Writing the “Show-Me” Standards: Teacher Professionalism and Political Control in U.S. State Curriculum Policy

References

• Attitude Research Company. 1995a. Key findings: Public engagement program on proposed academic performance standards for Missouri students. St. Louis, MO: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Attitude Research Company. 1995b. Report: Public engagement program on proposed academic standards for Missouri students. St. Louis, MO: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Ayers, W. 2000. The standards fraud. In Will standards save public education?, D. Meier, ed., pp. 64-69. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Best, J. 1990. Threatened children: Rhetoric and concern about child-victims. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bolinger, D., and P. Sears. 1981. Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Borman, K., L. Castenell, and K. Gallagher. 1994. Business involvement in school reform: The rise of the Business Roundtable. In The new politics of race and gender, C. Marshall, ed., pp. 69-83. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, W. L., C. A. Lugg, and G. L. Zahorchak. 1996. Social traditionalists, religious conservatives, and the politics of outcome-based education. Education and Urban Society 28(3): 347-65.
   Google Scholar
• Bruce, M. G. 1991. The Standards debate across the Atlantic. Educational Leadership 48(5): 31-33.
   Google Scholar
• Carnahan, M. 1993. A primer to the Outstanding Schools Act. Jefferson City, MO: Governor’s Office.
   Google Scholar
• Chilton, P., and C. Schaffner. 1997. Discourse and politics. In Discourse as Social Interaction, T. A. van Dijk, ed., pp. 206-30. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, D. L., and T. A. Astuto. 1989. The significance and permanence of changes in federal education policy. Educational Researcher 15(2): 4-13.
   Google Scholar
• Committee for Educational Equality et al. v. Missouri. 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). 1993. Developing content standards: Creating a process for change. Policy Brief #RB-10-10/93. New Brunswick, NJ: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, B. S. 1992. Standards go global: The war for better schools. College Board Review 164: 14-21,28.
   Google Scholar
• Cornbleth, C. 2000. National standards and curriculum as cultural containment. In Curriculum, politics, policy, practice: Cases in comparative context, C. Cornbleth, ed., pp. 211-38. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cornbleth, C., and D. Waugh. 1993. The great speckled bird: Education policy-inthe-making. Educational Researcher 22(7): 31-37.
   Google Scholar
• Cornbleth, C., 1995. The great speckled bird: Multicultural politics and education policymaking.New York: St. Martin’s Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corson, D. 1995. Power and discourses of policy and curriculum: An introduction. In Discourse and power in educational organizations, D. Corson, ed., pp. 133-48. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. 2000. Will new standards bring peace to the math wars? Harvard Education Letter 16(6): 4-6.
   Google Scholar
• Drucker, P. F. 1993. Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Edelman, M. 1977. Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edelman, M. 1984. The political language of the helping professions. In Language and politics, M. Shapiro, ed., pp. 44-60. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Eisner, E. 1995. Standards for American schools: Help or hindrance? Phi Delta Kappan 76(10): 758-64.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Farkas, S. 1993. Effective public engagement. New York: Public Agenda Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Fowler, F. C. 1995. The neoliberal value shift and its implications for federal education policy under Clinton. Educational Administration Quarterly 31(1): 38-60.
   Google Scholar
• Gaziel, H. H., and D. Taub. 1992. Teachers unions and educational reform–A comparative perspective: The cases of France and Israel. Educational Policy 6(1): 72-86.
   Google Scholar
• Gee, J. P. 1990. Social linguistics and literacy: Ideology in discourses. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gee, J. P., G. Hull, and C. Lankshear. 1996. The new work order: Behind the language of the new capitalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grant, S. G. 1997. A policy at odds with itself: The tension between constructivist and traditional views in the New York state social studies framework. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 13(1): 92-113.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, P. M. 1995. The consequences of qualitative analysis for sociological theory: Beyond the micro level. Sociological Quarterly 35(2): 397-423.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, P. M., and P. J. McGinty. 1997. Policy as the transformation of intentions: Producing program from statute. Sociological Quarterly 38(3): 439-67.
   Google Scholar
• Halpin, D., and B. Troyna. 1995. The politics of education policy borrowing. Comparative Education 31(3): 303-10.
   Google Scholar
• Hayakawa, S., and A. R. Hayakawa. 1990. Language in thought and action, 5th ed.. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, H. C. 2001. Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal 38(2): 289-318.
   Google Scholar
• Kliebard, H. 1995. The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Knapp, P. 1998. Raising the hurdles: The educational politics of unrealistic standards. English in Australia 123 (November): 30-35.
   Google Scholar
• Kozol, J. 1990. Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown.
   Google Scholar
• Labaree, D. F. 2000. Resisting educational standards. Phi Delta Kappan 82(1): 28-33.
   Google Scholar
• Lambdin, W. 1979. Doublespeak dictionary. Los Angeles, CA: Pinnacle Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsay, D. 1997. Double standards. Teacher Magazine November/December: 25-29.
   Google Scholar
• Lortie, D. 1975. Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luksik, P., and P. H. Hoffecker. 1995. Outcome-based education. Lafayette, LA: Huntington House.
   Google Scholar
• Lytle, S. L., and M. Cochran-Smith. 1992. Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review 62 (4): 447-74.
   Google Scholar
• Maloney, H. B. 1997. The little standards that couldn’t. English Journal 86(1): 86-90.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, C., D. Mitchell, and F. Wirt. 1989. Culture and education policy in the American states. New York: Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Massell, D., M. Kirst, and M. Hoppe. 1997. Persistence and change: Standards-based systemic reform in nine states. Report RB-21. Philadelphia, PA: CPRE.
   Google Scholar
• McKay, P. 1999. Standards-based reform through the literacy benchmarks: Comparisons between Australia and the United States. Prospect 14(2): 52-65. Mehan, H., A. Hertwick, and J. Meihls. 1986. Handicapping the handicapped: Decisionmaking in students’ educational careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meier, D. 2000. Educating a democracy. In Will standards save public education?, D. Meier, ed., pp. 3-34. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merry, R. 1991. Curriculum lessons from Europe? British Journal of Special Education 18(2): 71-74.
   Google Scholar
• Milner, J. O. 1997. Using a flat structure in a hierarchical world: The development of English standards. Clearinghouse 70(3): 129-35.
   Google Scholar
• Missouri State Board of Education. 1990. Missourians prepared: Success for every student. Jefferson City, MO: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Moffett, J. 1992. Detecting growth in language. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook.
   Google Scholar
• Montgomery, S. L. 1989. The cult of jargon: Reflections on language in science. Science as Culture 6: 42-77.
   Google Scholar
• Nash, G. B. 2000. Expert opinion. In Will standards save public education?, D. Meier, ed., pp. 44-49. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• National Education Goals Panel. 1993. Promises to keep: Creating high standards for American students. Goals 3 and 4 Technical Planning Group on the Review of Education Standards. Report to the Education Goals Panel. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Ohanian, S. 1999. One size fits few: The folly of educational standards. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Orpwood, G. 1995. Juggling educational needs and political realities in Canada: National standards, provincial control, and teachers’ professionalism. Studies in Science Education 26: 39-57.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, M. D., and A. C. Barton. 2000. Science for all Americans? Critiquing science education reform efforts. In Curriculum, politics, policy, practice: Cases in comparative context, C. Cornbleth, ed., pp. 49-75. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pei, M. 1973. Double-speak in America. New York: Hawthorne Books.
   Google Scholar
• Placier, M. 1993. The semantics of state policymaking: The case of “at risk.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15: 380-95.
   Google Scholar
• Placier, M. 1996. The cycle of student labels in education: The cases of “culturally deprived/disadvantaged” and “at risk.” Educational Administration Quarterly 32: 236-70.
   Google Scholar
• Placier, M., P. M. Hall, S. Benson McKendall, and K. S. Cockrell. 2000. Policy as the transformation of intentions: Making multicultural education policy. Educational Policy 14(2): 259-89.
   Google Scholar
• Poole, W. L. 1999. Teachers union involvement in educational policy making: Issues raised by a in-depth case. Educational Policy 13(5): 698-725.
   Google Scholar
• Portelli, J. P., and A. Vibert. 1997. Dare we criticize common educational standards? McGill Journal of Education 32(1): 69-79.
   Google Scholar
• Ravitch, D. 1996.50 states, 50 standards? The continuing need for national voluntary stadards in education. Brookings Review 14(3): 6-9.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B., K. J. Nolan, and D. P. Resnick. 1995. Benchmarking education standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17(4): 438-61.
   Google Scholar
• Salinger, T. 1995/1996. IRA, standards and educational reform. Reading Teacher 49(4): 290-98.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. 1979. Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-solving in social policy. In Metaphor and thought, A. Ortony, ed., pp. 254-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. S., and J. O’Day. 1991. Systemic school reform. In The politics of curriculum and testing, S. Fuhrman and B. Malen, eds. London: Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. S., and B. W. Scoll. 1995. The Clinton human capital agenda. Teachers College Record 96(3): 389-404.
   Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P. 1999. State and local government relations in the era of standards-based reform: Standards, state policy instruments, and local instructional policy making. Educational Policy 13 (4): 546-72.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker, M. S., and J. B. Codding. 1998. Standards for our schools: How to set them, measure them, and reach them. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Tyack, D. 1974. The one best system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weiner, G. 2000. Understanding shifts in British educational discourses. In Curriculum Politics, Policy, Practice, C. Cornbleth, ed., pp. 195-210. Albany: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wixson, K. K., and E. Dutro. 1999. Standards for primary-grade reading: An analysis of state frameworks. Elementary School Journal 100(2): 89-110.
   Google Scholar
• Zorn, J. 1997. The NCTE/IRA Standards: A surrender. English Journal 86 (1): 83-85.
   Google Scholar