Clio at the Table provides important historical perspectives on contemporary education policy issues. Based on a conference held in honor of Carl Kaestle, one of the most eminent education historians in the United States, the book includes chapters that address some of the major concerns of U.S. education today, all of which are particular foci of Kaestle's work: urban education, equity, the role of the federal government, and national standards. On each topic, the book presents summaries of new research and explores the uses of history to help further the connections between historical analysis and policy analysis. It will be particularly useful in courses on education history and policy.

Clio at the Table provides important historical perspectives on contemporary education policy issues. Based on a conference held in honor of Carl Kaestle, one of the most eminent education historians in the United States, the book includes chapters that address some of the major concerns of U.S. education today, all of which are particular foci of Kaestle's work: urban education, equity, the role of the federal government, and national standards. On each topic, the book presents summaries of new research and explores the uses of history to help further the connections between historical analysis and policy analysis. It will be particularly useful in courses on education history and policy.

The success of standards-based education systems depends on two elements: strong standards and assessments that measure what the standards expect. States that have, or adopt, test-based accountability programs claim that their tests are aligned to their standards. But there has been, up to now, no independent methodology for checking alignment. This paper describes and illustrates such a methodology and reports results on a sample of state tests. The protocol reviewers use to analyze alignment considers four dimensions to be central in determining the degree of alignment between an assessment and standards: (1) content centrality; (2) performance centrality; (3) challenge; and (4) balance and .range. This Achieve alignment protocol has been applied to the tests of more than 10 states, but for this study, data from 5 states are used. In general, individual test items are reasonably well- matched to the standards they are meant to assess. However, the collection of such-items in a test tend to measure only a few of the less challenging standards and objectives. As a result, few state tests can be said to be well- aligned assessments of challenging standards. (Contains 2 tables, 11 figures, and 8 references.) (Author/SLD).