Reading Policy in the Era of Accountability

Handbook of Reading Research: Volume IV

Volumn 4, Issue , 2011, Pages 561-593

  Coburn, Cynthia E ^a   David Pearson, P ^a   Woulfin, Sarah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145839234     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203840412-29     Document Type: Chapter

References (111)

1. Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (2006). (In)fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30-63.
2. Anagnostopoulos, D., & Rutledge, S. A. (2007). Making sense of school sanctioning policies in urban high schools. Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1261-1302.
3. Allington, R. (1999). Critical issues: Crafting state educational policy: The slippery role of research and researchers. Journal of Literacy Research, 31(4), 457-482.
4. Allington, R. L., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (1999). The politics of literacy teaching: How “research” shaped educational policy. Educational Researcher, 28(8), 4-12.
5. Bean, R., Draper, J., Turner, G., & Zigmond, N. (in press). Reading first in Pennsylvania: Achievement findings after five years. Journal of Literacy Research.
6. Birdyshaw, D., Pesko, E., Wixson, K., & Yochum, N. (2002). From policy to practice: Using literacy standards in early reading instruction. In M. L. Kamil, J. B. Manning, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Successful reading instruction (pp. 75-99). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publication/Laboratory for Student Success.
7. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268.
8. Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. California State Board of Education. (1999). Guide to the California reading initiative 1996-1999. Sacramento:California Reading Initiative Center.
10. Camilli, G., Vargas, S., & Yurecko, M. (2003). Teaching children to read: The fragile link between science and federal education policy [electronic version]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(15).
11. Camilli, G., Wolfe, P., & Smith, M. L. (2006). Meta-analysis and reading policy: Perspectives on teaching children to read. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 27-37.
12. Carlson, C. D., Branum-Martin, L., Durand, A., Barr, C., & Francis, D. (2008). Texas Reading First Initiative:Summary year 4 evaluation report. University of Houston: Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics.
13. Carnine, D. (1999). Campaigns for moving research into practice. Remedial and Special Education, 20(1), 2-6, 35.
14. Coburn, C. E. (2001a). Making sense of reading: Logics of reading in the institutional environment and the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, California.
15. Coburn, C. E. (2001b). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
16. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of education, 77(3), 211-244.
17. Coburn, C. E. (2005a). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23-52.
18. Coburn, C. E. (2005b). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509.
19. Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343-379.
20. Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher professional community in policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), Confronting complexity: Defining the field of education policy implementation (pp. 25-45). Albany: State University of New York Press.
21. Colvin, R. L. (1995, September 13). State report urges return to basics in teaching reading. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.
22. Cross, C. T., Riley, R., Sanders, T. (2004). Political education: National policy comes of age. New York:Teachers College Press.
23. Cusick, P. A., & Borman, J. (2002). Reform of and by the system: A case study of a state’s effort at curricular and systemic reform. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 765-786.
24. Datnow, A., Borman, G., & Stringfield, S. (2000). School reform through a highly specified curriculum:Implementation and effects of the Core Knowledge Sequence. The Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 167-191.
25. Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775-799.
26. Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2009). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Cambridge, MA:National Bureau of Economic Research.
27. DeStefano, L., Hammer, V., & Fielder, E. (2006). Reading First external evaluation (No. 3). Urbana Campaign:University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, College of Education.
28. Diamond, J. B. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80(4), 285-313.
29. Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145-1176.
30. Dressman, M. (1999). On the use of misuse of research evidence: Decoding two states’ reading initiatives. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(3), 258-285.
31. Dutro, E., Fisk, M. C., Koch, R., Roop, L. J., & Wixson, K. K. (2002). When state policies meet local district contexts: Standards-based professional development as a means to individual agency and collective ownership. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 787-811.
32. Edmondson, J. (2005, February 3). Policymaking in education: Understanding influences on the Reading Excellence Act. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(11). Retrieved December 28, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n11/
33. Eisenhardt, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on “scientifically based” education research. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 31-38.
34. Foorman, B. R., Petscher, Y., Lefsky, E., & Toste, J. R. (in press). Reading First in Florida: Five years of improvement. Journal of Literacy Research.
35. Fuhrman, S. (2004). Introduction. In S. Furhman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 3-14). New York: Teachers College Press.
36. Gandal, M. (1996). Making standards matter 1996: An annual 50 state progress report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
37. Gamse, B. C., Jacob, R.., Horst, M., Boulay, B., & Unlu, F. (2008). Reading First impact study final report. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (RFISFR) (NCEE 2009-4038).
38. Gee, J. P. (1999). Reading and the new literacy studies: Reframing the National Academy of Sciences report on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 31(3), 355-374. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3785/is_199909/ai_n8857323/pg_7
39. Government Accounting Office. (2007). States report improvements in reading instruction, but additional procedures would clarify education’s role in ensuring proper implementation. Washington, DC: Government Accounting Office.
40. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
41. Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105-130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42. Grossen, B (1997). Reading recovery: An evaluation of benefits and costs (executive summary). Eugene:University of Oregon.
43. Guthrie, J. (1990). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 233-353.
44. Haager, D., Dhar, R., Moulton, M., & McMillian, S. (2006). The California Reading First Year 4 evaluation report. Morgan Hill, CA: Educational Data Systems.
45. Haager, D., Dhar, R., Moulton, M., & McMillan, S. (2008). The California Reading First Year 7 evaluation report. Morgan Hill, CA: Educational Data Systems.
46. Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., & Klein, S. (Eds.). (2002). Making sense of test-based accountability in education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
47. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas Miracle in education [electronic version]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Retrieved from at http://olam.ed.asu.edu/apaa
48. Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks, and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The New American political system (pp. 87-124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
49. Hill, H.C. (2005). Content across communities: Validating measures of elementary mathematics instruction. Educational Policy, 19(3), 447-475.
50. Hoffman, J. V., Assaf, L. C., & Paris, S. G. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow? The Reading Teacher, 54(5), 482-492.
51. Hoffman, J. V., McCarthey, S. J., Elliot, B., Bayles, D. L., Price, D. P., Ferree, A., et al. (1998). The literaturebased basals in first-grade classrooms: Savior, Satan, or same-old, same-old? Reading Research Quarterly, 33(2), 168-197.
52. Jackson, R., McCoy, A., Pistorino, C., Wilkinson, A., Burghardt, J., Clark, M., et al. (2007). National evaluation of early Reading First: Final report. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
53. Jennings, N. E. (1996). Interpreting policy in real classrooms: Case studies of state reform and teacher practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
54. Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G. (2002). “Lost at sea”: New teachers’ experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 273-300.
55. Kersten, J. (2006). Hybridization, resistance, and compliance: Negotiating policies to support literacy achievement. The New Educator, 2(2), 103-121.
56. Kersten, J., & Pardo, L. (2007). Finessing and hybridizing: Innovative literacy practices in Reading First classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 146-154.
57. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
58. Levin, H. M. (1998). Accelerated schools: A decade of evolution. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change, part two (pp. 807-830). Boston: Kluwer.
59. Manzo, K. K. (2007, April 3). Reading probe will continue. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/04/04/31read.h26.html
60. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2004). The Massachusetts Reading First newsletter: August 2004. Retrieved August 13, 2006, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/read/newsletter/0905.doc
61. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2005a). Overview of the Massachusetts Reading First plan assessment framework. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/read/presentations/bsr_assessframework.pps
62. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2005b). Second visit monitoring tool for the Massachusetts Reading First Plan. Retrieved July 21, 2006, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/read/mrfp/visit2.doc
63. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration and Theory, 5(2), 145-174.
64. Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
65. McDaniel, J. E., Sims, C. H., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). The national reading policy arena: Policy actors and perceived influence. Educational Policy, 15(1), 92-114.
66. McDonnell, L. M. (2004). Politics, persuasion, and educational testing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67. McFarland, A.S. (1992). Interest groups and the policymaking process. In M. P. Petracca (Ed.), The Politics of interests: Interest groups transformed (pp. 58-79). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
68. McGill-Franzen, A., Zmach, C., Solic, K., Zeig, J. (2002). The confluence of two policy mandates: Core reading programs and third-grade retention in Florida. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 67-93.
69. McGill-Franzen, A., Ward, N., Goatley, V., & Machado, V. (2002). Teachers’ use of new standards, frameworks, and assessments: Local cases of NYS elementary grade teachers. Reading Research and Instruction, 41(2), 127-148.
70. Mesmer, H.A. & Karchmer, R.A. (2003). REAlity: How the Reading Excellence Act took form in two schools. Reading Teacher, 56(7), 636-645.
71. MGT of America. (2008). Illinois Reading First evaluation report: Final, 2007-08. Washington, DC:author.
72. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. M. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n48/
73. Miskel, C., & Song, M. (2004). Passing Reading First: Prominence and processes in an elite policy network. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(2), 89-109.
74. Moss, M., Fountain, A., Boulay, B., Horst, M., Rodger, C., & Brown-Lyons, M. (2008). Reading First implementation evaluation: Final report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
75. National Reading Panel Report. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
76. Ogawa, R. T., Sandholtz, J. H., & Scribner, S. P. (2004). Standards gap: Unintended consequences of local standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1177-1202.
77. Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184-202.
78. Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 216-252.
79. Pressley, M., & Fingeret, L. (2007). What we have learned since the National Reading Panel. New York:Guilford Press.
80. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
81. Reading First Advisory Committee. (2008). Response to the Reading First impact study. Retrieved January 5, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/statement.pdf
82. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331-350.
83. Remillard, J. T. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics, 35(5), 352-388.
84. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525-1567.
85. Rowan, B., & Correnti, R. (2008). Studying reading instruction with teacher logs: Lessons from a study of instructional improvement. Unpublished manuscript. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
86. Scott, C. (2007). Reading First: Locally appreciated, nationally troubled. Washington DC: Center on Educational Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/
87. Sloan, K. (2006). Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: Beyond and all-good/all-bad discourse on accountability-explicit curriculum policies. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 119-152.
88. Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1990). Systemic school reform. Journal of Education Policy, 5(5), 233-267.
89. Smith, M. S. (2000). Balancing old and new: An experienced middle school teacher’s learning in the context of mathematics instructional reform. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 351-375.
90. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. DC: Council of Great City Schools.
91. Snow, C. (2000). On the limits of reframing: Rereading the National Academy of Sciences report on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(1), 113-120.
92. Song, M., & Miskel, C. G. (2005). Who are the influentials? A cross-state social network analysis of the reading policy domain. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 7-48.
93. Southgate, V. (1966). Approaching I. T. A. results with caution. Reading Research Quarterly, 1(3), 35-56.
94. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143-175.
95. Spillane, J. P. (2000). Constructing ambitious pedagogy in the fift h grade: The mathematics and literacy divide. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 307-330.
96. Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98(3), 449-481.
97. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.
98. Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child behind: Practical insights for school leaders. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.
99. Stein, M. K., & D’Amico, L. (2002). Inquiry at the crossroads of policy and learning: A study of a districtwide literacy initiative. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1313-1344.
100. Taylor, B. M., Anderson, R. C., Au, K. H., & Raphael, T. E. (2000). Discretion in the translation of research to policy: A case from beginning reading. Educational Researcher, 29(6), 16-26.
101. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). The CIERA school change framework:An evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 2-32.
102. Texas Education Agency. (2002). Student Success Initiative. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/ssi.html
103. Trochim, W. (1984). Research design for program evaluation: The regression-discontinuity design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
104. United States Department of Education. (2002). Guidance for the Reading First Program. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/guidance.pdf#search=%22reading%20first%20guidance%22
105. United States Department of Education. (2004). Introduction and overview: Reading First. Retrieved July 16, 2007. from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html
106. Valencia, S. W., Place, N. A., Martin, S., D., & Grossman, P. L. (2006). Curriculum materials for elementary reading: Shackles and scaffolds for four beginning teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 93-120.
107. Valencia, S. W., & Wixson, K. K. (2000). Policy-oriented research on literacy standards and assessment. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 909-935). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
108. Valencia, S.W., & Wixson, K. K. (2001). Inside English/Language Arts standards: What’s in a grade? Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 202-211.
109. Vasquez Heilig, J. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75-110.
110. Wright, W. E., & Choi, D. (2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(13). Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n13/
111. Zigmond, N., & Bean, R. (2006). External evaluation of Reading First in Pennsylvania: Annual report, project year 3: 2005-2006. Unpublished manuscript.