Surveillance and educational testing: No child left behind and the remaking of american schools

Sociology of Crime Law and Deviance

Volumn 10, Issue , 2008, Pages 305-325

  Gilliom, John ^a  

^a OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950709013     PISSN: 15216136     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S1521-6136(07)00214-X     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Amrein, A. L., &Berliner, D. C. (2002). The impact of high-stakes tests on student academic performance: An analysis of NAEP results in states with high-stakes tests and ACT, SAT, and AP test results in states with high school graduation exams. Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University. No. EPSL-0211-126-EPRU.
2. Bennett, L. (2006). News: The politics of illusion. New York: Longman.
3. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish. New York: Vintage.
4. Gilliom, J. (1994). Surveillance, privacy, and the law: Employee drug testing and the politics of social control. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5. Gilliom, J. (2001). Overseers of the poor: Surveillance, resistance, and the limits of privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York: W.W. Norton.
7. Haggerty, K. D., &Ericson, R. V. (Eds)). (2006). The new politics of surveillance and visibility. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
8. Hess, F. M. (2003). Refining or retreating? High stakes accountability in the states. In: M. R. West &P. E. Peterson (Eds)), No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 23-54). New York: Brookings.
9. Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., &Hargrove, T. Y. (2003). The unintended consequences of high- stakes testing. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
10. Kohn, A. (2001). Fighting the tests: A practical guide to rescuing our schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 348-357.
11. Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: An overview. New York: Polity.
12. Monohan, T. (Ed.) 2006). Surveillance and security: Technological politics and power in everyday life. New York: Routledge.
13. Pedulla, J. J., Abrams, L. M., Madaus, G. F., Russell, M. K., Ramos, M. A., &Miao, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. Boston College: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.
14. Popham, W. J. (2005). America's ''failing'' schools. New York: Routledge.
15. Rudalevige, A. (2003). No child left behind: Forging a congressional compromise. In: M. R. West &P. E. Peterson (Eds)), No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 23-54). New York: Brookings.
16. Ryan, J. (2004). The perverse incentives of the no child left behind act. New York University Law Review, 79(June), 932-989.
17. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
18. Toch, T. (2006). Margins of error: The education testing industry in the no child left behind era. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
19. Wilbrink, B. (1997). Assessment in historical perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation 23(1), 31-48.