|
The High Stake of High-Stakes Testing
Dave Orphal Teacher Zoe Barnum High School © 12-00 Contents:
This article first appeared in Alternative Network Journal. After forty-nine states have adopted state standards for education and as the number of states attaching high-stakes examinations to these standards grows, it becomes more necessary for educators to enter into the debate over these standards and tests. This article takes a critical examination at some of the basic pro-testing arguments, and discusses some of the possible, problematic consequences of testing. Are we redefining learning and knowledge in limited and perhaps dangerous ways when we choose to make educational decisions based on these standards and tests? This article attempts to begin a discussion of this question.
Introduction [ top ] On May 12, 2000, a memo appeared in my mailbox at the alternative high school at which I teach. The principal of my school had sent a memo to the staff along with two articles from Thrust for Educational Leadership (May/June 2000), “Are Standards Worth It?” by Jim Cox and “12 Tips for Breaking the Student Achievement Barrier” by Carolyn J. Downey. The memo stated that while teachers at my school had been exposed to several articles arguing against standardized testing, these articles would convince us of the efficacy of standardized tests. It is important to note that teachers in general and teachers at my alternative high school in particular have been exposed to little research behind high-stakes and standardized tests. This may be because literature addressing fundamental issues about testing seems limited. Both of the articles attached to the principal’s memo seemed to be in support of the Stanford Achievement Test – Ninth Edition (SAT-9) and the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program but upon close and critical examination failed to convince me of the efficacy of the SAT-9 and standardized testing in general. Both articles appear to deal with the SAT-9 by assuming that the test is sound and valid and that the practice of standardized testing is equally sound and valid. In this article, I will attempt to look behind these assumptions by presenting some of the basic pro-testing arguments, discussing some possible elements of the connection between standards and standardized testing, offering an assessment of standardized high-stakes testing, and discussing some of the possible implications and consequences of the use of standardized tests. Some Basic Pro-Testing Arguments [ top ] Accountability and high standards are two buzzwords central to the arguments for standardized tests. There seems to be a feeling that schools are not teaching young people the important skills needed to succeed in society. Numerous examples exist of young people with high-school diplomas and even bachelor’s degrees who cannot effectively write or do basic mathematics. State legislators propose declarative standards of what skills all children should have when they graduate and standardized tests to assess if these skills have been taught and learned as being the tools needed to ensure every child becomes educated. Both Cox’s and Downey’s articles assume the SAT-9 is a sound and good measurement of student achievement. In his article Are Standards Worth It?, Jim Cox sums up the SAT-9 with the phrase, “The SAT-9 is OK. I liken the issue to the old adage of killing the messenger when the bad news is delivered. Really, the test is OK” (Cox, 2000, p.10.) Cox argues that state standards of achievement can be integrated into classroom practice for the benefit of students. The state standards are a laundry list of prescribed knowledge, and every state legislature save Iowa, has thus far adopted their own state set of standards. The California legislature declares what skills and information every child should know at each age/grade level (Meier, 2000). Cox (2000) further asserts that if teachers believe: 1) “all kids taking a particular course (should) be exposed to the same content”, 2) “we should assess progress in the areas that are most important for students to attain”, and 3) “comparable work should be given close to the same grade, regardless of who the teacher is,”(p.9), then they believe in state standards. If these standards are a list of knowledge teachers and parents can support, then Cox surmises that one does not need to take a large leap in logic to find standardized tests to be the best possible tool for assessing student achievement of these state standards. Cox contends that it is a perceived non-congruence between California’s standards and the SAT-9 test that is responsible for any negative teacher/parent reaction to the test. Cox’s article then describes a plan in which the state standards can be married to classroom reality and measured with a standardized test. Downey (2000) offers no argument for or against the SAT-9 or any other standardized test. The test is assumed to be an efficient, valid measure of knowledge. By failing to look critically at the test or the testing process in general, Downey takes a running leap toward teaching to the test. Downey (2000) continues on this theme by offering her two most important tips for raising student achievement on the standardized test: “1) teach the learning tested, and 2) teach the learning the way it is tested” (p.6). Echoing her ideas, Cox (2000) offers the WYTIWYG principle (What You Teach Is What You Get) to educators in a veiled attempt to promote teaching to the SAT-9. Cox then addresses the content areas and performance objectives that are not addressed by the SAT-9. Though Cox never enumerates these areas, one can assume they include such skills listed on California’s Social Studies Framework as, “Students identify bias and prejudice in historical interpretations” (Education, 1998, p.40). While a question, a series of questions, or a project addressing this intellectual ability could be given a student, it is difficult to imagine a multiple choice test question that would. Because these content areas and objectives are difficult to assess in a standardized way, they are not addressed on the SAT-9. Because they are not addressed on the SAT-9, Cox (2000) admonishes, “then the standards in area 1 (the area not addressed in the SAT-9) are not important. Quit pretending that they are” (Cox, 2000, p.11) Jonathan Kozol and Gary Nash seem to support the idea of standards even if they are against the standards represented by the high-stakes tests. Kozol (2000) posits, “…without any grounding in substantial knowledge, a critical consciousness is of embarrassingly little use: You end up being not a smart dissenter but a clumsy one; and no one listens to your views because they are intermixed with ignorance and error”(p. xiii). Nash (2000) adds to this argument by observing that local control without state standards have, in the past, led to some school boards implementing a retrograde curriculum that offered oppressive ideologies. The phrase “teaching to the test” may not be a popular one among educators, but if the test is a valid assessment of knowledge, why not teach to it? Cox and Downey seem to assume that the SAT-9 is a valid and efficient measure of knowledge. In the next section, I will critically examine the link between standards and standardized tests. Standards and Standardized Tests [ top ] Cox’s arguments for state standards are appealing in their first read. He asks, “How many of us believe that is reasonable for all kids taking a particular course to be exposed to the same content?” (Cox, 2000). This question, which many teachers may jump to answer “yes,” offers an opportunity to discuss the definition of knowledge in a critical way. What constitutes knowledge is a social decision influenced by political and historical pressures. In the United States, what constitutes knowledge is framed from a European-American, middle-class male perspective. Take, for example, one hypothetical question from a SAT-9-type test. While using an actual question from the SAT-9 would provide a more convincing model, I, like all teachers who administer the exam, was required to sign an affidavit stating that I would not reveal any of the test questions. This hypothetical question, while being too modern an event for the SAT-9, is similar to some of the items on the test. The correct answer to the question, “What was the purpose of the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1998-1999?” would be “to end ethnic cleansing of Albanians by Serbs and Slobedon Milosevic.” Other possible perspectives such as “to reestablish a sphere of influence for the United States in Eastern Europe,” “to force a confrontation between the United States and Serbia,” or “to establish the U.S. as the sole remaining superpower” are not available for consideration. Therefore, to understand the significance of the bombing from a Yugoslavian perspective or a Russian perspective would be incorrect according to California’s current definition of knowledge. To understand history in a complex and critical way, such as noting that the Yugoslavian bombing in 1998-1999 was born of complex socieo-political events and can be understood differently from different perspectives, is in essence discouraged by state standards as represented by the standardized test. The state standards, as the SAT-9 represents them, present history as facts to be memorized rather than a rich series of events and perspectives to be assessed and analyzed critically. How important is it for all students to be exposed to the same information within the context of similar courses? On the surface, it seems that the only fair method would indeed be to give all students the same information at roughly the same time in their development, as is currently done in public and private education. The problem lies in the fact that the logic behind such a stance is fallacious. The notion that students need to be taught the same information at the same time has as its premise that students need to be taught fixed and agreed upon facts and that these facts represent a single, immutable reality. If students are unable to perceive that reality shifts according to various perspectives, perceptions, and interpretations, they have not only a restricted arena for debate, but one that is nonexistent. W.I. Thomas (1923) wrote that whatever we define as real becomes real in its consequences. Thus, people may not only have multiple perspectives in regard to an event, they may actually experience the event as a different reality, making their experience real and creating in essence the existence of multiple realities. This difference between perspective and reality may seem moot, but it may have tremendous consequences in teaching and learning. If teachers provide instruction in which an event is viewed from multiple perspectives, it is all too easy to label one perspective as being correct or more valid than the others, as happens constantly in any history class in the United States. However, if events are viewed from the perspective of being different realities for different people, it becomes difficult to declare one reality as correct or more valid than any other. Herein lies the crucial flaw in tests like the SAT-9: they reinforce the notion that possession of a specified set of facts within a single reality is truly knowledge. Knowledge requires that individuals are able to analyze and assess facts and events, to view them from a variety of perspectives, to be able to observe that the ways in which some people experience events is a completely different reality for other actors in that same event. This kind of complex knowing contrasts sharply with the surface level knowledge that is tested by the SAT-9. When we teach and test based on the assumption of a single reality, we set up a dualistic nature of knowledge that may hamper future learning. Take, for example, what happens in college courses when alternative realities of history are taught. Because K-12 history is typically taught from a dominant paradigm that is European American, male, professional class, heterosexual, and Christian, the alternative realities college undergraduates typically face are realities of people of color, non-heterosexuals, working class and poor people, feminists, and non-Christians. The emotional crisis that many students experience after confronting such realities may be linked to previous schooling that emphasized one reality with correct and incorrect interpretations of that reality (Kumashiro, 2000). Cox (2000) also asks, “How many of us believe that we should assess progress in the areas that are most important for students to attain?” (p.9). Again, the simple answer is all of us, but does the necessity of assessment really mean we need standardized tests? To give an example from 1999, my Civics class became engaged in the March 7th elections, particularly in regard to California’s ballot measure, Proposition 21 (the Juvenile Justice Initiative.) After weeks of studying the proposition and the arguments for and against, it became a reasonable necessity for me to assess their progress on that work. It would have been simple to design an objective test (true/false, multiple choice) to assess their grasp of the content of the proposition, the various arguments for and against, and the initiative process. Filling in the bubbles on such a test is not an authentic task, however. In the real world, voters vote; they do not take tests. In the real world, political activists demonstrate and educate; they do not take tests. With my class’ desire for an authentic assessment, we decided to become politically active and create several publications regarding the proposition and held a rally. These events assessed my students’ knowledge about the topic. They had to be knowledgeable about the proposition and its arguments to successfully create and publish their own political tract on Prop. 21 and organize their political demonstrations. Standards do not have to mean standardized tests. I understand that many teachers can thoughtfully agree on one set of content standards and deem these to be the areas in which student achievement is important. Even my arguments for a pedagogy that affirms multiple realities can be turned into a prescriptive set of standards to be taught. However, when we leap from these standards to the utilization of standardized tests, we leap over the primary educator in charge of teaching children the skills enumerated in the standards. By requiring standardized tests, we may be assuming that teachers are either unable or unwilling to teach their students the skills and information that the state has declared knowledge. If teachers are unable to teach children these skills, then I believe it is unwise to set up a punitive system of accountability to rectify this situation. Instead, the state may want to consider trainings to teachers in how to deliver instruction to students in ways that are congruent with the state standards. If, however, we assume that teachers are unwilling to teach their students the skills called for in these standards, then a system of rewards and consequences may seem to be a viable solution. I disagree, though. Instead, if teachers are in fact unwilling to teach their students these skills and information, then I believe an open and honest dialog is needed among teachers, administrators, and policy makers in order to discover and address why they are not being taught to students. If teachers are unwilling to address standards because of a philosophical difference between the teachers’ understanding of their content area and the state-sanctioned definition of knowledge, as it would be in my case, no amount of punitive measures will affect the state’s desired change. Teachers of quality will not allow themselves to be bullied into what they consider poor teaching. Some testing supporters have argued that if the standards are good standards and if the test is a good test, then what is wrong with teaching to them? In the next section I will detail some of the possible problems associated with teaching to any test or any set of standards. The Dangers of Teaching to the Test [ top ] Teaching to the test may be counter-productive to critical thinking and multiple, diverse perspectives on reality. Teaching to the test, which both of the aforementioned articles seem to promote, assumes that the state’s definition of knowledge is valid and true. In the case of history, neither is the case. History is more likely a complex series of human interactions based on values, desires, and opportunities. Often these desires, values, and opportunities are in conflict with each other and with the desires, values, and opportunities of others. By assuming history to be an inevitable sequence of events, we may over-simplify our study of the past in a dangerous way. The effects may even manifest themselves on Election Day when over half of registered voters fail to see themselves as significant enough to bother to vote (Meier, 2000). Some may argue that the link between standards and voter apathy is tenuous (Thernstrom, 2000). Meier (2000) counters that when young people see their local adults (teachers and local administrators) deskilled by an omnipotent state, apathy and a sense of powerlessness can only result. One may see her arguments in light of Alex de Tocqueville’s admonishments, “It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be incline to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones” (de Tocqueville, 2000). One may see among these “minor details” decisions made by local teachers and administrators and communities about what education should look like in their community. One may then see standards as a beginning to an end of this particular area of freedom. I don’t think Meier goes far enough in her link between standards and democracy. Over-simplifying the past may train us to over-simplify the present. Voter apathy, cynicism, and government by and for the few who bother to vote may result from people holding simplistic views of the past and politics while simultaneously being presented with a very complex reality of the present. Even our televised experts on politics cannot seem to escape the oversimplification of experiences (Bourdieu, 1996). According to Bourdieu (1996), “So, insofar as (politics) have to be addressed, this not very exciting and even depressing spectacle, which is so difficult to deal with, has to be made interesting” (p. 2). To keep politics interesting, Bourdieu continues, “…prospective panelists must present their positions in uncomplicated, clear, and striking terms. Above all, they must avoid the quagmire of intellectual complexity” (p.3). The link between teaching and public perception of politics seems not only strong but possibly even causal. Even in the area of mathematics, the seemingly simple question of “What is the sum of 1+1” can have different answers depending on the perspectives. The answer “2,” which is commonly accepted as fact is only correct from a perspective of arithmetic. The answers begin to change when perspectives change. The answer to “1+1” becomes “10 (one zero)” when one’s reality changes to the binary language of computers and could become “II” in a History class studying the Roman Empire. Some educators may argue that some facts are immutable. As an example, some educators may claim Pope Urban II’s call for the First Crusade in 1099 is a fact. Despite my arguments that the Crusades may have been experienced as an invasion of barbarian forces set on conquest and plunder when viewed from an Islamic reality, those educators may ask me to admit that the event occurred in 1099 and that the date is an immutable fact. To this hypothetical argument, I would respond that from an Islamic reality, these events occurred in the year AH (After Hajji) 321 and from a Jewish reality, they occurred in 4656. Even the seemingly immutable reality of time may be defined by the cultures of the participants. One may argue if the timing of an event is debatable, then the occurrence of an event surely cannot be debated. However, even the seemingly immutable fact of an event occurring may be debatable. Loewen (1995) points out how many facts described in American History textbooks may have never happened. He deconstructs the flat-Earth reality that surrounds the Columbus story. According to the textbook The American Pageant, Columbus’s crewmembers were scared they would sail “…over the edge of the world” (Loewen, 1995, p.46). This particular reality was created in 1828 by Washington Irving but has managed to survive as an immutable fact of history (Loewen, 1995). History teachers unaware of Loewen’s work may still teach the flat-Earth reality. Loewen argues that textbooks need to teach the so-called correct set of immutable facts. What may be more important -- and more interesting -- is looking critically at each of these seemingly exclusive realities and teaching our students to do likewise. Whose interests are served by the traditional reality? Whose interests are served by Loewen’s reality? What can we learn from each? When one explores history as a rich complexity of experiences and historical interpretation of those experiences, even the occurrence of an event can be seen as shaped by the realities of those who write about the event. By denying the possibility of multiple realities and multiple correct answers based on those realities, we may be training our young people to look for one correct answer and disregard or resist other possible ones. Kumashiro (2000) writes about the emotional crisis students in his classes experienced when he presented them with versions of history contrary to the ones they had experienced in high school. Similarly, my experience in college courses has been to witness students not only resist, but rail against these alternative versions of history. Teaching social studies as a list of answers to questions might lead young people to become intolerant of ideas, perspectives, and realities that are different from the so-called right answers they were taught and upon which they were assessed in school. Teaching to the test may discourage critical thinking and other higher-order skills. Standardized tests like the SAT-9 are multiple-choice because it is easy to grade scantron-type tests when one is testing an entire state. Should ease of use really dictate the depth of knowledge and types of skills we assess in our students? In the real world, correcting identifying a predetermined correct answer from a group of answers rarely exists outside of fast food cashiering when one is looking for the correct sandwich selection and drink size. Are these the types of skills on which we really want to focus our teaching? When I was in Japan in November of 1999, the Japanese education system was determined to rid the country of high-stakes exams. The American teachers I was touring with were incredulous, “Why get rid of the test when Japanese students continually rank first in the world on these test?” From the Minister of Education to groups of parents, the answer was hauntingly similar and a harbinger of California’s future if we continue to uncritically accept the rhetoric of testing: “Japanese students are very good at taking tests.” How High Are the Stakes? [ top ] When discussing the impact of high-stakes tests, it is important to define these terms. High-stakes tests are nothing new. Final exams that are worth half of a grade in a class, the SAT, the STAR, and California’s new High School Exit Exam (HSEE) are all examples of high-stake tests. There is nothing inherent about these tests that make them high-stakes. What makes a test high-stakes are the types of educational decisions that are made based on performance on these tests. If one fails to pass the final exam, then one fails the class. Scoring poorly on the SAT severely limits the types of educational opportunities available after high school. Low scores on the STAR have been used to label children as “at-risk” for retention and have been used to label schools as “low performing.” Failing to pass the new HSEE in California will exclude a child from a high-school diploma. The HSEE exclusion applies to every student. Even students with special learning needs have to pass this exam to receive a diploma. Students’ Individual Educational Plans (IEP) may exempt them from taking the HSEE, but if the IEP does so, it also excludes them from a diploma. It is difficult to determine how many students will not be able to pass the test. While much of the debate about the HSEE is centered on whether it will be a test of basic skills or a lofty expression of our aspirations for schooling., without looking at the exam, and looking at it critically, it feels inappropriate for me to assess the potential consequences of the HSEE in this article. There may be many California high schoolers who will be unable to pass the test. Imagining a test that every high-school senior can pass, including our special-education students, and which our state officials in Sacramento see as rigorous is difficult at best. It is, however, possible to imagine what may happen to those who do not pass the test. High school diplomas are not only used for entry into institutions of high learning. High school diplomas make any young person’s resume look better. Institutions of high learning, trade schools, businesses, and the military all often exclude applicants without a high school diploma. Many of these opportunities will be shut off to the students unable to pass the HSEE. Basing a diploma on the HSEE also calls into question teachers and schools. What I find at once interesting and infuriating is when a child who achieves well in classes (As and Bs) and fails to pass the test, it is often the teachers and classes that are called into question. If a straight A student fails to pass the HSEE, by denying her a diploma are we saying the off-the shelf, one-size-fits-all, one-shot test that labeled her a failure is more accurate than the series of professionals who have spent years with this student, and using a variety of assessments, labeled her a success? Conclusions [ top ] After looking at some of the arguments in favor of standardized tests like the SAT-9, I am left unconvinced as to the efficacy of their use. Even the seemingly unassailable position of content standards can be debated. Standards define knowledge in narrow ways. In mathematics, this narrow definition of knowledge seems less problematic. Although, as one begins to explore levels of mathematics more complex than arithmetic, one begins to see places where even the seemingly obvious answer of “2” to the question of “What is 1+1” loses some certainty. However, in the social studies, such a narrow definition of knowledge typically marginalizes the existence and experience of groups who are already marginalized in society. This practice can perpetuate the inequalities existing in society rather than educate to change these inequalities. Creativity and critical thinking typically demand one to look for multiple solutions and possibilities when one is confronted with a problem. Standardized test are counter-productive to these skills. Testing requires the test taker to identify one pre-determined correct answer from a list of red herrings. Even the essay portion of some standardized test stifle creativity with their demand on the test-taker to regurgitate the five-paragraph style that the standards define as excellent writing. While some advocate the abolition of standards (Avers, 2000; Kozol, 2000; Meier, 2000), others argue that finding just the right set of standards are what schools and our children need (Chase, 2000; Murnane, 2000; Nash, 2000; Nathan, 2000). I would argue another extreme. What seems to be necessary is a way for the public to ensure that public education is serving the interests of the public. Testing is a political response to an educational issue. One may argue about whether or not our educational system is failing to educate the populace, as the 1984 report A Nation At Risk suggested. One may understand the need to determine whether or not our children are being well served by their schools. High-stakes testing, especially tests like the SAT-9, are not the tools with which to answer these concerns. It seems as if the buzzwords of accountability and standards are being used in a pseudo-corporate context. One may imagine the taxes paid into the public education system as our investment in the education of our children. How, then, can we find out if the system is profitable? The scores on test like the SAT-9 may be equated to the imagined profits of the education system; higher test scores equally bigger profits. So much of what is important in teaching is not quantifiable. How can a test show a student's creativity, love of learning, and curiosity? Rather than use a set of state-approved standards, perhaps education can learn from other fields where testing is used to assess competence. Wiggins (1998) sums up the practice of high-stakes testing when he applies the model to forms of learning not generally associated with these tests. Imagine that a person in your state can get a driver’s license merely by doing well on the paper-and-pencil part of the test. Then imagine further that your state department of motor vehicles (DMV) does not administer a road test of new drivers because it thinks the test would not be worth the time, money, and hassle and that the DMV officers administrating the test would be likely to make “subjective” (and thus controversial) judgments. Instead, drivers’ education involves extensive bookwork, paper-and-pencil tests of driving strategy, and lots of practice on different forms of written tests. (Is this a state where you would feel safe to drive in?) (p. 3). This example sounds ludicrous. However, is it more rational to expect similar treatment of Social Studies, English, Math, or Science? Do real historians take multiple-choice tests for a living? Do mathematicians take math tests? Do scientist study science books and then take tests about what they understood from those books? In all these cases, the answer is clearly, “No.” If the answer is “no,” and the role of schooling really is to prepare students for these future careers, then what is the purpose of testing? Perhaps then, this is the next tier of questions we in education should be asking and debating. What I had hoped to begin with this paper was a look at more fundamental issues of testing. I wanted to go deeper than the current level of debate about whose standard will be tested and what questions we will ask and to call into question some of the purposes of testing and some of the core issues surrounding standards in general. Perhaps the next step is to begin questioning the purpose of formalized schooling. If schooling is supposed to pass along a collection of relatively benign facts, then perhaps these tests are as benign as the collection of facts they presume to assess. However, if schooling in general, and the teaching of United States History specifically, revolves around the dual goals of teaching a set of presumed facts and indoctrinating young people in what it means to be a citizen of the United States, then perhaps we are making some assumptions about people and patriotism that need not be made. If people are unable to be critical and patriotic simultaneously, then teaching one clearly defined set of facts in which the actions of the United States are unquestionable makes sense. In this case, it would be important to teach only the reality in which the United States domestic and foreign policy is beyond question. If, however, people can be critical and patriotic as the same time, then one could teach about the multiple realities and multiple perspectives of history. Students could be encouraged to see how different realities serve different purposes. Students might be able to understand the usefulness and problematic nature surrounding each perspective and reality. It is my assertion that such teaching will only help students make better sense of the complexities in their life that currently seem far removed from the simplicity of the world they study in school. Author’s Note [ top ] Dave Orphal teaches World History and Civics at Zoe Barnum High School in Eureka, California. He is currently working on his Master of Arts in Education at Humboldt State University where he received a Bachelor’s Degree in History and another in Social Studies Teacher Preparation in 1995. Mr. Orphal is the lead teacher of Zoe Barnum’s Community of Caring Program that stresses the inclusion of five core values of caring, respect, responsibility, trust and family across the curriculum. He is also the adult advisor for Youth Educating Against Homophobia, a student-run organization that provides workshops for teachers about homophobia and anti-oppressive education. The author is immensely grateful to Ann Diver-Stamnes for her mentorship on this project. He would also like to thank Keri Gelenian and Dennis Orphal for their thoughtful feedback.
References [ top ] Avers, w. (2000). The standards fraud. In J. Cohen & J. Rogers (Eds.), Will standards save public education? Boston: Beacon Press. Bourdieu, P. (1996). On television. New York: The New Press. Chase, B. (2000). Making a difference. In J. Cohen & J. Rogers (Eds.), Will standards save public education? Boston: Beacon Press. Cox, J. (2000). Are standards worth it? Thrust for educational leadership, 8-11. de Tocqueville, A. (2000). Democracy in America (H. Reeve, Trans.). New York: Bantam Books. Education, C. D. o. (1998). Standards for Social Studies, grade 9-12.: California Department of Education. Kozol, J. (2000). Forward. In J. Cohen & J. Rogers (Eds.), Will standards save public education? Boston: Beacon Press. Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Teaching and learning through desire, crisis, and difference: Perverted reflections on anti-oppressive education. Radical Teacher(58), 6-11. Loewen, J. (1995). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong. New York: The New Press. Meier, D. (2000). Educating a democracy. In J. Cohen & J. Rogers (Eds.), Will standards save public education? Boston: Beacon Press. Murnane, R. J. (2000). The case for standards. In J. Cohen & J. Rogers (Eds.), Will standards save public education? Boston: Beacon Press. Nash, G. B. (2000). Expert Opinion. In J. C. a. J. Rogers (Ed.), Will standards save public education? Boston: Beacon Press. Nathan, L. (2000). Habits of mind. In J. Cohen & J. Rogers (Eds.), Will standards save public education? Boston: Beacon Press. Thernstrom, A. (2000). No excuses. In J. Cohen & J. Rogers (Eds.), Will standards save public education? Boston: Beacon Press. Thomas, W. I. (1923). The unadjusted girl. New York: Harper & Row. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performances. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
|
|
|
