted at improving students’
achievement in mathematics and science. In mathematics, in particular,
most states are in the process of updating and revising their standards.
All states except Iowa (which as a matter of policy publishes no state
standards) now have content or curriculum standards in mathematics,
and many educational jurisdictions have worked successfully to improve
their initial standards in clarity and content.(1)
Much of this effort has been based on work done at the national level
during this period to develop standards aimed at increasing the mathematics
competencies of all students. Since 1989, when the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) published Curriculum and Education
Standards for School Mathematics, the mathematics education community
has had the bene€t of a uni€ed set of goals for mathematics teaching
and learning. The NCTM standards have been a springboard
for state and local efforts to focus and improve mathematics education.(2)
Particularly during the past decade, there has
been an enormous amount of energy expended in states and school districts
not only on developing mathematics content standards but also on improving
teacher quality and school environments as well as on developing assessments
and accountability measures.(3) Participating in
an international assessment provides states and school districts a
global context for evaluating the success of their policies and practices
aimed at raising students’ academic achievement.
What Is TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking?
TIMSS 1999, a successor to the
1995 Third International Mathematics
and Science Study (TIMSS), focused on the mathematics and science
achievement of eighth-grade students. Thirty-eight countries including
the United States participated in TIMSS 1999 (also known as TIMSS-Repeat
or TIMSS-R). Even more signi€cantly for the United States, however,
TIMSS 1999 included a voluntary Benchmarking Study. Participation
in the TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking Study at the eighth grade provided
states, districts, and consortia an unprecedented opportunity to assess
the comparative international standing of their students’ achievement
and evaluate their mathematics and science programs in an international
context. Participants were also able to compare their achievement
with that of the United States as a whole, and in the cases where
they both participated, school districts could compare with the performance
of their states.
Originally conducted in 1994-1995,(4) TIMSS compared
the mathematics and science achievement of students in 41 countries
at €ve grade levels. Using questionnaires, videotapes, and analyses
of curriculum materials, TIMSS also investigated the contexts for
learning mathematics and science in the participating countries. TIMSS
results, which were €rst reported in 1996, have stirred debate, spurred
reform efforts, and provided important information to educators and
decision makers around the world. The €ndings from TIMSS 1999, a follow-up
to the earlier study, add to the richness of the TIMSS data and their
potential to have an impact on policy and practice in mathematics
and science teaching and learning.
Twenty-seven jurisdictions from all across the nation, including
13 states and 14 districts or consortia, participated in the Benchmarking
Study (see Exhibit
1). To conduct the Benchmarking Study, the TIMSS 1999 assessments
were administered to representative samples of eighth-grade students
in each of the participating districts and states in the spring of
1999, at the same time and following the same guidelines as those
established for the 38 countries.
In addition to testing achievement in mathematics and science, the
TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking Study involved administering a broad array
of questionnaires. TIMSS collected extensive information from students,
teachers, and school principals as well as system-level information
from each participating entity about mathematics and science curricula,
instruction, home contexts, and school characteristics and policies.
The TIMSS data provide an abundance of information making it possible
to analyze differences in current levels of performance in relation
to a wide variety of factors associated with classroom, school, and
national contexts within which education takes place.
Why Did Countries, States, Districts, and Consortia Participate?
The decision to participate in any cycle of TIMSS is made by each
country according to its own data needs and resources. Similarly,
the states, districts, and consortia that participated in the Benchmarking
Study decided to do so for various reasons.
Primarily, the Benchmarking participants are interested in building
educational capacity and looking at their own situations in an international
context as a way of improving mathematics and science teaching and
learning in their jurisdictions. International assessments provide
an excellent basis for gaining multiple perspectives on educational
issues and examining a variety of possible reasons for observed differences
in achievement. While TIMSS helps to measure progress towards learning
goals in mathematics and science, it is much more than an educational
Olympics. It is a tool to help examine such questions as:
• How demanding are our curricula and expectations for student
learning?
• Is our classroom instruction effective? Is the time provided
for instruction being used ef€ciently?
• Are our teachers well prepared to teach mathematics concepts?
Can they help students understand mathematics?
• Do our schools provide an environment that is safe and conducive
to learning?
Unlike in many countries around the world where educational decision
making is highly centralized, in the United States the opportunities
to learn mathematics derive from an educational system that operates
through states and districts, allocating opportunities through schools
and then through classrooms. Improving students’ opportunities
to learn requires examining every step of the educational system,
including the curriculum, teacher quality, availability and appropriateness
of resources, student motivation, instructional effectiveness, parental
support, and school safety.
Which Countries, States, Districts, and Consortia Participated?
Exhibit
1 shows the 38 countries, 13 states, and the 14 districts and
consortia that participated in TIMSS 1999 and the Benchmarking Study.
The consortia consist of groups of entire school districts or individual
schools from several districts that organized together either to participate
in the Benchmarking Study or to collaborate across a range of educational
issues. Descriptions of the consortia that participated in the project
follow.
Delaware Science Coalition. The Delaware Science Coalition
(dsc) is a coalition of 15 school districts working in partnership
with the Delaware Department of Education and the business-based
Delaware Foundation for Science and Mathematics Education. The mission
of the dsc is to improve the teaching and learning of science for
all students in grades K-8. The Coalition includes more that 2,200
teachers who serve more than 90 percent of Delaware’s public
school students.
First in the World Consortium. The First in the World Consortium
consists of a group of 18 districts from the North Shore of Chicago
that have joined forces to bring a world-class education to the
region’s students and to improve mathematics and science achievement
in their schools. Resulting from meetings of district superintendents
in 1995, the consortium decided to focus on three main goals: benchmarking
their performance to educational standards through participating
in the original TIMSS in 1996 and again in 1999; creating a forum
to share the vision with businesses and the community of benchmarking
to world-class standards; and establishing a network of learning
communities of teachers, researchers, parents, and community members
to conduct the work needed to achieve their goal.
Fremont/Lincoln/Westside Public Schools. The Fremont/Lincoln/Westside
consortium is comprised of three public school districts in Nebraska.
These districts joined together speci€cally to participate in the
TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking Study.
Michigan Invitational Group. The Michigan Invitational Group
is a heterogeneous and socioeconomically diverse group composed
of urban, suburban, and rural schools across Michigan. Schools invited
to participate as part of this consortia were those that were using
National Science Foundation (nsf) materials, well-developed curricula,
and provided staff development to teachers.
Project SMART Consortium. SMART (Science & Mathematics
Achievement Required For Tomorrow) is a consortium of 30 diverse
school districts in northeast Ohio committed to continuous improvement,
long term systemic change, and improved student learning in science
and mathematics in grades K-12. It is jointly funded by the Ohio
Department of Education and the Martha Holden Jennings Foundation.
The schools that participated in the project represent 17 of the
30 districts.
Southwest Pennsylvania Math and Science Collaborative. The
Southwest Pennsylvania Math and Science Collaborative, established
in 1994, coordinates efforts and focuses resources on strengthening
math and science education in the entire southwest Pennsylvania
workforce region that has Pittsburgh as its center. Committed to
gathering and using good information that can help prepare its students
to be productive citizens, the Collaborative is composed of all
118 “local control” public districts, as well as the parochial
and private schools in the nine-county region. Several of these
districts are working together in selecting exemplary materials,
developing curriculum frameworks, and building sustained professional
development strategies to strengthen math and science instruction.
What Is the Relationship Between the TIMSS 1999 Data for the United
States and the Data for the Benchmarking Study?
The results for the 38 countries participating
in TIMSS 1999, including those for the United States, were reported
in December 2000 in two companion reports – the TIMSS 1999
International Mathematics Report and the TIMSS 1999 International
Science Report.(5) Performance
in the United States relative to that of other nations was reported
by the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics in Pursuing
Excellence.(6) The results
for the United States in those reports, as well as in this volume
and its companion science report,(7) were based
on a nationally representative sample of eighth-grade students drawn
in accordance with TIMSS guidelines for all participating countries.
Because having valid and ef€cient samples in each country is crucial
to the quality and integrity of TIMSS, procedures and guidelines have
been developed to ensure that the national samples are of the highest
quality possible. Following the TIMSS guidelines, representative samples
were also drawn for the Benchmarking entities. Sampling statisticians
at Westat, the organization responsible for sampling and data collection
for the United States, worked in accordance with TIMSS standards to
design procedures that would coordinate the assessment of separate
representative samples of students within each Benchmarking entity.
For the most part, the U.S. TIMSS 1999 national sample was separate
from the students assessed in each of the Benchmarking jurisdictions.
Each Benchmarking participant had its own sample to provide comparisons
with each of the TIMSS 1999 countries including the United States.
In general, the Benchmarking samples were drawn in accordance with
the TIMSS standards, and achievement results can be compared with
con€dence. Deviations from the guidelines are noted in the exhibits
in the reports. The TIMSS 1999 sampling requirements and the outcomes
of the sampling procedures for the participating countries and Benchmarking
jurisdictions are described in Appendix A. Although taken collectively
the Benchmarking participants are not representative of the United
States, the effort was substantial in scope involving approximately
1,000 schools, 4,000 teachers, and 50,000 students.
How Was the TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking Study Conducted?
The TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking Study was a shared venture. In conjunction
with the Of€ce of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) and
the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) worked with the International Study Center at Boston
College to develop the study. Each participating jurisdiction invested
valuable resources in the effort, primarily for data collection including
the costs of administering the assessments at the same time and using
identical procedures as for TIMSS in the United States. Many participants
have also devoted considerable resources to team building as well
as to staff development to facilitate use of the TIMSS 1999 results
as an effective tool for school improvement.
The TIMSS studies are conducted under the auspices of the International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), an
independent cooperative of national and governmental research agencies
with a permanent secretariat based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Its primary purpose is to conduct large-scale comparative studies
of educational achievement to gain a deeper understanding of the effects
of policies and practices within and across systems of education.
TIMSS is part of a regular cycle of international assessments of
mathematics and science that are planned to chart trends in achievement
over time, much like the regular cycle of national assessments in
the U.S. conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). Work has begun on TIMSS 2003, and a regular cycle of studies
is planned for the years beyond.
The IEA delegated responsibility for the overall direction and management
of TIMSS 1999 to the International Study Center in the Lynch School
of Education at Boston College, headed by Michael O. Martin and Ina
V.S. Mullis. In carrying out the project, the International Study
Center worked closely with the iea Secretariat, Statistics Canada
in Ottawa, the IEA Data Processing Center in Hamburg, Germany, and
Educational Testing Service in Princeton, New Jersey. Westat in Rockville,
Maryland, was responsible for sampling and data collection for the
Benchmarking Study as well as the U.S. component of TIMSS 1999 so
that procedures would be coordinated and comparable.
Funding for TIMSS 1999 was provided by the United States, the World
Bank, and the participating countries. Within the United States, funding
agencies included NCES, NSF, and OERI, the same group of organizations
supporting major components of the TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking Study for
states, districts, and consortia, including overall coordination as
well as data analysis, reporting, and dissemination.
What Was the Nature of the Mathematics Test?
The TIMSS curriculum frameworks developed for
1995 were also used for 1999. They describe the content dimensions
for the TIMSS tests as well as the performance expectations (behaviors
that might be expected of students in school mathematics).(8)
Five content areas were covered in the TIMSS 1999 mathematics test.
These areas and the percentage of the test items devoted to each are
fractions and number sense (38 percent), measurement (15 percent),
data representation, analysis, and probability (13 percent), geometry
(13 percent), and algebra (22 percent). The performance expectations
include knowing (19 percent), using routine procedures (23 percent),
using complex procedures (24 percent), investigating and solving problems
(31 percent), and communicating and reasoning (two percent).
The test items were developed through a cooperative and iterative
process involving the National Research Coordinators (nrcs) of the
participating countries. All of the items were reviewed thoroughly
by subject matter experts and €eld tested. Nearly all the TIMSS 1999
countries participated in €eld testing with nationally representative
samples, and the nrcs had several opportunities to review the items
and scoring criteria. The TIMSS 1999 mathematics test contained 162
items representing a range of mathematics topics and skills.
About one-fourth of the questions were in the free-response format,
requiring students to generate and write their answers. These questions,
some of which required extended responses, were allotted about one-third
of the testing time. Responses to the free-response questions were
evaluated to capture diagnostic information, and some were scored
using procedures that permitted partial credit. Chapter 2 of this
report contains 16 example items illustrating the range of mathematics
concepts and processes covered in the TIMSS 1999 test. Appendix D
contains descriptions of the topics and skills assessed by each item.
Testing was designed so that no one student took all the items, which
would have required more than three hours of testing time. Instead,
the test was assembled in eight booklets, each requiring 90 minutes
to complete. Each student took only one booklet, and the items were
rotated through the booklets so that each item was answered by a representative
sample of students.
How Does TIMSS 1999 Compare with NAEP?
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is an ongoing
program that has reported the mathematics achievement of U.S. students
for some 30 years. TIMSS and NAEP were designed to serve different
purposes, and this is evident in the types of assessment items as
well as the content areas and topics covered in each assessment. TIMSS
and NAEP both assess students at the eighth grade, and both tend to
focus on mathematics as it is generally presented in classrooms and
textbooks. However, TIMSS is based on the curricula that students
in the participating countries are likely to have encountered by the
eighth grade, while NAEP is based on an expert consensus of what students
in the United States should know and be able to do in mathematics
and other academic subjects at that grade. For example, TIMSS 1999
appears to place more emphasis on number sense, properties, and operations
than NAEP. NAEP appears to distribute its focus more equally across
the content areas included in the assessment frameworks.(9)
Whereas NAEP is designed to provide comparisons among and between
states and the nation as a whole, the major purpose of the TIMSS 1999
Benchmarking Study was to provide entities in the United States with
a way to compare their achievement and instructional programs in an
international context. Thus, the point of comparison or “benchmark”
consists primarily of the high-performing TIMSS 1999 countries. The
sample sizes were designed to place participants near the top, middle,
or bottom of the TIMSS continuum of performance internationally, but
not necessarily to detect differences in performance among different
Benchmarking participants. For example, all 13 of the participating
states performed similarly in mathematics in relation to the TIMSS
countries – near the middle. As €ndings from the NAEP assessment
in 2000 are released, it is important to understand the differences
and similarities in the assessments to be able to make sense of the
€ndings in relation to each other.
How Do Country Characteristics Differ?
International studies of student achievement provide valuable comparative
information about student performance, instructional practice, and
curriculum. Accompanying the bene€ts of international studies, though,
are challenges associated with making comparisons across countries,
cultures, and languages. TIMSS attends to these
issues through careful planning and documentation, cooperation among
the participating countries, standardized procedures, and rigorous
attention to quality control throughout.(10)
It is extremely important, nevertheless, to consider the TIMSS 1999
results in light of countrywide demographic and economic factors.
Some selected demographic characteristics of the TIMSS 1999 countries
are presented in Exhibit
2. Countries ranged widely in population, from almost 270 million
in the United States to less than one million in Cyprus, and in size,
from almost 17 million square kilometers in the Russian Federation
to less than one thousand in Hong Kong SAR and Singapore. Countries
also varied widely on indicators of health, such as life expectancy
at birth and infant mortality rate, and of literacy, including adult
literacy rate and daily newspaper circulation. Exhibit
3 shows information for selected economic indicators, such as
gross national product (gnp) per capita, expenditure on education
and research, and development aid. The data reveal that there is great
disparity in the economic resources available to participating countries.
How Do the Benchmarking Jurisdictions Compare on Demographic Indicators?
Together, the indicators in Exhibit
2 and Exhibit
3 highlight the diversity of the TIMSS 1999 countries. Although
the factors the indicators reect do not necessarily determine high
or low performance in mathematics, they do provide a context for considering
the challenges involved in the educational task from country to country.
Similarly, there was great diversity among the TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking
participants. Exhibit
4 presents information about selected characteristics of the states,
districts, and consortia that took part in the TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking
Study.
As illustrated previously in Exhibit
1, geographically the Benchmarking jurisdictions were from all
across the United States, although there was a concentration of east
coast participants with six of the states and several of the districts
and consortia from the eastern seaboard. Illinois was well represented,
by the state as a whole and by three districts or consortia –
the Chicago Public Schools, the Naperville School District, and the
First in the World Consortium. Several other districts and consortia
also had the added bene€t of a state comparison – the Michigan
Invitational Group and Michigan, Guilford County and North Carolina,
Montgomery County and Maryland, and the Southwest Pennsylvania Math
and Science Collaborative and Pennsylvania.
As shown in Exhibit
4, demographically the Benchmarking participants varied widely.
They ranged greatly in the size of their total public school enrollment,
from about 244,000 in Idaho to nearly four million in Texas among
states, and from about 11,000 in the Michigan Invitational Group to
about 430,000 in the Chicago Public Schools among districts and consortia.
It is extremely important to note that the Benchmarking jurisdictions
had widely differing percentages of limited English pro€cient and
minority student populations. They also had widely different percentages
of students from low-income families (based on the percentage of students
eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch). Among states, Texas
had more than half minority students compared with less than one-€fth
in Idaho, Indiana, and Michigan. Among the school districts, those
in urban areas had more than four-€fths minority students, including
the Chicago Public Schools (89 percent), the Jersey City Public Schools
(93 percent), the Miami-Dade County Public Schools (93 percent), and
the Rochester City School District (84 percent). These four districts
also had very high percentages of students from low-income families.
In comparison, Naperville and the Academy School District had less
than one-€fth minority students and less than €ve percent of their
students from low-income families.
Research on disparities between urban and non-urban
schools reveals a combination of factors, often interrelated, that
all mesh to lessen students’ opportunities to learn in urban
schools. Students in urban districts with high percentages of low-income
families and minorities often attend schools with higher proportions
of inexperienced teachers.(11) Urban schools also
have fewer quali€ed teachers than non-urban schools. In
reviewing the U.S. Department of Education’s 1994 Schools and
Staf€ng Survey, Education Week prepared a 1998 study on urban
education that found that urban school districts experience greater
dif€culty €lling teacher vacancies, particularly for certain €elds
including mathematics, and that they are more likely than non-urban
schools to hire teachers who have an emergency or temporary license.(12)
Studies of under-prepared teachers indicate that
such teachers have more dif€culty with classroom management, teaching
strategies, curriculum development, and student motivation.(13)
Teacher absenteeism is also a more serious problem
in urban districts. An NCES report on urban schools found they have
fewer resources, such as textbooks, supplies, and copy machines, available
for their classrooms.(14) It also found that urban
students had less access to gifted and talented programs than suburban
students. Additionally, several large studies
have found urban school facilities to be functionally older and in
worse condition than non-urban ones.(15)
How Is the Report Organized?
This report provides a preliminary overview of the mathematics results
for the Benchmarking Study. The real work will take place as policy
makers, administrators, and teachers in each participating entity
begin to examine the curriculum, teaching force, instructional approaches,
and school environment in an international context. As those working
on school improvement know full well, there is no “silver bullet”
or single factor that is the answer to higher achievement in mathematics
or any other school subject. Making strides in raising student achievement
requires tireless diligence in all of the various areas related to
educational quality.
The report is in two sections. Chapters 1 through 3 present the achievement
results. Chapter 1 presents overall achievement results. Chapter 2
shows international benchmarks of mathematics achievement illustrated
by results for individual mathematics questions. Chapter 3 gives results
for the €ve mathematics content areas. Chapters 4 through 7 focus
on the contextual factors related to teaching and learning mathematics.
Chapter 4 examines student factors including the availability of educational
resources in the home, how much time they spend studying mathematics
outside of school, and their attitudes towards mathematics. Chapter
5 provides information about the curriculum, such as the mathematics
included in participants’ content standards and curriculum frameworks
as well as the topics covered and emphasized by teachers in mathematics
lessons. Chapter 6 presents information on mathematics teacher preparation
and professional development activities as well as on classroom practices.
Chapter 7 focuses on school factors, including the availability of
resources for teaching mathematics and school safety.
Each of chapters 4 through 7 is accompanied by a set of reference
exhibits in the reference section of the report, following the main
chapters. Appendices at the end of the report summarize the procedures
used in the Benchmarking Study, present the multiple comparisons for
the mathematics content areas, provide the achievement percentiles,
list the topics and processes measured by each item in the assessment,
and acknowledge the numerous individuals responsible for implementing
the TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking Study.
| 1 |
1 Raimi, R.A. (2000), “The State
of State Standards in Mathematics” in C.E. Finn and M.J. Petrilli
(eds.), The State of State Standards, Washington, DC: Thomas
B. Fordham Foundation; Glidden, H. (1999), Making Standards Matter
1999, Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
|
| 2 |
Kelly, D.L., Mullis, I.V.S., and Martin,
M.O. (2000), Pro€les of Student Achievement in Mathematics at
the TIMSS International Benchmarks: U.S. Performance and Standards
in an International Context, Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. |
| 3 |
Orlofsky, G.F. and Olson, L. (2001),
“The State of the States” in Quality Counts 2001, A
Better Balance: Standards, Tests, and the Tools to Succeed, Education
Week, 20(17). |
| 4 |
TIMSS was administered in the spring
of 1995 in northern hemisphere countries and in the fall of 1994
in southern hemisphere countries, both at the end of the school
year. |
| 5 |
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez,
E.J., Gregory, K.D., Garden, R.A., O’Connor, K.M., Chrostowski,
S.J., and Smith, T.A. (2000), TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics
Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade, Chestnut
Hill, MA: Boston College; Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Gonzalez,
E.J., Gregory, K.D., Smith, T.A., Chrostowski, S.J., Garden, R.A.,
and O’Connor, K.M. (2000), TIMSS 1999 International Science
Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade, Chestnut
Hill, MA: Boston College. |
| 6 |
Gonzales, P., Calsyn, C., Jocelyn, L.,
Mak, K., Kastberg, D., Arafeh, S., Williams, T., and Tsen, W. (2000),
Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of International Eighth-Grade
Mathematics and Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995
and 1999, NCES 2001-028, Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics. |
| 7 |
Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Gonzalez,
E.J., O’Connor, K.M., Chrostowski, S.J., Gregory, K.D., Smith,
T.A., and Garden, R.A. (2001), Science Benchmarking Report, TIMSS
1999 – Eighth Grade: Achievement for U.S. States and Districts
in an International Context, Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. |
| 8 |
Robitaille, D.F., McKnight, C.C., Schmidt,
W.H., Britton, E.D., Raisen, S.A., and Nicol, C. (1993), TIMSS
Monograph No. 1: Curriculum Frameworks for Mathematics and Science,
Vancouver, BC: Paci€c Educational Press. |
| 9 |
Nohara, D. (working paper 2001), A
Comparison of Three Educational Assessments: NAEP, TIMSS-R, and
PISA, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. |
| 10 |
Appendix A contains an overview of the
procedures used. More detailed information is provided in Martin,
M.O., Gregory, K.A., and Stemler, S.E., eds., (2000), TIMSS 1999
Technical Report, Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. |
| 11 |
Mayer, D.P., Mullens, J.E., and Moore,
M.T. (2000), Monitoring School Quality: An Indicators Report,
NCES 2001-030, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. |
| 12 |
Quality Counts 1998, The Urban
Challenge: Public Education in the 50 States, Education Week,
17(17). |
| 13 |
Darling-Hammond, L. and Post, L. (2000),
“Inequality in Teaching and Schooling: Supporting High Quality
Teaching and Leadership in Low-Income Schools” in R. Kahlenberg
(ed.), A Notion at Risk: Preserving Public Education as an Engine
for Social Mobility, Century Foundation Press. |
| 14 |
Lippman, L., Burns, S., and McArthur,
E. (1996), Urban Schools: The Challenge of Location and Poverty,
NCES 96-184, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. |
| 15 |
Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., Smerdon,
B., Cronen, S., Kaplan, J., and Greene, B. (2000), Condition
of America’s Public School Facilities: 1999, NCES 2000-032,
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; School
Facilities: America’s Schools Report Differing Conditions
(1996), GAO/HEHS-96-103, Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting
Of€ce. |
|
