In this study, the author explores elementary mathematics instruction in the context of standards-based reform and special education policy. Based on observation of inclusive classrooms and interviews with 12 teachers, the author finds that instructional practice was only somewhat consistent with the policy messages to include students with disabilities under the standards umbrella and to individualize instruction. Moreover, the author suggests three ways in which teachers respond to converging policies: skimming the surface of both policies without engaging the ideological core of either, finding the common ground while remaining true to the spirit of both policies, and privileging one policy at the expense of the other.
Baker, J.M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five cases. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 163-180.
2.
Ball, D.L. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform of math education. American Educator, 16(2), 14-18, 46-47.
3.
Carnine, D. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30(2), 130-141.
4.
Cohen, D.K., & Ball, D.L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331-338.
5.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159-199.
6.
Firestone, W.A., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-117.
7.
Firestone, W.A., Monfils, L., Camilli, G., Schorr, R.Y., Hicks, J., & Mayrowetz, D. (2002). The ambiguity of test preparation: A multi-method analysis in one state. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1485-1523.
8.
Firestone, W. A., Schorr, R. & Monfils, L. (Eds.). (2004). The ambiguities of teaching to the test: Standards, assessment and educational reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Goldman, S.R., Hasselbring T.S., and the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997). Achieving meaningful mathematics literacy for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 198-208.
10.
Grant, S.G. (2000). Teachers and tests: Exploring teachers' perceptions of changes in the New York State testing program. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n14.html
11.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T.C. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York: Macmillan.
12.
Johnson, S.F. (2003). Re-examining Rowley: A new focus in special education law. Education and the Law Journal, 11(2), 561-586. on CD
13.
Knapp, M.S., Bamburg, J.D., Ferguson, M.C., & Hill, P.T. (1998) Converging reforms and the working lives of frontline professionals in schools. Educational Policy, 12, 397-418.
14.
Knight, J. (2005). Crossing boundaries: What constructivists can teach intensive-explicit instructions and vice versa. In T. M. Skrtic, K. R. Harris, & J. G. Shriner (Eds.), Special education policy and practice: Accountability, instruction and social challenges (pp. 242-266). Denver, CO: Love.
15.
Majone, G., & Wildavsky A. (1984). Implementation as evolution. In J. Pressman & A. Wildavsky (Eds.), Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland: Or, why it's amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes . (3rd ed., pp. 163-180). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1979)
16.
Mallory, B.L., & New, R.S. (1994). Social constructivist theory and principles of inclusion: Challenges for early childhood special education. Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 322-337.
17.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., & Shiah, S. (1991). Mathematics instruction for learning disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 89-98.
18.
McDonnell, L.M. (1994) Assessment policy as persuasion and regulation . American Journal of Education, 102, 394-420.
19.
McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (Eds.) (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20.
McLaughlin, M.W. (1991). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. In A. Odden (Ed.), Educational implementation (pp. 185-197). Albany: SUNY Press. (Original work published 1987)
21.
Mead, J.F. (1999). The reauthorization process of the individuals with disabilities education act: Expressions of equity. Journal for a Just and Caring Society, 5(4), 476-492.
22.
Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L., & Miller, S.P. (1996). Constructivist math instruction for diverse learners . Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(3), 147-156.
23.
Murphy, D.M. (1996). Implications of inclusion for general and special education. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 469-493.
24.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: Author.
25.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
26.
National Education Goals Panel. (1996). Building a nation of learners. Washington, DC: Author.
27.
New Jersey State Department of Education. ( 1996, May). Core curriculum content standards. Trenton: Author.
28.
Newmann, F.M., Bryk, A.S., & Nagaoka, J.K. (2001, January). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence?Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
29.
Ohanian, S. (1999). One size fits few: The folly of educational standards . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
30.
Olson, L. (2004, January 8). Enveloping expectations. Count me in: Quality Counts 2004, 23(17), 8-26.
31.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
Quality Counts2006. (2006, January 5). Retrieved on April 21, 2006, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/01/05/17sos.h25.html
33.
Rosenstein, J.G., Caldwell, J.H., & Crown, W.D. (1996, December). New Jersey mathematics curriculum framework . New Brunswick: New Jersey Mathematics Coalition.
34.
Sabatier, P.A., & Mazmanian, D.A. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal , 8(4), 538-560.
35.
Sack, J.L. (1998, March 25). Side by side. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
36.
Shriner, J.G., Kimm, D., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1993). IEPs and standards: What they say for students with disabilities (Synthesis Rep. 5). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes .
37.
Smith, M., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-67). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
38.
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.
39.
Spillane, J.P., & Zeuli, J.S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.
40.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Stigler, J.W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York : Free Press.
42.
Thompson, C.L., Zeuli, J.S., & Borman, J. (1997, March). The science reforms: Mapping the progress of reform and multiple contexts of influence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago.
43.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1998). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
44.
Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2) 171-97.
45.
Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1992). Change in learning mathematics: Change in teaching mathematics. In H. H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 177-205). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
46.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
