Paint-by-number teachers and cookie-cutter students: The unintended effects of high-stakes testing on the education of gifted students

Roeper Review

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 40-52

  Scot, Tammy Pandina ^a   Callahan, Carolyn M ^a   Urquhart, Jill ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85006731532     PISSN: 02783193     EISSN: 1940865X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02783190802527364     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Appalachian Education Laboratory. (2005). School improvement specialist training materials: Performance standards, improving schools, and literature review. Module 4—Effective Teaching. Charleston, WV: Edvantia.
2. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-15.
4. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. Burns, D. E., Purcell, J. H., & Hertberg, H. (2006). Curriculum for gifted education students. In J. H. Purcell & R. D. Eckert (Eds.), Designing services and programs for high-ability learners (pp. 87-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
6. CEO Forum. (2001). Key building blocks for student achievement in the 21st century. Retrieved March 29, 2007, from http://www.ceoforum.org/about.html
7. Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J., III. (1999). Multi-cultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.
8. Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 581-584.
9. Gardner, H. (1975). The shattered mind. New York: Knopf.
10. Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124-156.
11. Goldberg, M., & Harvey, J. (1983). A nation at risk: The report of the national commission on excellence in education. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(1), 14-18.
12. Guskey, T. R. (1994, April). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
13. Hackman, R. J. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
14. Hunt, G. H., Touzel, T. J., & Wiseman, D. G. (1999). Effective teaching preparation and implementation. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
15. Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., & Hargrove, T. Y. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
16. Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
17. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18. Mager, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 226-232.
19. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
20. McMullen, P. (2006). Inertia remains the biggest impediment to change. Journal of Staff Development, 27(4), 72.
21. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform. New York: Routledge.
22. Moon, T. R., Brighton, C. M., & Callahan, C. M. (2003). State standardized testing programs: Friend or foe in gifted education? Roeper Review, 25, 49-61.
23. National Association for Gifted Children. (2000). NAGC Pre-K-grade 12 gifted program standards. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=546&terms=Pre-k%E2%80%94grade+12+ gifted+program+standards
24. National Association for Gifted Children/Council for Exceptional Children. (2006). NAGC-CEC Teacher Knowledge and Skill Standards. Retrieved September 16, 2007, from http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Information_and_Resources/NCATE_standards/final%20standards%20 (2006).pdf
25. National Goals Panel. (1989). The road to Charlottesville: The 1989 education summit. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/negp/reports/negp30.pdf
26. Neill, M. (2003). The dangers of testing. Educational Leadership, 60(2), 43-6.
27. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory & the Metiri Group. (2003). enGauge 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Retrieved March 29, 2007, from http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm
28. NVivo [Computer software]. (1991). Cambridge, MA: QSR International.
29. Oakes, J., Quartz, K. H., Gong, J., Guiton, G., & Lipton, M. (1993). Creating middle schools: Technical, normative and political considerations. The Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 461-480.
30. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2003). Learning for the 21st century. Retrieved March 29, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/reports/learning.asp
31. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
32. Rowell, S. (2007). Professional development is union work: Embedding the standards. Journal of Staff Development, 28(1), 59-60.
33. Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it’s too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34. Scot, T. P. (2005). Technology policy to practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
35. Scot, T. P., Heinecke, W., Callahan, C. M., & Urhart, J. (2008). "Yes…But…" The unintended effects of accountability policy on educational innovation and reform. Manuscript submitted for publication.
36. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. Struass, A., & J. Corbin. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork
39. Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijoin, K., et al. (2004). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 119-145.
40. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
41. Unger, C. (1994). What teaching for understanding looks like. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 8-10.
42. U.S. Congress (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America act. Public Law, 103-227.
43. U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Secretary. (2001). No child left behind. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
44. U.S. Department of Labor, Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires of schools. Retrieved March 29, 2007, from http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork/whatwork.html
45. Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
46. Wiske, M. S. (1994). How teaching for understanding changes the rules in the classroom. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 19-21.