BraceyG. W. (1997). Setting the record straight: Responses to misconceptions about public education in the United States.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
2.
BraceyG. W. (1998). High stakes testing comes a cropper?Phi Delta Kappan, 79(8).
3.
BraceyG. W. (2003). April foolishness: The 20th anniversary of A Nation at Risk.Phi Delta Kappan,84(8), 616–621.
4.
BrunerJ. S. (1968). Toward a theory of instruction.New York: Norton.
5.
CobbP. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development.Educational Researcher,23, 13–23.
6.
CobbP., & YackelE. (1990). Experience, problem solving, and discourse as central aspects of constructivism.Arithmetic Teacher,38, 34–35.
7.
CohenD. K. (1996). Rewarding teachers for student performance. In FuhrmanS. H., & O'DayJ. A. (Eds.), Reward and reform (pp. 60–114). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
ConfreyJ. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In DavisR., MayerC., & NoddingsN. (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 107–124). Reston, VA: National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.
9.
CorwinM. (2000). And still we rise: The trials and triumphs of twelve gifted inner-city high school students.New York: Morrow.
10.
CreminL. J. (1989). Popular education and its discontents.New York: Harper & Row.
11.
CreswellJ., & MillerD. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.Theory Into Practice,39(1), 124–130.
12.
DeciE., SpiegelN., RyanR., KoestnerR., & KauffmanM. (1982). Effects of performance standards on teaching styles: Behavior of controlling teachers.Journal of Educational Psychology,74, 852–859.
13.
DelandshereG., & ArensS. (2001). Representations of teaching and standards-based reform: Are we closing the debate about teacher education?Teaching and Teacher Education,17(5), 547–566.
14.
DelpitL. (1995). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive black educator. In Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom (pp. 11–20). New York: Norton.
15.
DemingW. E. (1993). The new economics for industry, government, education.Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
16.
DeweyJ. (1933). How we think.New York: Heath.
17.
EngelmannS. (1999). The benefits of direct instruction: Affirmative action for at-risk students.Educational Leadership,57(1), 77–80.
18.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.New York: Basic Books.
19.
GardnerH. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach.New York: Basic Books.
20.
HemmingsA. (2003). Fighting for respect in urban high schools.Teachers College Record,105(3), 416–437.
21.
HostetlerK. (2002). Responding to the technicist challenge to practical wisdom in teaching: The case of INTASC standards.Educational Foundations,16(5), 45–64.
22.
KelleyC., & ProtsikJ. (1997). Risk and reward: Perspectives on the implementation of Kentucky's school-based performance award program.Educational Administration Quarterly,33, 474–505.
23.
KirkD., & McDonaldD. (2001). Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum changes.Journal of Curriculum Studies,33(5), 551–567.
24.
KirshnerD. (2002). Untangling teachers’ diverse aspirations for student learning: A cross-disciplinary strategy for relating psychological theory to pedagogical practice.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,33(1), 46–58.
25.
KohlH. (1967). 36 children.New York: New American Library.
26.
KohnA. (1992). No contest: The case against competition.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
27.
KohnA. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
28.
KozioffM., LaNunziataL., & CowardinJ. (2001). Direct instruction: Its contributions to high school achievement.High School Journal,84(2), 54–71.
29.
KozolJ. (1995). Amazing grace: The lives of children and the conscience of a nation.New York: Crown.
30.
KozolJ. (2000). Ordinary resurrections: Children in the years of hope.New York: Crown.
31.
LambdinD., & PrestonR. (1995). Caricatures in innovation: Teacher adaptation to an investigation-oriented middle school mathematics curriculum.Journal of Teacher Education,46, 130–140.
32.
LeCompteM., & SchensulJ. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic research.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
33.
LermanS. (1996). Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: A challenge to the radical constructivist paradigm.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,27, 133–150.
34.
LermanS. (2000). A case of interpretations of social: A response to Steffe and Thompson.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,28, 394–395.
35.
LincolnY. S., & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
MalenB. (2003). Tightening the grip? The impact of state activism on local school systems.Educational Policy,17(2), 195–216.
37.
ManouchehriA. (1998). Mathematics curriculum reform and teachers: What are the dilemmas?Journal of Teacher Education,49(4), 276–286.
38.
McNeilL. (Ed.). (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing.New York: Routledge.
39.
MeierD. (2000). Will standards save public education?Boston: Beacon.
40.
MilanowskiA. (2000). School-based performance award programs and teacher motivation.Journal of Education Finance,25(4), 517–544.
41.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source- book (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
MoustakasC. (1994). Phenomenological research methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
MurilloE., & FloresS. (2002). Reform by shame: Managing the stigma of labels in high stakes testing.Educational Foundations,16(2), 93–108.
44.
National Commission for Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: A report to the nation and the secretary of education, United States Department of Education.Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, GPO.
45.
National Science Foundation. (2003). Urban systemic program in science, mathematics, and technology education (USP): A foundation for K–12 science and mathematics educational system reform program solicitation. Retrieved January 11,2 002 from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/nsf0115/nsf0115.pdf.
46.
NolaR. (1997). Constructivism in science and science education: A philosophical critique.Science and Education,6, 55–83.
47.
OhanianS. (1999). One size fits few: The folly of educational standards.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
48.
OhanianS. (2000). Goals 2000: What's in a name?Phi Delta Kappan,81(5), 344–355.
49.
OrfieldG., & KornhaberM. (Eds.). (2001). Raising standards or raising barriers: Inequality and high stakes testing in public education.New York: Century Foundation Press.
50.
PerkinsD. (1999). The many faces of constructivism.Educational Leadership,57(3), 6–11.
51.
PhillipsD. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.Educational Researcher,24(7), 5–12.
52.
PiagetJ. (1963). Origins of intelligence in children.New York: Norton.
RoderickM., & EngelM. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low-achieving students to high stakes testing.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,23(3), 197–227.
55.
SacksP. (1999). Standardized minds: The high price of America's testing culture and what we can do to change it.Cambridge: Perseus.
56.
SchifterD., & O'BrienD. C. (1997). Interpreting the standards: Translating principles into practice.Teaching Children Mathematics,4, 202–205.
57.
SmagorinskyP., LaklyA., & JohnsonT. S. (2002). Acquiescence, accommodation and resistance in learning to teach within a prescribed curriculum.English Education,34(3), 187–213.
58.
SpillaneJ. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment.Journal of Curriculum Studies,31(2), 143–175.
59.
SteffeL. P., & ThompsonP. W. (2000). Interaction or intersubjectivity? A reply to Lerman.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,31, 191–209.
60.
SuchtingW. (1992). Constructivism deconstructed.Science and Education,1, 223–254.
TyackD., & CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
63.
UlineC., Tschannen-MoranM., & PerezL. (2003). Constructive conflict: How controversy can contribute to school improvement.Teachers College Record,105(5), 782–816.
64.
VygotskyL. S. (1962). Thought and language.Cambridge: MIT Press.
65.
WolfS., BorkoH., & ElliottR. (2000). “That dog won't hunt”: Exemplary school change efforts within the Kentucky reform.American Educational Research Journal,37(2), 349–393.
66.
ZevenbergenR. (1996). Constructivism as a liberal bourgeois discourse.Educational Studies in Mathematics,31, 95–113.
67.
ZolkowerB. (1995). Math fictions: What really solves the problem?Social Text,43, 133–162.