SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2000). Heavy books light on learning: Not one middle grades science text rated satisfactory by AAAS's project 2061. AAAS press release Sept. 28, 1999. Available at http://www.project2061.org/newsinfo/press/rl092899.htm.
  • Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 316.
  • Apple, M. (1982). Education and power. Boston, MA: Ark.
  • Apple, M. (1986). Teachers and texts. New York: Routledge.
  • Apple, M. (1993). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. Boston, MA: Ark.
  • Apple, M. W. (1998). The politics of official knowledge: Does national curriculum make sense? Teachers College Record, 95, 222241.
  • Asimov, N. (1998a, Oct. 9). Flap over state standards for teaching kids science. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A17.
  • Asimov, N. (1998b, Oct. 10). Science, history standards adopted; New plan for state's schools. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1.
  • Atkin, M., Bianchini, J., & Holthuis, N. (1997). The different worlds of Project 2061. In S. A.Raizen & E. D.Britton (Eds.), Bold ventures, Vol. 2: Case studies of US innovations in science education (pp. 131245). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Bernstein, L., Schachter, M., Winkler, A., & Wolfe, S. (1998). Concepts and challenges in life science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Globe Fearon.
  • Brunkhorst, B. J. (1999, March). California science standards and the National Science Education Standards: A comparative analysis of the political and academic processes and products, framing questions of significance to the scientific community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
  • Burdman, P. (1997, Dec. 2). Science standards panel starts over. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A17.
  • California Department of Education. (1990). Science framework for California public schools kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
  • California Department of Education. (1992). Mathematics framework for California public schools. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
  • California Department of Education. (1999). Instructional materials in California: An overview of standards, curriculum frameworks, instructional materials adoptions, and funding. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
  • California Department of Education. (2000). Science content standards for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
  • California State Board of Education. (1999). Criteria for evaluating K-8 science instructional materials. Sacramento, CA: California State Board of Education.
  • Collins, A. (1998). National Science Education Standards: A political document. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 711727.
  • Colvin, R. L. (1997a, Nov. 17). Spurned Nobelists appeal science standards rejection; education: Three Laureates and their team offered to write goals for free. State chose more experienced group. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.
  • Colvin, R. L. (1997b, Nov. 26). California and the west; academic panel may yet turn to Nobelists; schools: Commission working on science standards is reconsidering its rejection of famed scientists offer. Los Angeles Times, p. A3.
  • Coolidge-Stoltz, E., Cronkite, D., Exline, J., Graff-Haight, D., & Jenner, J. (2001). Science explorer: Focus on life science (California ed.). Needham, MA: Prentice Hall.
  • Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 313.
  • DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teacher's College Press.
  • Exline, J. D., Holtzclaw, F., Jones, L. C., Miller, S., Simons, B. B., Vogel, C. G., & Wellnitz, T. R. (2001). Science explorer: Focus on earth science (California ed.). Needham, MA: Prentice Hall.
  • Gross, P. (1997). Science without scientists. The New York Times, p. A21.
  • Gutmann, A. (1990). Democratic education in difficult times. Teachers College Press, 92(1), 720.
  • Hughes, M. (1997). The national curriculum in England and Wales: A lesson in externally imposed reform? Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(2) 183197.
  • Jacob, B. (2001). Implementing standards: The California mathematics textbook debacle. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 264272.
  • Jenkins, E. W. (2000). The impact of the national curriculum on secondary school science teaching in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 325336.
  • Kelly, G. J., Carlsen, W. S., & Cunningham, C. M. (1993). Science education in sociocultural context: Perspectives from the sociology of science. Science Education, 77(2), 207220.
  • Kirst, M.W., Anhalt, B., & Marine, R. (1997). Politics of science education standards. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 315328.
  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in science inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Marsh, D. D., & Odden, A. R. (1991). Implementation of the California mathematics and science curriculum frameworks. In A. R.Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 219239). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F.McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 5370). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
  • National Science Teachers Association. (1992). Scope, sequence, and coordination of secondary school science. Volume I. The content core. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of science education, 21, 553576.
  • Petit, C. (1997, Nov. 18). State panel rebuffs Nobel prize team for school science standards. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A22.
  • Saunders, D. J. (1997, Dec. 2). Rocket scientists need not apply. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A21.
  • Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of US science and mathematics education. Executive summary of the third International Mathematics and Science Study. E.Lansing, MI: U.S. National Research Center for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, Michigan State University.
  • Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: What district policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 401425.
  • Strike, K. A. (1993). Professionalism, democracy, and discursive communities: Normative reflections on restructuring. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 255275.
  • Strike, K. A. (1998). Centralized goal formation, citizenship, and educational pluralism: Accountability in liberal democratic societies. Educational Policy, 12, 203215.
  • Webb, R., & Vulliamy, G. (1999). Managing curriculum policy changes: A comparative analysis of primary schools in England and Finland. Journal of Educational Policy, 14(2), 117137.