Echo Effects and Curriculum Change - TTU€¦ · Echo Effects and Curriculum Change 2149 riculum...

Echo Effects and Curriculum Change

CATHERINE CORNBLETH

University at Buffalo, State University of New York

Background/Context: This project is framed by a critical pragmatism, which is evident inthe questioning of how social conditions and events outside schools influence classroom prac-tice and in exploring the question of who benefits, collectively and individually, socially andpolitically, as well as pedagogically.Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: The intent of this work is to betterour understanding of the school-society nexus generally and, more specifically, of curricu-lum practice and change in relation to societal conditions and events. This goal is pursuedby means of analysis of relevant research to illustrate what might be called “echo effects” inorder to account for changes in curriculum policy and practice in response to external press. Research Design: Methodologically, this is an analytic article that reexamines data andinterpretations from several relevant research projects. In addition to media research relevantto the conception of “echo,” four cases/studies provide illustration of echoes and apparent“echo effects” on curriculum policy and/or practice: state-level curriculum policymaking;school administrator perceptions and practices regarding censorship challenges; teachers’responses to new or increased state testing in academic subject areas; and teachers’ responsesto the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and their aftermath. Conclusions/Recommendations: Echoes and apparent echo effects on curriculum policy andclassroom practice are important because they demonstrate one means by which events and“social forces” enter into public and professional discourses, and that discourses matter, inpart by framing issues, focusing attention, and rendering legitimacy. Echo effects appear tobe dependent on the echoes being received or “heard” and on the extent to which they are per-ceived or interpreted in ways (1) compatible with one’s values and priorities, and (2) feasi-ble to act on in current circumstances (given one’s assessment of the situation, one’s politi-cal and professional skills, and so forth). Next steps include examining the conditions underwhich echo effects are stronger or weaker and perhaps attempting to manage (e.g., deflect)the echoes themselves. Notably, the cases of echo effects offered here all contribute, though invarying degrees, to the narrowing of curriculum policy and practice. The cumulative cur-

Teachers College Record Volume 110, Number 10, October 2008, pp. 2148–2171Copyright © by Teachers College, Columbia University0161-4681

Echo Effects and Curriculum Change 2149

riculum effects of these echoes appear to sustain more than challenge the status quo. Withgreater awareness and understanding of how external influences enter in and operate, weare better able to raise questions and attempt to reshape curricular and other educationalissues, not merely to participate in the debates on terms set by others or to be swept along bydefault.

Schools should prepare students for a rapidly changing, high-tech society in an increasingly competitive yet interdependentworld. Schools reproduce the social order. Schools dare not build a new social order. Social forces shape schooling.

Although claims such as these abound, too little systematic inquiry andconceptualization span or link schooling and society. With few excep-tions, social foundations and policy folk tend not to enter into schools.Curriculum and teaching folk tend not to venture outside schools.Teachers shut their classroom doors with the presumption that closingthe door closes out the outside world.

Assuming that what happens in the community-society-world doesinfluence what happens in school classrooms, shaping what students door do not have opportunities to learn and how and how well they areenabled to learn, we have monitored and documented how identifiedexternal influences on curriculum policy and classroom curriculum prac-tice appear to enter in and operate. The intent is to move beyond the notvery helpful rhetoric of “social forces.” This article presents the analysisof relevant research to illustrate what we have come to call “echo effects”to account for changes in curriculum policy and practice in response toexternal press. The echo and echo effects conceptions are an outgrowthof prior empirical research rather than a hunch or hypothesis as yetdirectly investigated by me or others. Data from our recently completedClimates of Opinion project,1 as well as others’ work, provide the empir-ical basis for the echo and echo effects conceptions and the suggestionthat, because of apparent echo effects, they merit further investigation incurriculum policymaking and practice.

The theoretical frame for this work can be characterized as a criticalpragmatism (most fully described in Cornbleth & Waugh, 1995/1999, ch.2). Simply and directly, a pragmatic concern is evident in the questioningof whether and how social conditions and events outside schools influ-ence classroom curriculum practice. A critical concern is evident inexploring the question of who benefits, collectively and individually,

2150 Teachers College Record

socially and politically, as well as pedagogically, from one or another echoeffect. The intent of this work is to better our understanding of theschool-society nexus generally and, more specifically, of curriculum prac-tice and change in relation to societal conditions and events.

In the past two decades, there have been noteworthy projects toexplore the contexts of curriculum and teaching and to link context fac-tors to classroom practices (e.g., Cornbleth, 1990, 2000; McLaughlin,Talbert, & Bascia, 1990; McNeil, 1986; Onosko & Newmann, 1994;Romanowski, 1996; Stodolsky & Grossman, 1995; Talbert, McLaughlin, &Rowan, 1993). This work has been useful in mapping the territory andalerting curriculum makers and reformers. More recently, an effort toexpand the explanatory power of research on context led to an examina-tion of relevant studies to see how context factors seemed to connect orinteract to shape curriculum practice and student learning opportunities(Cornbleth, 2001). Particularly interested in what appears to get in theway of curriculum and teaching for meaningful learning and criticalthinking that incorporate diverse perspectives and students, fiveresearch-based “climates” of constraint were identified: (1) law and orderclimate, (2) conservative climate, (3) climate of censorship challenge,(4) climate of pathology and pessimism, and (5) competitive climate oftesting and public ranking. Not much attention was paid, however, tohow these climates came to be.

Reexamining data and interpretations from several research projectsindicates that the echoes of events outside schools impact what teachersteach and how they teach it (i.e., classroom curriculum practice) whilethe specifics of the events themselves may fade from memory or aware-ness. A clear implication is that educators, researchers, and policy mak-ers attend to the echoes and the events per se in their efforts to under-stand and shape what occurs in schools and classrooms. Redirecting orrefocusing attention would likely yield greater understanding and moresuccessful reform efforts. This project and its elaboration of the con-struct of echo effects can be seen as part of an emerging movement incurriculum or sociocurricular studies that attempts to better understand,and then work with, the nuances and interplay of curriculum and con-text.

After describing the provenance of the conception of echo and echoeffects used here, research from four areas or cases is presented as illus-tration: (1) state-level curriculum policymaking; (2) school administratorperceptions and practices regarding censorship challenges; (3) teachers’responses to new or increased state testing in academic subject areas; and(4) teachers’ responses to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks inNew York City, outside Washington, D.C., and in western Pennsylvania,


and their aftermath. The intent is to indicate a conceptual and empiricalbasis for echoes and echo effects—and that they merit further investiga-tion—not to “prove” their existence as some sort of independent anddependent variables. In concluding, seeming patterns of effects arenoted, and implications for educators, researchers, and others interestedin what happens in schools and what students have opportunities to learnare indicated.

ECHOES AND ECHO EFFECTS

The notion of echo as a way to describe how phenomena emanating out-side schools seem to enter in and affect curriculum practice withinschools occurred to me during the week preceding the first anniversaryof the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 2001. The weekoffered numerous media, government, and other announcements ofplanned events to remember “9/11,” to commemorate the horrificevents of that date and their aftermath. There also were special programson television and National Public Radio (and probably elsewhere that wedid not experience personally). And there was a minor effort to renewthe “America Debate” as conservatives attacked the National EducationalAssociation for its Web site suggestions to educators for dealing with the9/11 anniversary in their schools and classrooms (see Rothstein, 2002).

In the midst of this first anniversary milieu, we wondered whetherone’s own remembrances and concerns might be reshaped or overtakenby media and other institutional re-presentations, or whether one couldeven separate events or accounts of events from their interpretations, re-presentations, or echoes. Would any influence of the terrorist attacks andtheir aftermath on teachers’ curriculum practice be carried by theechoes as much as, or perhaps more than, teachers’ initial experience ofevents directly or even as “originally” mediated by news reports or theaccounts of friends, family members, or acquaintances? Perhaps theechoes become an integral part of the events as they are socially con-structed and reconstructed over time and changing circumstance.

Part of the Climates of Opinion project mentioned above involved latespring 2002 interviews with English and social studies teachers aboutchanges in their teaching practice (changes in either what or how theytaught) during the 2001–2002 school year. After open-ended questions,we asked several “what about” questions, including “What about theeffects, if any, of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and their aftermath?” How,we wondered, might responses differ a year later, and what might accountfor any differences? What role, if any, would echoes of September 11,2001, play?


The echo notion prompted recollection of an earlier project examin-ing multicultural politics and state-level curriculum policymaking(Cornbleth & Waugh, 1995/1999) in which we observed that profes-sional and public talk about the policies being made seemed to reach andinfluence some educators apart from the policies themselves. Echoes ofthe surrounding discourse could be heard in teachers’ talk and practice.The interpretations or re-presentations of curriculum policy are poten-tial practice-shaping echoes regardless of whether they reflect the policymakers’ intent. More recently, in investigating “climates of constraint” oncurriculum and teaching (Cornbleth, 2001), Adler’s (1993) documenta-tion of the chilling effects of censorship challenges in one school districton others, which she called “echo effects,” was striking. No doubt her lan-guage has influenced my thinking. The apparent effects of new orincreased state testing, also part of the constraints investigation, furthersuggested that teacher talk about the tests may become self-sustainingand influential apart from the actual tests and the use of their results.More echoes. The easy availability of evidence seeming to support theecho interpretation does not, of course, rule out the possibility of excep-tions or counterexamples and contrary evidence that we have notencountered during extensive literature searches. It does, however, sug-gest the desirability of rethinking assumptions about how social contextshapes curriculum policy and practice.

Before venturing too far with the echo metaphor, it seemed prudent toexamine its meaning in an academic or scientific context.

SOUND WAVES AND EHOES

Echoes result from the reflection of sound waves off the surfaces theyencounter. We seem to hear the initial sound repeated or mirrored,either as in the original or with some distortion. For example, a curvedsurface like a satellite dish will focus sound waves and amplify the sound.Consider the types of surfaces and surface curves as the intent, bias, orpoint of view of the mediators of external events.

In addition to transmission and reflection, sound waves can beabsorbed or diffracted. Sound is diffracted when waves move through anopening or around an edge of an obstacle, resulting in intensification orcancellation of sound. Consider how some external events, or accountsof them, seem to be diverted or to fade from public notice, whereas oth-ers seem to claim center stage for extended periods. The so-called mediaecho chamber is not neutral.2


SOCIAL-CURRICULAR ECHO EFFECTS

Various professional, private, and local discourses—as well as mass mediaand public discourses—are sources of echoes of social phenomena andcarriers of potential echo effects on curriculum policy and practice. Thesocial phenomena of interest here are external (to schooling) events,conditions, and issues, or movements such as the civil rights movement.Those who shape the debates and the prevailing discourse about socialphenomena also shape the echoes that enter into classroom curriculumpractice directly or indirectly via policy channels. The echoes of interestmay appear as a word or phrase, a story, a symbol, or an image. They maybe communicated by a range of means, from word-of-mouth to massmedia. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have come to be sym-bolized by the oft-repeated and now iconic video images of “the twin tow-ers” ablaze and imploding as a large plane flies into one of them. Theplane crashing into the Pentagon and the crashed plane in westernPennsylvania within minutes that same morning seem to have faded frompublic memory. That image of the twin towers is the media-induced echoof the terrorist attacks. The shorthand referent, 9/11, seems to stand formuch less than what happened that day in some instances, and muchmore (including subsequent events) in others. Echoes can reduce andsimplify, or amplify and embellish, as in “blowing all out of proportion”in the case of “WMDs.” Importantly, they are repeated or reappearing,often becoming a taken-for-granted part of one’s everyday life.

The echo-creating surfaces, such as individuals and organizations, thatenter into the prevailing discourse—both shaping and being shaped byit—do not merely reflect or bounce back the original. Their reflectioninvolves interpretation, mediation, or filtering shaped by a host of fac-tors. Consider, for example, the factors likely influencing Fox “News” por-trayals of ongoing disputes over the teaching of evolutionary theoryand/or creationism or “intelligent design” in science classes—or portray-als of the NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) or your localschool community.

Although careful review has not revealed specific reference to massmedia as echo-makers in the scholarly literature, there is abundant evi-dence of media (mis-)interpretation of social phenomena and apparentmedia shaping, as well as reporting of public opinion (e.g., Anastasio,Rose, & Chapman, 1999), that is relevant to the echo effects of interesthere. In their research review, Anastasio et al. cited a study by Gilens of“the actual and media-portrayed racial makeup of America’s poor” (p.153) in Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report between 1988 and


1992. Of particular interest are the accompanying pictures of people inpoverty, 62% of whom were African American. The actual proportion ofthe poor who were African American at that time was 29%. In surveys,Americans overestimated the proportion of poor Americans who areBlack, as did the editors of the three news magazines. A majority ofAmericans believed that there are more Blacks than Whites in poverty.Further, “among white respondents to the 1990 General Social Survey,Gilens found a negative correlation between perceptions of the percent-age of blacks in poverty and support for welfare” (Anastasio et al., p. 153).

Two aspects of Anastasio et al.’s (1999) review are especially relevant.First, the mass media at times misrepresent phenomena, unintentionallyor purposefully, and in so doing may shape the public opinion that theypresumably seek to report or reflect in their “news.” Second, becausemedia functions “as a window to the outside world, what appears acrossits landscape actually may become people’s reality” (p. 153), especially asthe message is repeated or echoed. The media echoes become the events.

Hutcheson, Domke, Billeaudeaux, and Garland (2004) also showedhow mass media can create echoes and shape public opinion, here bymeans of their selection of spokespersons who are quoted and by theirown take on events. They conducted a systematic content analysis of allstories about the terrorist attacks in the first five issues of Time andNewsweek published after September 11, 2001, using the source of infor-mation as their unit of analysis (1) U.S. government and military officials;(2) other U.S. elites (e.g., experts, former officials); (3) U.S. citizens(e.g., people on the street); and (4) journalists (the story authors). Ofparticular interest were the national identity-related themes mentionedby each source (e.g., attribution of blame for the terrorist attacks,American values) and the valence of comments about each theme, frompositive to neutral or mixed to critical. Among their findings were thatU.S. government and military officials were significantly more likely toinclude national identity-related themes in their quoted comments thanwere the other two groups, and they were more positive about the UnitedStates compared with elites, who were more analytical. U.S. citizens’ viewswere closer to those of the officials than to those of the elites.Importantly, except for the September 11 special issues, the journalistsclosely paralleled the military and government officials’ discourse butnot that of elites or citizens.

Hutcheson et al. (2004) suggested that the news media not only reliedon government and military officials as sources “and were exposed toconsistent expressions of bipartisanship and unity among U.S. politicalleaders following September 11” but also were likely to apportion theirstories accordingly, “echoing many of the same nationalist themes as gov-


ernment leaders” (p. 46). They concluded that their data point to “theinexorable intertwining of political leaders and mass media, particularlynews media, in the construction, articulation, and dissemination ofnational identity” (p. 47). Their findings also show how some echoes arecreated.

Here, mass media refers not only to news magazines but also to theInternet, radio, TV, and hard-copy print sources such as newspapers andmagazines. TV is often cited as particularly ubiquitous in contemporaryAmerican life and therefore influential. With cable and satellite havecome a proliferation of channels to choose from, including 24-hour“news” programming. This expansion, and resulting competition foraudience, has resulted not only in repetition of “news” but also in moreso-called punditry and infotainment, and niche “news” that caters to oneor another demographic grouping or political-ideological leaning.Whereas recycling of news items can be seen as reverberation (i.e., rapidreflection of sound waves that prolongs the original sound), a prolongingthat can either increase impact or lead to tuning out, the competitioncan lead to polarizing distortions. More on the media’s apparent role isprovided in the cases to follow and in the concluding commentary.

On the level of individuals as echo makers, a veteran high schoolteacher and department chair comes to mind. He related that he doesn’tpay much attention to what comes out of Albany (meaning policies andregulations from the state government and its education department).He does consider, and usually acts on and echoes to teachers in hisdepartment, what his district subject area coordinator and his principalsay about new policies and regs (regulations), and he takes the requiredstate exams and the buzz surrounding them very seriously. Thus, he isresponding to the policy echoes rather than the state policies per se,which he had not read (and apparently did not intend to read).Importantly, the coordinator, principal, and chair do not simply mirrorthe policies and regulations. Their interpretations shape the policyechoes that they transmit.

Echo effects are indicated by the taking up or use of the re-presenta-tions of events, as illustrated in the four cases to follow. Teachers andother school personnel, for example, appropriate the echo language anddiscourse or refer to it among reasons given for their curriculum prac-tice. For instance, a team leader might say that his school is not using aparticular novel or reader because of the uproar it caused in a neighbor-ing district. In this manner, the echoes of curriculum challenges else-where, likely communicated through a local professional network, yieldecho effects in the form of self-censorship. If the reasons given for not using the novel or reader pertained to costs, reading difficulty, or


compatibility with state exams—but not censorship experiences elsewhere—echo effects would not be indicated.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

Four cases are offered to document echoes of events, conditions, orissues that indicate echo effects on school and/or curriculum policy andpractice. The first is our own study of multicultural politics and state-levelcurriculum policymaking.

“TOO MUCH MULTICULTURALISM”

Between 1989 and 1995, the New York State Commissioner of Educationappointed three committees to review state curriculum guides and offeradvice as to how they might better reflect and serve the increasinglydiverse population of the state. The first focused on social studies andproduced a report entitled A Curriculum of Inclusion that provoked a pub-lic fury all out of proportion to its content and the number of people whoactually read it. The report was never officially published by the StateEducation Department, perhaps because of the immediate and virulentbacklash.

The phrases of a few individuals critical of A Curriculum of Inclusion cir-culated widely and were amplified by repetition in the press and othermedia (see Cornbleth & Waugh, 1995/1999, ch. 4)3—for example, pro-moting tribalism (or Balkanization), leading to a Tower of Babel, ethniccheerleading. The gist of these echoes was that the report recommendedrewriting (i.e., distorting) history to favor pluralism over national unity.

The echoes can be seen to have shaped the establishment of a secondstatewide committee, a so-called blue ribbon panel appointed to providerecommendations for social studies curriculum revision in New YorkState that would be more representative of who “we” are (i.e., more mul-ticultural) and gain wide acceptance. Influence was evident in the con-cerns voiced by various committee members to avoid inflammatory lan-guage or appear too radical, especially in any communication with themedia.

Influence also was evident in the kid-glove treatment of historianArthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., one of the most outspoken and oft-quoted crit-ics of the Curriculum of Inclusion report. Schlesinger declined member-ship but agreed to serve as a consultant to the blue ribbon panel. Heeventually wrote one of seven “reflections” included in the panel’s June1991 report, One Nation, Many Peoples. It was one of the two self-labeleddissents. In it, Schlesinger worried about the likely Balkanizing and other


ill effects of what he had earlier characterized as “too much multicultur-alism.” The two more conservative, dissenting views received as much ormore media attention as the report itself. External critics (e.g., DianeRavitch) also had their views repeated extensively in the media.

Schlesinger’s undefined “too much multiculturalism” echoed through-out the third, statewide implementation committee’s deliberations from1992 to 1995. It was repeated more than once by more than one memberof that committee in a cautionary manner, usually with lowered voice, asif we all knew what was meant and most of us agreed. “If Arthur’s worried,then I think we should be too,” was one school district administrator’sway of putting it during a committee meeting (Cornbleth & Waugh,1995/1999, p. 138). Names like Schlesinger, Ravitch, and Shanker (thenpresident of the American Federation of Teachers), but especiallySchlesinger, were frequently referenced with deference to support a“moderate” position against “radical” change in social studies curriculumpolicy. Echoing Schlesginger’s dissenting reflection in One Nation, ManyPeoples, one teacher member of the committee commented that “readingbetween the lines of One Nation, Many Peoples, there’s too much diversity”(p. 139). The effect, eventually, was to “mute multiculturalism” in the cur-riculum policy that emerged (see Cornbleth & Waugh, ch. 5).

This case suggests that critique can echo longer, louder, and furtherthan other kinds of messages. My journalist coauthor referred to the crit-ics’ catchphrases as “catnip to the mainstream media” (Cornbleth &Waugh, 1995/1999, p. 19).4 The repetition or echoing of such cautionsas “too much multiculturalism” lent them an air of legitimacy and anappearance of consensus that served to shape social studies curriculumpolicymaking in New York State, and likely classroom curriculum prac-tice as well, either directly or indirectly via the standards and exams thatfollowed.

CENSORSHIP CHALLENGES

Whereas the press and other media played a key role in echoing and thusspreading and sustaining critiques of multiculturalism, in the case oflocal censorship challenges to subject matter, materials, or teaching-learning activities, the sources and sustenance of echo effects are morelikely to be face-to-face or via the grapevine or the local rumor mill.Actual or potential censorship efforts to limit or prohibit the expressionof some ideas or to control their treatment in classroom curriculum practice provide near irresistible grist for gossip, and soon “everybodyknows” about the incident—regardless of whether it even occurred or happened as reported. The echo effects, however, are quite real,


encouraging self-censorship in the absence of direct challenges in one’sown school or district.

Based on a 1993 mail survey of all California school districts, Adler(1993) reported that, of the approximately one third who responded,93% of the responding administrators indicated that they had read orheard about curriculum challenges in other districts (down slightly from95% two years earlier), and only 12% recalled that the incidents “werehandled routinely with little controversy” (p. 20).5 About half of therespondents recalled the incidents as being “somewhat contentious anddisruptive,” and about a third characterized them as “very disruptive”and/or causing the community “wide controversy” (p. 20).

Asked how they were influenced by what they heard about experiencesin other districts, only 13% of respondents reported that “they were notinfluenced at all” (Adler, 1993, p. 20). Although most said that they plancurriculum and materials adoption processes carefully so as to avoid con-troversies, and then make independent judgments, 9% reported thatthey “(a) would be less likely to adopt material challenged elsewhere, (b)might not consider items known to have caused contentious challenges,or (c) would not consider such materials” (p. 20). Adler provided clearevidence for what she termed an “echo effect” of curriculum challengeswherein challenges in one district are heard about and affect actions inother districts, where efforts are made to avoid similar challenges.

Most teachers and administrators prefer to avoid controversy. It is notdifficult to imagine one teacher saying to another, “If you hadn’t upsetthose parents by asking your students to analyze that far-out literature, wewouldn’t have them looking over our shoulders now!” Wanting theacceptance of colleagues, and tenure if one is a newcomer, few teacherstotally reject self-censorship. Censorship efforts do not have to be offi-cially successful to be effective in inducing self-censorship in the targetschool or district, or in neighboring ones. Over time, echo effects areseen to exacerbate the perceived threat of curriculum challenges andlead to self-censorship in the absence of actual challenge (e.g., Nelson,1983, 1991). Teaching for meaningful learning and critical thinking thatincorporates diverse perspectives and students is likely to suffer.

STATE-LEVEL STANDARDIZED TESTING

The echo effects associated with state-level standardized testing are of atleast two kinds. One is associated with the idea of accountability, specifi-cally that the testing somehow “ensures” accountability of educators andtherefore the quality, quantity, and distribution of student learning. Theabsence of evidence in support of these claims (and the irony of this


absence) seems not to bother advocates. Claiming the success of its NoChild Left Behind program, the Bush administration has been talkingabout extension of its testing-accountability provisions to high schools.Continuing echoes of testing-accountability claims by politicians, policymakers, and some educators have served to extend standardized testingin U.S. public schools.

As Airasian (1987) has shown, standardized tests symbolize the mainte-nance of order, standards, and traditional educational values and prac-tices. The general public also tends to see them as scientific, objective,and fair. Echoes (including those about testing and accountability) thatresonate with national narratives and values tend to have considerablestaying power. As with echoes critical of “too much multiculturalism,”repetition lends seeming legitimacy and apparent consensus.6

The second group of echo effects concerns the narrowing of curricu-lum and student learning both through teaching to the test and spend-ing more time on subjects that are tested (and less or no time on thosethat are not). Evidence regarding the control and narrowing of curricu-lum knowledge made available to students indicates that effects are espe-cially marked in “lower performing schools” (e.g., Airasian, 1987, 1988;Cimbricz, 2002). Just recently, the superintendent of the Buffalo PublicSchools announced a plan to “scale back instruction in technology, art,music and home and careers at 20 low-performing schools so studentscan spend more time studying English and math” to raise test scores(Simon, 2006). Students in Grades 7 and 8 at these schools will have dou-ble periods of English daily and double periods of math every other day.Similar curriculum changes, particularly in low-performing schools orfor students who test below grade level in reading and math, are occur-ring across the United States, according to a New York Times report(Dillon, 2006) of a nonpartisan nationwide survey conducted by theCenter on Education Policy.

The core of this echo effect is on teaching to the test, which oftenmeans some form of “drill and practice” (sometimes referred to as “drilland kill”) or rote learning—without any evidence that such curriculumpractices improve student test scores or their learning. Teachers, includ-ing those in our graduate classes, reported feeling pressured to preparestudents for the tests so that they score well. Sometimes they referred toparticular administrator actions as the source of that pressure (e.g., dis-play of charts showing how each teacher’s students fared, verbal urgingsto raise the school’s or district’s ranking). At other times, it seemed thatthe teachers themselves were echoing others and adding to any externalpressures by telling war stories and trying to one-up each other, as in,“You think that’s bad. Let me tell you what happened to [so-and-so] at my


school last week.” It is as if the teachers’ (and other school personnel’s)talk about the tests, test scores, and public rankings has become self-sus-taining and influential apart from the actual testing and uses of testresults. Evidence consistent with this view is provided by Segall (2006).His interviews with Michigan social studies teachers about state testingrevealed that teachers’ interpretations of, and responses to, the tests wereshaped less by objective features of the tests and their uses than by teach-ers’ perceptions. These perceptions “are not constructed by the test itselfbut are given definition and body through teachers’ experiences with thetest and the broader discourses and practices surrounding it that theyencounter” (p. 109) from school culture, state activity, and local media.The perceptions and stories bounce off one another, creating a lingeringecho, or “buzz.” The echo effects, as in the case of censorship challenges,too often limit curriculum opportunities for meaningful learning andcritical thinking that incorporate diverse perspectives and students.

TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPETEMBER 11, 2001

As noted earlier, it was the terrorist attacks and their aftermath, and anassociated research project exploring how they appeared to affect teach-ers’ classroom curriculum practice that prompted me to pursue thenotion of echo effects. By the first anniversary of the 2001 terroristattacks, “9/11” had become well-established shorthand for the events,and the dominant image or symbol was of the World Trade Center’s twintowers crumbling down in flames. We wondered how many peoplerecalled that planes also were crashed into the Pentagon and westernPennsylvania countryside. In any event, it seemed that memories of theevents of September 11, 2001, and their aftermath have been shaped orovertaken by media and other institutional re-presentations. We came todoubt that most people, ourselves included, could separate the events, or“original” experiences or accounts of events, from their subsequent inter-pretations, re-presentations, or echoes.7 The echoes of the terroristattacks—especially 9/11 and the iconic image of the twin towers—havesharpened and simplified them.

Evidence of echo effects in this case comes from Climates of Opinionproject interviews with a convenience sample of 18 western New Yorkmiddle and high school teachers—4 English teachers and 14history/social studies teachers—in the spring of 2002, and of a small sub-set of 5 history/social studies teachers after the first anniversary of theattacks in the fall of 2002 (Cornbleth, 2008). These are teachers, knownto me or to a member of the project staff, who were teaching at least oneof the same subjects and grade levels in 2001–2002 as in the previous year.


Reflecting male dominance of secondary social studies teaching, only 6of the 18 teachers were female, and 4 of the 6 taught middle schoolgrades. Suburban and small-town rural teachers outnumbered urbanteachers 10 to 7, with 1 teacher at a private parochial high school draw-ing male students from a wide area. Thirteen teachers taught at least oneclass with a state exam (Grade 8 or 11 English; Grade 8, 10, or 11 socialstudies). Three of the 18 teachers are African American (Marge, Jason,Judy); the others are European American. Finally, we distinguishedamong years of teaching experience as newer (1–3 years, not yettenured), experienced (4–11 years), and veteran (more than 11 years,actually 31–32 years). There were 7 newer teachers, 8 experienced teach-ers, and 3 veteran teachers in our sample. Although no claims to repre-sentativeness are appropriate, the sample can be described as a fair cross-section of secondary social studies teachers in the region, skewed towardthe more informed and professionally active.

Individual interviews, conducted either at the teacher’s school or theuniversity in the spring of 2002, lasted 40 minutes to an hour and wereaudiotaped and later transcribed. Following open-ended questions aboutany changes in their teaching during the past year (2001–2002) and thereasons for any changes mentioned, we asked about the possible influ-ence of several events or conditions, including 9/11 and its aftermath.Interview transcripts were reviewed on two separate occasions severalmonths apart. First, in response to our initial open-ended questionsabout any changes they had made in their teaching during the past year,both the changes and the influences teachers mentioned as affectingtheir curriculum practice were noted and then grouped into categoriesor kinds of changes in teaching and reasons for change. A similar induc-tive procedure was followed for any changes and reasons for changingclassroom curriculum practice that the teachers offered in response toour subsequent, more specific questions.

By the time of our interviews, public opinion had jelled in somerespects (e.g., support for President Bush and the “War on Terrorism”)and had begun to fragment in others (e.g., increasing opposition to pro-visions of the PATRIOT Act, which had been approved overwhelminglyby Congress in October 2001).

Echoes of the September 2001 terrorist attacks were quite prominentin the interview data. Although interviewers referred to “the terroristattacks of September 11, 2001,” all the teachers used the 9/11 shorthand,and several referred to the horror of seeing the exploding twin towersover and over again on television. The changes in their teaching that theydescribed as a result of the terrorist attacks and their aftermath (what wehave come to call “9/11+”) were largely of their own making. There was


very little reference to school, district, or administration guidelines aboutwhether or how to deal with the terrorist attacks, and only a few refer-ences to conversations with colleagues about what they did. These sec-ondary teachers seemed pretty much on their own at the beginning ofthe school year, a time when classes and curriculum are not yet set or set-tled in many schools.

Most of the teachers (14 of 18) said that they spent a fair bit or a lot ofclass time on 9/11+. Curriculum modifications or changes noted byteachers spanned changes in subject matter content selection and/ororganization (e.g., examining Muslim history and culture, juxtaposingearly and contemporary Muslim societies) and in teaching strategies(e.g., responding to student questions in an open-ended discussion for-mat), making it difficult to separate them analytically. The most fre-quently mentioned kinds of curriculum response to 9/11+, reported byat least one third of the teachers, were (1) discussion, including provid-ing perspective on, or connecting past experience/history with, unfold-ing events; (2) open-ended discussion prompted by student questions;(3) relating 9/11+ to curriculum topics to aid student comprehension;and (4) various activities, such as writing letters and a thematic literatureunit on war. Although more than one third of the teachers providedbackground information (e.g., about Islam) and tried to foster toleranceof difference (e.g., religious diversity, respect for “A-rabs”), fewer teach-ers explicitly mentioned dealing with the Constitution and Bill of Rightsor treatment of civil liberties past and present. Among the most promi-nent reasons that teachers offered for curriculum changes were studentinterest in or concern about 9/11+, its curriculum relevance, and howconnecting curriculum topics to some aspect of 9/11+ made the subjectmatter more understandable and meaningful for students.8

Although changes in curriculum practice are obvious, it is less clearwhen “actual” events as impetus were transformed by, or gave way to,their media and popular echoes. By the first anniversary of the terroristattacks, the transformation seems near complete. The 5 teachers we rein-terviewed came from three high schools: one urban, one suburban, andone small-town rural. All three schools observed one or more momentsof silence on September 11, 2002, in recognition of the plane crashes inNew York City, at the Pentagon, and in western Pennsylvania. Theseobservances likely were in response to a memo from the New York gover-nor, distributed by the State Education Department, requesting suchmoments of silence. Beyond that, “doing something” was up to individualteachers. Two conducted planned anniversary activities; the others fol-lowed their students’ lead with conversation or discussion (seeCornbleth, 2008).


One of the urban teachers stands out for his efforts to address mediaportrayals directly. He is the only teacher in our sample who taughtsenior electives and 12th-grade government and economics. Rod savedand brought to class on September 11, 2002, the final edition local news-papers from September 11 and 12, 2001, for students to review. He toldus,

We looked at how things change in a year . . . we actually passedthem [the newspapers] around and looked at them, and we sawwhat was going on then, and now we see a difference between 1year, 1 year [and the next], how things worked. I’m lucky enoughto have cable in the classroom. We saw a lot of the different, howshall I say, memorials or presentations going on that day, yaknow, at certain times. At 8:47 a.m. they started reading offnames in the World Trade Center site and they named, atanother time when the other plane crashed, they went to visit theplane crash site, they went to the Pentagon, so we saw a lot of that. . . so I tried to show different forms of media, the TV media andthe print media and how they’ve changed over the last year, howtheir coverage has changed.

Asked why he decided on this activity, Rod explained,

Well, we as a society watch a lot of TV or see the media controlour society, and it was something that was looming, that date waslooming, September 11th, the first anniversary coming up. I feltwe should address it. When they go home at night and watch TVor try to watch whatever they watch, more than likely it will prob-ably be preempted with some other September 11th memorialprogram, so I figured if they were going to be seeing so much ofit outside of school, why not try to deal with some of it inside ofschool and clarify what these TV programs are trying to do, whatthese news stations are trying to do, and show them that thereare other sources to get your information than just the TV.Because I know they got inundated with all this stuff and a lot ofthem were kind of angered or sad at this because it’s a big hypesituation and it had . . . like a Super Bowl, ya know, the Fox 29and “see our coverage. Our coverage will be better than theother ones.”

Rod was the only teacher to specifically mention the 9/11 terroristattack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and to note the


plane crash in western Pennsylvania. For others, the media-inducedshorthand, 9/11, and the iconic image of the exploding twin towers seemto have taken hold to symbolize the events of that day. Soon after, thephrase war on terrorism also gained wide usage. Later in the interview,when Rod talked more generally about making “the kids more aware ofthe media presence in their life” and that they are the “demographic thatmost advertisers want,” the interviewer asked if he purposely connected9/11 and “this idea of the role of the media.” Rod responded strongly:

Oh, I’m making it explicit as to now, ever since that day, 9/11, Ithink the media has been more of an impactor [sic], influencein our life. I think the media now has more of a role because thatday everyone was dependent on watching news that day to getinformation. Who’s next, what’s next?

By this point in late 2002, the initial visceral reactions to the terroristattacks had ebbed, and superpatriotism, both in explicit display and inimplicit decisions to mute questions about government policy, was break-ing up as the Bush administration was heading toward war with Iraq.Beyond the first anniversary, continuing impact of the echoes of 9/11+was evident in teachers’ reported attention to current events, sometimeswith direct curriculum links, and in using 9/11+ to illustrate curriculumtopics and issues—as much to engage students and to enhance their cur-riculum comprehension as for knowledge of 9/11+ per se. Teacher-reported curriculum modifications in 2001–2002 and 2002–2003 seem atleast roughly similar in kind, if not in extent or emotional intensity. Thissimilarity and, with the exception of Rod, the relatively narrow range ofteachers’ responses one year later in 2002–2003 suggest the power ofecho effects.

Examination of published research studies about teacher curriculumresponses to 9/11+ for evidence for or against echo effects did not revealrelevant data. Craig (2006), for example, described the Shadows of NewYork mural created by an elementary school art teacher and her studentsafter September 11. Craig’s focus is on the art-making experience andthe difficulty of “disseminating” such curriculum in meaningful ways.September 11 itself receives little attention and is referred to onlyobliquely, as if we all know “the events of September 11, 2001” that“shocked the world”—“the September 11 disaster,” “the September 11tragedy,” or “the unprecedented angst that the events of September 11stirred in Americans of all ages” (p. 276). The events themselves are notmentioned, nor is the World Trade Center or the twin towers. There isone mention of “what became widely known as ‘Ground Zero’” (p. 276).


Overall, there has been more recognition of echoes and possible echoeffects in media than in education research.

CONCLUDING COMMENT

Echoes and apparent echo effects on curriculum policy and classroompractice such as those considered here are important because theydemonstrate one means by which events and “social forces” enter intopublic and professional discourses and that discourses matter. Discoursehere refers to the prevailing language (including symbols, slogans, andimages) and the parameters and manner of argument or rules of engage-ment, both tacit and explicit. Discourses matter because they shape pub-lic and professional opinion, education and curriculum policy, and class-room practice. Political and policy discourses, for example, may be aspowerful influences on curriculum practices as the policies eventuallymade, or more so (e.g., Cornbleth, 2000).

More than 50 years ago, journalist and public intellectual WalterLippmann observed that “he [or she] who captures the symbols by whichthe public feeling is for the moment contained, controls by that muchthe approaches of public policy” (cited in Alterman, 1992, p. 10).Lippmann’s observation about the power of symbols, and the power toshape policy by capturing or controlling public symbols, can be seen toinclude echoes and their effects in the education arena (e.g., higher stan-dards, accountability). A generation later, Foucault’s (1970) analysis ofpower, knowledge, and discourse began to gain a receptive audience incritical educational studies.

Power, Foucault observed, resides not only in individuals and groupsbut also, and perhaps more important, in social organizations, institu-tions, and systems—in their familiar, formal, or authoritative roles andrelationships (such as school bureaucracy and high school teacher) andin their less obvious, historically shaped and socially shared conceptionsand symbols (such as achievement and 9/11). The prevailing discourse—both the language and manner of argument—selectively echoes socialphenomena.

In contemporary society, power increasingly operates through the def-inition (and redefinition) of socially shared conceptions and symbols,and through definition of appropriate patterns of communication,including rules of reason and rationality—what Foucault (1970) hascalled “regimes of truth.” Discursive practices delimit a domain by speci-fying what is to be included and what is not. The definition of a legitimateperspective (or perspectives) and the fixing of norms for conceptualelaboration also can be seen to encourage some echoes and to deflect or


stifle others. The widespread, if implicit, definition of patriotism after9/11 as unquestioning support for the United States as represented by itspresident and administration (i.e., the White House), for example,squelched most critique of the so-called PATRIOT Act and opposition tothe congressional resolution authorizing the president to use militaryforce against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Consider also how “too much multiculturalism” can delimit and shapethe debate about more inclusive or multicultural curriculum policy andpractice—ironically, perhaps, by excluding as illegitimate views that are“too inclusive.” The prevailing discourse about state-level standardizedtesting as accountability also can be seen to delimit, shape, and dominatequestions of educational quality, equity, and student achievement.Alternative conceptions of the issues are effectively excluded from thepublic main stage.

The desire to participate in a professional or public debate—to beheard and perhaps to influence others—misses the key point that thedebate already has been shaped or framed by others, thus limiting theavailable options or “acceptable” positions to be taken. Attempting toreshape the debate without being derided as out of bounds or simply dis-missed as irrelevant requires considerable discursive and political skill.

Discursive practices are clearly not only of academic or theoreticalinterest inasmuch as they both derive from and enter into everyday prac-tice. Moreover, their pervasiveness often renders them unseen and unac-knowledged. Particular discursive practices are not in any senseinevitable; they are constructed in specific times and places to serve par-ticular interests and, therefore, are amenable to reconstruction.

Echoes seem to have power to affect practice on their own primarily byframing issues and focusing attention. They gain persuasive power, how-ever, as they are incorporated into prevailing public and professional dis-courses. Incorporation tenders legitimacy and, along with repetition,increases the likelihood of impact.

Echoes of “social forces” and events external to schooling are not, ofcourse, determinative of curriculum policy or practice. Whether suchechoes have curricular effects, and what effects they have, is dependenton their being received or “heard” and on the extent to which they areperceived or interpreted in ways (1) compatible with one’s values and pri-orities and (2) feasible to act on in current circumstances (given one’sassessment of the situation, one’s political and professional skills, and soforth). So, for example, not all New York State committee members orteachers agreed with “too much multiculturalism,” not all Californiaadministrators reported being especially concerned about curriculumchallenges, and not all teachers narrow curriculum to teach primarily or


solely to standardized tests. Rather than dismiss echo effects because oftheir variability, the implications are to examine the conditions underwhich echo effects are stronger or weaker and perhaps to attempt tomanage (e.g., deflect) the echoes themselves.

A related but slightly different interpretation of echoes and theireffects on curriculum policy, practice, and change sees echoes as shapingand strengthening prevailing climates of opinion that in turn can be seento affect practice (e.g., Cornbleth, 2008). Climate refers to a broader andlonger lasting set of conditions than the temperature or weather on anygiven day. A climate of opinion cannot be captured by a single opinionpoll. Borrowing from meteorology, climate is a pattern of prevailing con-ditions affecting the life and activity of a place and time period.Sometimes the prevailing conditions are tangible, such as strong winds orthe lobbying of organized interest groups. Although a climate of opinionmay be less tangible or particular, it is indicated by such evidence. So, themore strongly nationalistic or patriotic climate of opinion in the UnitedStates following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, is referencedby, among other indicators, the showing of the American flag, numerousopinion polls and anecdotal accounts carried in the mass media, and thewaning of dissent. The echoes of “9/11,” “the twin towers” and, not longafter, the “war on terrorism,” have been incorporated into this climate ofopinion and have come to signal it.

It seems preferable to refer to the influence of echoes, discourses, orclimates of opinion rather than to the influence of associated events,social conditions, or trends directly because it is how those events-condi-tions-trends are widely perceived and interpreted that matters both inand out of school. The perceptions-interpretations-definitions may bewrong, of course, but that is another matter.9

By simplifying and calling attention to phenomena, if not providingfocus, echoes make conditions external to schooling more manageablethan otherwise. For various reasons, teachers (and other educators andpolicy makers) cannot attend directly to all or even most events, condi-tions, issues, movements, or policies relevant to their work. Consequently,like the veteran high school social studies department chair noted earlier,teachers may choose to pay attention to what “gets through” to them viaadministrators and perhaps also via colleagues, family members, friends,or the media. A main concern is that teachers and others recognizeechoes as such and question them, especially those that seem catchy orotherwise compelling. Recognize also that waiting for the echoes beforeacting may save time and energy but also puts one in a reactive position.

An example is provided by a ninth-grade global history teacher whoinvolved his students in a project to examine local media coverage of the


“Iraq War” (Leahey, 2004). Students needed, Leahey said, “to be exposedto much more than the slogans that were being transmitted in the news-papers, on the radio, and on television” (p. 280) and to “critically evalu-ate the way the media frames information” (p. 280). Although not usingecho language, Leahey’s students are encountering and examining whatcould be called an echo phenomenon.

Future research might well investigate the presence and operation ofecho effects in various education settings, from state or school districtpolicymaking circles through district and school-level curriculum reformefforts to team and individual teacher planning. Alternatively, the impactof a dramatic event and/or its echoes on curriculum practice might bemonitored and documented. Another line of research might examinepolicy maker, administrator, or teacher awareness of echoes and howawareness affects their responses in terms of curriculum practice.

A final, personally disturbing observation is that the cases of echoeffects offered here all contribute, though in varying degrees, to climatesof constraint and the narrowing of curriculum policy and practice. It maybe that the echoes that catch on and impact curriculum do so becausethey resonate well with local or national values, priorities, and narratives.For example, “too much multiculturalism” threatens national unity,whereas “9/11+” threatens national security. Censorship challenges areto be avoided because controversy and conflict are divisive and stressful.Testing as accountability promises equity and progress, economic andpolitical as well as individual and pedagogical, even as it limits curriculumopportunities to learn in some, perhaps many, schools. The cumulativecurriculum effects of these echoes appear to sustain more than challengethe status quo.

With greater awareness and understanding of how external influenceson curriculum policy and practice enter in and operate—for example, asechoes or encompassing discourses or climates of opinion—we are betterable to raise questions and attempt to reshape curricular and other edu-cational issues, not merely to participate in the debates on terms set byothers or be swept along by default.

Notes

1. Although the Climates of Opinion project has been funded in part by the BaldyCenter, School of Law, University at Buffalo, the interpretations offered here are entirelymy own. My thanks to the participating teachers and to Prof. Pixita del Prado Hill of BuffaloState College, and UB graduate students Colleen Maloney-Berman and Martha San Filippofor their assistance with data collection and analysis.

2. Although I find “echoes” a useful metaphor for understanding the social and cur-riculum phenomena examined here, I am wary of carrying them too far. The “hall of mir-rors,” however, does come to mind on occasion.


3. Empirical data come from descriptive narrative field notes from state committeemeetings attended by one of the authors, tape recordings from committee meetingsattended by the other author, news reports, and public documents. The California authoralso visited several Bay Area classrooms to see firsthand how teachers were dealing with mul-ticulturalism.

4. Avery and Johnson (1999) reported similar dominance of conservative criticalsources in their systematic content analysis of news articles dealing with the national historystandards in national and regional newspapers from 1994 to 1998.

5. Adler (1993) described her sample as “fairly representative” of school districtsstatewide, with smaller districts being underrepresented (p. 7).

6. Opposing “too much multiculturalism” in the interests of national unity also can beseen, at least by multiculturalism’s critics, to resonate with national narratives and values.

7. Neither the teachers we interviewed nor most other people were directly involved inthe terrorist attacks. Presumably, those who were directly involved have been less influencedby the events’ echoes.

8. The similarities between these findings and Merryfield’s (1993) from her study ofteachers’ curricular responses to the 1991 Gulf War and the reasons they gave for changingor not changing their practice suggest patterns rather than idiosyncrasy. The teacherresponses in each study varied, but they varied in similar ways across the two studies.

9. Note that I do not use “climate of opinion” as a presumed explanation of ideas as“surface ‘reflections’ of underlying social forces” (e.g., Wise, 1979, p. 295)—that is, in a pre-sumed base-superstructure model. Instead, I am suggesting that ideas, widely and stronglyheld, and “social forces” are mutually constitutive and can be usefully considered as cli-mates of opinion.

References

Adler, L. (1993). Curriculum challenges in California: Third statewide survey of challenges to cur-riculum materials and services. Fullerton: California State University. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED375475)

Airasian, P. W. (1987). State mandated testing and educational reform: Context and conse-quences. American Journal of Education, 95, 393–412.

Airasian, P. W. (1988). Symbolic validation: The case of state-mandated, high-stakes testing.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 301–313.

Alterman, E. (1992, July 19). The triumph of the punditocracy. Image, pp. 14–23.Anastasio, P. A., Rose, K. C., & Chapman, J. (1999). Can the media create public opinion?

A social-identity approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 152–255.Avery, P. G., & Johnson, T. (1999). How newspapers framed the U.S. history standards

debate. Social Education, 63, 220–224.Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers’ beliefs and practice: A review of

research. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2), 1–31.Cornbleth, C. (1990). Curriculum in context. London: Falmer Press.Cornbleth, C. (Ed.) (2000). Curriculum politics, policy, practice: Cases in comparative context.

Albany: State University of New York Press.Cornbleth, C. (2000). Viewpoints. In C. Cornbleth (Ed.), Curriculum politics, policy, practice:

Cases in comparative context (pp. 289–328). Albany: State University of New York Press.Cornbleth, C. (2001). Climates of constraint/restraint of teachers and teaching. In W. B.

Stanley (Ed.), Critical issues in social studies research for the 21st century (pp. 73–95).Greenwich, CT: Information Age.


Cornbleth, C. (2008). Climates of opinion and curriculum change. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 40(2), 143-168.

Cornbleth, C., & Waugh, D. (1999). The great speckled bird: Multicultural politics and educationpolicymaking. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (Original work published 1995)

Craig, C. J. (2006). Why is dissemination so difficult? The nature of teacher knowledge andthe spread of curriculum reform. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 257–293.

Dillon, S. (2006, March 26). Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math. The NewYork Times, pp. A-1, 16.

Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York:Pantheon.

Gilens, M. (1996). Race and poverty in America: Public misperceptions and the Americannews media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 515–541.

Hutcheson, J., Domke, D., Billeaudeaux, A., & Garland, P. (2004). U.S. national identity,political elites, and a patriotic press following September 11. Political Communication, 21,27–50.

Leahey, C. R. (2004). Examining media coverage: A classroom study of Iraq war news. SocialEducation, 68, 280–284.

McLaughlin, M. W., Talbert, J. E., & Bascia, N. (1990). The contexts of teaching in secondaryschools. New York: Teachers College Press.

McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of control. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Merryfield, M. M. (1993). Responding to the Gulf War: A case study of instructional deci-

sion making. Social Education, 57, 33–41.Nelson, J. L. (1983, September). Teacher self-censorship and academic freedom. The Social

Studies Professional, pp. 1, 2.Nelson, J. L. (1991). Communities, local to national, as influences on social studies educa-

tion. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 332–341). New

York: Macmillan.Onosko, J., & Newmann, F. (1994). Creating more thoughtful learning environments. In J.

Mangieri & C. Collins-Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students:Diverse perspectives (pp. 27–47). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Romanowski, M. H. (1996). Issues and influences that shape the teaching of U.S. history.In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 6, pp. 291–312). Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Rothstein, R. (2002). Conservatives, teachers unions and poisoned debate. The New YorkTimes. Retrieved September 4, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com/

Segall, A. (2006). Teaching in the age of accountability. In S.G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring his-tory: Cases of state-level testing across the United States (pp. 105–132). Greenwich, CT:Information Age.

Simon, P. (2006, February 22). Emphasis on English, math to be increased. The BuffaloNews. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from http://www.buffalonews.com

Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activ-ity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32,227–251.

Talbert, J. W., McLaughlin, M. W., & Rowan, B. (1993). Understanding context effects onsecondary school teaching. Teachers College Record, 95, 45–68.

Wise, G. (1979). “Paradigm dramas” in American studies: A cultural and institutional his-tory of the movement. American Quarterly, 31, 293–337.


CATHERINE CORNBLETH is professor, Graduate School of Education,University at Buffalo, State University of New York. Her research interestsare in curriculum practices and processes and in professional socializa-tion, particularly how prospective teachers “face difference” and learn toengage diversity. Recent publications include “Curriculum and Students:Diverting the Public Interest” in G. Ladson-Billings and W.F. Tate (Eds.),Education Research and the Public Interest (New York: Teachers CollegePress, 2006), and Diversity and the New Teacher: Learning from Experiences inUrban Schools (New York: Teachers College Press, 2008).

Echo Effects and Curriculum Change - TTU€¦ · Echo Effects and Curriculum Change 2149 riculum...

Documents

Transcript of Echo Effects and Curriculum Change - TTU€¦ · Echo Effects and Curriculum Change 2149 riculum...