2006/12/01 by William H. Schmidt, Richard S. Prawat · 4 citations
Social Sciences · #Education and Critical Thinking Development #Educator Training and Historical Pedagogy #Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
paper · doi:10.1080/00220270600682804
crossref issued 2006/12/01 · crossref published 2006/12/01 · crossref published-print 2006/12/01 · openalex publication_date 2006/12/01 · crossref created 2006/12/04 · crossref published-online 2006/12/06 · crossref deposited 2020/08/15 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref indexed 2026/07/28 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
William H. SchmidtWilliam H. Schmidt is a University Distinguished Professor and Co‐Director of the Education Policy Center in the College of Education at Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA. He specializes in international comparative research, educational policy, and statistics. & Richard S. PrawatRichard S. Prawat is professor of educational psychology and teacher education and Chair of the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education, College of Education, 449 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA; e‐mail: . His area of specialization is teaching and learning for understanding; his current interest is in bringing Peirce and Dewey to bear on this issue. Recent studies show that national control of K–12 curriculum yields important payoffs in terms of greater curricular coherence and, as a result, higher test performance on international tests such as those used in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. This paper examines the connection between national control of curriculum and curricular consistency and coherence, a variable known to have a positive impact on student test‐score performance. The results of several analyses reveal that national control of curriculum, viewed apart from the most important ‘function’ associated with such control (i.e. enhanced credibility), makes no contribution to curricular consistency or coherence.