When increasing stakes need not mean increasing standards: The case of the new york state global history and geography exama?

Theory and Research in Social Education

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 488-515

  Grant, S ^a   Gradwell, Jill M ^a   Lauricella, Ann Marie ^a   Alison, Derme Insinna ^b   Pullano, Lynn ^c   Tzetzo, Kathryn ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b North Tonawanda High School   (United States)

^c Catholic Diocese Schools   (United States)

^d Williamsville East High School   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35648984285     PISSN: 00933104     EISSN: 21631654     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00933104.2002.10473208     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
2. Burroughs, S. (2002). Testy times for social studies. Social Education, 66(5), 315-319.
3. Camilli, G., Cizek, G., & Lugg, C. (2001). Psychometric theory and the validation of performance standards: History and future perspectives. In G. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 445-476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Cimbricz, S. (2002). State testing and teachers' thinking and practice: A synthesis of research. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2). Available: http://epaa.asu. edu/epaa/v10n2.html.
5. Clune, W. (2001). Toward a theory of standards-based reform: The case of nine NSF statewide systemic initiatives. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 13-38). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2-14.
7. Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. (1991). Testing, reform, and rebellion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8. Darling-Hammond, L. (1991). The implications of testing policy for quality and equality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3), 220-225.
9. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1996). Policies and support professional development in an era of reform. In M. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies new practices (pp. 202-219). New York: Teachers College Press.
10. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. New York: Falmer.
11. Fuhrman, S. (Ed.). (2001). From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the state. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
13. Grant, S. G. (1997). Opportunities lost: Teachers learning about the New York state social studies framework. Theory and Research in Social Education, 25(3), 259-287.
14. Grant, S. G. (2000). Teachers and tests: Exploring teachers' perceptions of changes in the New York state testing program. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(14). Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n14.html.
15. Grant, S. G. (2001a). An uncertain lever: The influence of state-level testing in New York State on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record, 103(3), 398-426.
16. Grant, S. G. (2001b). When an "A" isn't enough: Analyzing the New York state global history exam. Educational Policy Analysis Archives. 9(39). Available: http://epaa. asu.edu/epaa/v9n39.html.
17. Grant, S. G. (in press). History lessons: Teaching, learning, and testing in U. S. high school classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Grant, S. G., Derme-Insinna, A., Gradwell, J.M., Lauricella, A., Pullano, L., & Tzetzo, K. (2001). Teachers, tests, and tensions: Teachers respond to the New York state global history exam. International Social Studies Forum, 1(2), 107-125.
19. Grant, S. G., Derme-Insinna, A., Gradwell, J.M., Lauricella, A., Pullano, L., & Tzetzo, K. (2002). Juggling two sets of books: A teacher responds to the new global history exam. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 17(3), 232-255.
20. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41.
21. Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22. Klein, S., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D., & Stecher, B. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(49), 1-15.
23. LeCompte, M., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
24. Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
25. Madaus, G. (1991). The effects of important tests on students. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3), 226-231.
26. McLaughlin, M. (1991). Test-based accountability as a reform strategy. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3), 248-251.
27. Meier, D. (1996). The power of their ideas. New York: Beacon.
28. Messick, S. (1988). Assessment in the schools: Purposes and consequences. In P. Messick (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 107-125). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
29. Miller, S. (1995). Teachers' responses to test-driven accountability pressures: "If I change, will my scores drop? Reading Research and Instruction, 34(4), 332-351.
30. Natriello, G., & Pallas, A. (1998). The development and impact of high stakes testing, [Unpublished paper]. Available: http://www.columbia.edu/~gjn6/histake. html.
31. New York State Education Department. (1996). Social studies resource guide. Albany, NY: Author.
32. New York State Education Department. (1999a). Regents examination in global history and geography test sampler. Albany, NY: Author.
33. New York State Education Department. (1999b). Social studies resource guide with core curriculum. Albany, NY: Author.
34. Novick, R. (1996). Actual schools, possible practices: New developments in professional development. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 4(14). Available: http://epaa. asu.edu/epaa/v4n14.html.
35. Porter, A. (1989). External standards and good teaching: The pros and cons of telling teachers what to do. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4), 343-356.
36. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it’s too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37. Shepard, L. (1991). Will national tests improve student learning? Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3), 232-238.
38. Shepard, L., Flexner, R., Hiebert, E., Marion, S., Mayfield, V., & Weston, T. (1996). Effects of introducing classroom assessments on student learning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15, 7-18.
39. Smith, M., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-267). New York: Falmer.
40. Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8-11.
41. Smylie, M. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace; Implications for school reform. In T. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 92-113). New York: Teachers College Press.
42. Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
43. Stake, R., & Rugg, D. (1991). Impact on the classroom. In R. E. Stake (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation (Vol. 1, pp. xix-xxii). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
44. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
45. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
46. Yeh, S. (2001). Tests worth testing to: Constructing state-mandated tests that emphasize critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 30(9), 12-17.