This paper relates the history of assessment policy in Arizona using an extensive base of interview, observation, and archival data. In less than a decade, two radical shifts took place: from basic skills and standardized testing to progressive reform by performance testing to high-stakes standardized testing based on state standards. We argue that the shape of assessment policy and policy change had more to do with political spectacle and the struggle for power, position, resources, and the control over public schools than with empirical or rational analysis, moral imperative, or democratic debate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ASAP test suspended. (1995, January 25). Arizona Republic, pp. A1, B2.
2.
BallS. J. (1987). The micropolitics of the school.London: Methuen.
3.
BallS. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy sociology.London: Routledge.
4.
EdelmanM. (1985). The symbolic uses of politics.Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
5.
EdelmanM. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
FlexerR. J., & GerstnerE. A. (1994). Dilemmas and issues for teachers developing performance assessments in mathematics.Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research on Educational Standards and Student Testing.
7.
HallP. M. (1995). The consequences of qualitative analysis for sociological theory: Beyond the microlevel. The Sociological Quarterly36 (2): 397–423.
8.
HouseE. R. (1991). Big policy, little policy. Educational Researcher20 (5): 21–26.
9.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies.New York: Harper-Collins.
10.
MarshallC., MitchellD., & WirtF. (1989). Culture and educational policy in the American states.New York: Falmer Press.
11.
McDonnellL., & ElmoreR. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis9 (2): 133–152.
12.
MurphyM. (1996, May 5). Symington moves to the right seeking votes. Arizona Republic, pp. A1, A13.
13.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
14.
NobleA. J. (1994). Measurement-driven reform: The interplay of educational policy and practice.Tempe: Arizona State University Press.
15.
NolanS. B., HaladynaT. M., & HaasN. S. (1989). A survey of Arizona teachers and school administrators on the uses and effects of standardized achievement testing.Phoenix: Arizona State University–West Campus, Education and Human Services.
16.
ReinM. (1976). Social science and public policy.New York: Penguin Books.
17.
ShepardL. A., FlexerR., HiebertE., MarionS., MayfieldV., & WestonT. (1995). Effects of introducing classroom performance assessments on student learning.Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research on Educational Standards and Student Testing.
18.
SmithM. L. (1996). Reforming schools by reforming assessment: Consequences of the Arizona student assessment program.Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research on Educational Standards and Student Testing.
19.
SmithM. L., EdelskyC., DraperK., CherlandM., & RottenbergC. (1989). The role of testing in elementary schools.Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research on Educational Standards and Student Testing.
20.
StoneD. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making.New York: Norton.
21.
Symington's shifting priorities. (1995, October 3). Arizona Republic, p. B4.
