Arts integration in an era of accountability

Arts Education Policy Review

Volumn 107, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 3-11

  Mishook, Jacob J ^a   Kornhaber, Mindy L ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70450238235     PISSN: 10632913     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/AEPR.107.4.3-11     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ackerman, David B., and David N. Perkins. 1989. Integrating thinking and learning skills across the curriculum. In Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation, ed. H. H. Jacobs, 77-96. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
2. Boughton, Doug. 2004. Assessing art learning in changing contexts: Highstakes accountability, international standards and changing conceptions of artistic development. In Handbook of research and policy in art education, eds. Elliot W. Eisner and Michael D. Day, 585-605. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Bresler, Liora. 1995. The subservient, coequal, affective, and social integration styles and their implications for the arts. Arts Education Policy Review 96 (5): 31-37.
4. Catterall, James S., and Lynn Waldorf. 1999. The Chicago Arts Partnerships in Education: Summary evaluation. In Champions of change: The impact of arts on learning, ed. Edward B. Fiske, 47-62. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
5. Chapman, Laura H. 2004a. No child left behind in art? Presented at the National Art Education Association Annual Conference, Denver, CO.
6. Chapman, Laura H. 2004b. A portrayal of the status of art education in public schools: 1997-2003. Presented at the National Art Education Association Annual Conference, Denver, CO.
7. Clarke, Marguerite, Arnold Shore, Karen Rhoades, Lisa Abrams, Jing Miao, and Jie Li. 2003. Perceived effects of state- mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from interviews with educators in low-, medium-, and high-stakes states, http://www.bc.edu /research/nbetpp/statements/nbr2.pdf (accessed February 20, 2005).
8. Corbett, H. Dickson, and Bruce L. Wilson. 1991. Two state minimum competency testing programs and their effects on curriculum and instruction. In Advances in program evaluation, volume 1, ed. Robert E. Stake, 7-40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
9. Darby, Jaye T., and James S. Catterall. The fourth R: The arts and learning. Teachers College Record 96 (2): 299-328.
10. Darling-Hammond, Linda. 1991. The implications of testing policy for quality and equality. Phi Delta Kappan 73: 220-25.
11. Davis, Jessica H. 2000. Passion and industry: Schools that focus on the arts. Cambridge: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
12. Davis, Meredith. 1999. Design’s inherent interdisciplinarity: The arts in integrated curricula. Arts Education Policy Review 101 (1): 8-13.
13. Day, Michael, Elliot Eisner, Robert Stake, Brent Wilson, and Marjorie Wilson. 1984. Art history, art criticism, and art production: An examination of art education in selected school districts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
14. Efland, Arthur D. 2002. Art and cognition: Integrating the visual arts in the curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
15. Eisner, Elliot W. 2000. Arts education policy? Arts Education Policy Review 101 (3): 4-6.
16. Fiske, Edward B., ed. 1999. Champions of change: The impact of arts on learning. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
17. Frederiksen, John R., and Alan Collins. 1989. A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher 18 (9): 27-32.
18. Gardner, Howard. 1982. Art, mind, and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New York: Basic Books.
19. Gardner, Howard. 1983. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
20. Goodman, Nelson. 1976. Languages of art. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
21. Hamblen, Karen A. 1993. Theories and research that support art instruction for instrumental outcomes. Theory into Practice 32 (4): 191-98.
22. Jones, Brett D., and Robert J. Egley. 2004. Voices from the frontlines: Teachers’ perceptions of high-stakes testing, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n39/ (accessed February 26, 2005).
23. Jones, M. Gail, Brett D. Jones, Belinda Hardin, Lisa Chapman, Tracie Yarbrough, and Marcia Davis. 1999. The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan 81 (3): 199-203.
24. Koretz, Daniel M., Sheila I. Barron, Karen J. Mitchell, and Brian M. Stecher. 1996. Perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
25. Koretz, David M., and Linda S. Hamilton. 2003. Teachers’ responses to high-stakes testing and validity of gains: A pilot study, http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports _set.htm (accessed February 15, 2005).
26. Koretz, Daniel M., Karen J. Mitchell, Sheila I. Barron, and Sarah Keith. 1996. Perceived effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program, http://www.cse.ucla.edu/CRESST/Report s/TECH409.pdf (accessed February 26, 2005).
27. Linn, Robert L. 2000. Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher 29 (2): 4-16.
28. Lomax, Richard G., Mary M. West, Maryellen C. Harmon, Katherine A. Viator, and George F. Madaus. 1995. The impact of mandated standardized testing on minority students. Journal of Negro Education 64 (2): 171-85.
29. Madaus, George F. 1988. The influence of testing on the curriculum. In Critical issues in curriculum, 87th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, eds. Laurel N. Tanner, 83-121. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Madaus, George F., and Marguerite Clarke. 2001. The adverse impact of high-stakes testing on minority students. In Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education, ed. Mindy L. Kornhaber and Gary Orfield, 85-106. New York: Century Foundation.
31. McNeil, Linda, and Angela Valenzuela. 2001. The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education, ed. Mindy L. Kornhaber and Gary Orfield, 127-50. New York: Century Foundation.
32. National Art Education Association. 1992. Joint statement on integration of the arts with other disciplines and with each other. NAEA Advisory. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
33. National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A nation at risk. Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education.
34. Rose, Lowell C., and Alec M. Gallup. 2004. 36th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools, http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/ k0409pol.htm (accessed September 10, 2004).
35. Roucher, Nancy, and Jesse Lovano-Kerr 1995. Can the arts maintain integrity in interdisciplinary learning? Arts Education Policy Review 96 (4): 20-25.
36. Smith, Mary L. 1991. Meanings of test preparation. American Educational Research Journal 28 (3): 521-42.
37. Smith, Mary L., and Claire Rottenberg. 1991. Unintended consequences of external testing in elementary schools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 10 (4): 7-11.
38. Smith, Ralph A. 1995. The limits and costs of integration in arts integration. Arts Education Policy Review 96 (5): 21-25.
39. Stake, Robert, Liora Bresler, and Linda Mabry. 1991. Custom and cherishing: The arts in elementary schools. Urbana, IL: National Arts Education Research Center.
40. von Zastrow, Claus. 2004. Academic atrophy: The condition of the liberal arts in American schools. With Helen Janc. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
41. Wilson, Brent. 2001. Arts magnets and the transformation of schools and schooling. Education and Urban Society 33 (4): 366-87.
42. Wolk, Steven. 1994. Project-based learning: Pursuits with a purpose. Educational Leadership 52 (3): 42-45.