In this article, we explore the meaning that parents bring to and make out of their interactions with the school through assessment. Based on a qualitative study of mathematics reform, we examine interviews with 18 parents of middle school students. Through a Bakhtinian analysis, we find that parents' perspectives on assessment are framed by their past experiences with schools. Their reaction is situated historically, politically, and socially; the evidence that many of them used to evaluate new forms of schooling was assessment. We argue that assessment can be seen as a voice of authority in the discourse of teaching and learning and that it speaks loudly to frame students and their parents in particular ways.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
2.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson, Ed.; V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
3.
Ball, D. L. (1991). Research on teaching of mathematics: Making subject-matter knowledge part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 148). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
4.
Berlak, H. (1992). Toward the development of a new science of educational testing and assessment. In H. Berlak, F. M. Newmann, E. Adams, D. A. Archbald, T. Burgess, J. Raven, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Toward a new science of educational testing and assessment (pp. 181-206). Albany: State University of New York Press.
5.
Blueprint Task Force . (1993). A blueprint for Mathematics in Context: A connected curriculum for Grades 5-8. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
6.
Borko, H. , Eisenhart, M., Brown, C. A., Underhill, R. G., Jones, D., & Agard, P. C. (1992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 194-222.
7.
Burkhardt, H. , Fraser, R., & Ridgway, J. (1990). The dynamics of curriculum change. In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), Developments in school mathematics education around the world. Applications-oriented curricula and technology-supported learning for all students (Vol. 2, pp. 3-30). Reston, VA: NCFM.
8.
Cambourne, B. , & Turbdill, J. (1990). Assessment in whole-language classrooms: Theory into practice. Elementary School Journal, 90, 337-349.
9.
Comer, J. P. (1980). School power: Implications of an intervention project. New York: Free Press.
10.
Dillon, D. R. (1993). The wider social context of innovation in mathematics education. In T. Wood, P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & D. Dillon (Eds.), Rethinking elementary school mathematics: Insights and issues (pp. 71-96). Reston, VA: NCIM.
11.
Ellwein, M. C. , & Graue, M. E. (in press). Assessment as a way of knowing children. In C. A. Grant & M. L Gomez (Eds.), Campus and classroom: Making education multicultural. New York: Macmillan.
12.
Epstein, J. L. (1994). Theory to practice: School and family partnerships lead to school improvement In C. L. Fagnano & B. Z. Werber (Eds.), School family, and community interaction: A view from the firing lines (pp. 39-52) Boulder, CO:Westview.
13.
Fennema, E. , Carpenter, T., & Peterson, P. L. (1989). Leaning mathematics with under-standing. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 193-220). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
14.
Frederiksen, J. R. , & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27-32.
15.
Garcia, G. E. , & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Assessment and diversity. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 337-392). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
16.
Gomez, M. L. (in press). Negotiating the terrain of teaching via portfolio assessment. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Culture and literacy: Bridging the gap between community and classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
17.
Gong, B. , Venezky, R., & Mioduser, D. (1992). Instructional assessments: Lever for systemic change in science education classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
18.
Graue, M. E. (1993a). Integrating theory and practice through instructional assessment. Educational Assessment, 1(4), 283-309.
19.
Graue, M. E. (1993b). Ready for what? Constructing meanings of readiness for kindergarten. Albany: SUNY Press.
20.
Graue, M. E. , & Smith, S. Z. (1992). A conceptual frame work for instructional assessment. Madison: National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
21.
Gravemeyer, K. , Roodhardt, A., Wijers, M., Burrill, G., & Rosenstein, B. J. (in press). Expressions and formulas. In National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education and Freudenthal Institute (Eds.), Mathematics in context: A connected curriculum for grades 5-8. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corporation.
22.
Hanson, F. A. (1993). Testing testing: Social consequences of the examined life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23.
Johnston, P. (1989). Constructive evaluation and the improvement of teaching and learning. Teachers College Record, 90,509-528.
24.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29-63.
25.
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage. New York: Falmer.
26.
Linn, R. L. , Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 5-21.
27.
Moss, P. A. (1992). Validity in educational measurement. Review of Educational Research, 62, 229-258.
28.
National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education and Freudenthal Institute (Eds.). (in press). Mathematics in context: A connected curriculum for grades 5-8. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corporation.
29.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
30.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
31.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . (in press). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
32.
Newmann, F. M. (1990). Higher order thinking in teaching social studies: Arationale for the assessment of classroom thoughtfulness. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(1), 41-56.
33.
Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 153-222). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
34.
Peressini, D. (1994). Parent and mathematics education reform. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin.
35.
Powell, D. R. (1989). Families and early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
36.
Putnam, R. , Lampert, M., & Peterson, P. (1990). Alternate perspectives on knowing mathematics in elementary schools. Review of Research in Education, 16, 57-150.
37.
Romberg, T. A. (1992). Problematic features of the school mathematics curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 749-788). New York: American Educational Research Association.
38.
Schifter, D. , & Fosnot, C. T. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of teachers meeting the challenge of reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
39.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1993). What do we know about mathematics curricula?Berkeley: University of California Press.
40.
Secada, W. G. (1989). Agenda setting, enlightened self-interest, and equity in mathematics education. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(2), 22-56.
41.
Shepard, L. A. , & Bliem, C. L. (1994). An analysis of parent opinions and changes in opinions regarding standardized tests, teacher's information, and performance assessments: Technical report. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Testing.
42.
Stanic, G.M.A. (1989). Social inequality, cultural discontinuity, and equity in school mathematics. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(2), 57-71.
43.
Stiggins, R. J. , Frisbie, D. A., & Griswold, P. A. (1989). Inside high school grading practices: Building a research agenda. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8, 5-14.
44.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Thornburg, D. G. (1994). How does my child measure up? Family responses to recent reforms in educational assessment. Educational Policy, 8(2), 224-243.
46.
Useem, E. L. (1992). Middle school and math groups: Parents' involvement in children's placement. Sociology of Education, 65, 263-279.
47.
Waltman, K. K. , & Frisbie, D. A. (1994). Parents' understanding of their children's report card grades. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(3), 223-240.
48.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
Wolf, D. , Bixby, J., Glenn, J., & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 17, pp. 31-74). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
50.
Wood, T. , Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1991). Change in teaching mathematics: A case study. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 587-616.
