Standards gaps: Unintended consequences of local standards-based reform

Teachers College Record

Volumn 106, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1177-1202

  Sandholtz, Judith Haymore ^a   Ogawa, Rodney T ^b   Scribner, Samantha Paredes ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3142777040     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00376.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Berger, J. (2000). Does top-down, standards-based reform work? A review of the status of statewide standards-based reform. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 57-65.
2. Buttram, J. L., & Waters, T. (1997). Improving America's schools through standards-based education. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 1-6.
3. Cohen, D. K. (1996). Standards-based school reform: Policy, practice, and performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 99-127). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
4. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 6-11.
6. Fuhrman, S., & Massell, D. (1992). Issues and strategies in systemic reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
7. Gamoran, A. (1986). Instructional and institutional effects of ability grouping. Sociology of Education, 59, 185-198.
8. Gamoran, A. (1992). Synthesis of research: Is ability grouping equitable? Educational Leadership, 50(2), 11-17.
9. Gandal, M., & Vranek, J. (2001). Standards: Here today, here tomorrow. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 7-13.
10. Hallinan, M. T. (1987). Ability grouping and student learning. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), The social organization of schools: New conceptualizations of the learning process (pp. 41-69). New York: Plenum.
11. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (1997). National and state standards: the problems and the promise. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 26-41.
12. Massell, D. (1994). Achieving consensus: Setting the agenda for state curriculum reform. In R. Elmore & S. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum: 1994 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 12-29). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
13. MCNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
14. National Research Council. (1999). Testing, teaching and learning: A guide for states and school districts. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
15. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16. Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track (Part 1). Phi Delta Kappan, 68(1), 12-17.
17. Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation, opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570-608). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.
18. O'Day, M. S., & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. Ogawa, R., Sandholtz, J. H., Martinez-Flores, M., & Scribner, S. (2003). The substantive and symbolic consequences of a district's standards-based curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 147-176.
20. Page, R. N. (1991). Lower track classrooms: A curricular and cultural perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.
21. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.
22. Ravitch, D. (1995). Introduction. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessments? (pp. 1-8). Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
23. Ravitch, D. (1996). The case for national standards and assessment. The Clearing House, 69, 134-136.
24. Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms. New York: Simon & Schuster.
25. Rosenbaum, J. E. (1976). Making inequality: The hidden curriculum of high school tracking. New York: Wiley.
26. Rowan, B. (1996). Standards as incentives for instructional reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & J. A. O'Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 195-225). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27. Sirotnik, K. A., & Kimball, K. (1999). Standards for standards-based accountability systems. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 209-214.
28. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.
29. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-499.
30. Sutton, J. T., & Krueger, A. (1997). Do we need NEW national standards in mathematics and science? NASSP Bulletin, 81, 48-55.
31. Thompson, S. (2001). The authentic standards movement and its evil twin. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 358-365.
32. Trochim, W. (1989). Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 355-366.
33. Tucker, M. S., & Codding, J. B. (2001). Setting high standards for everyone. In The Jossey-Bass reader on school reform (pp. 470-482). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods ((2nd ed).). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.