Deze pagina gaat specifiek over de rekenstandaard zoals vastgelegd in de referentieniveaus rekenen van de Commissie-Meijerink, bekrachtigd in de Wet op de referentieniveaus taal en rekenen. De pagina standaarden.htm gaat over standaarden in het algemeen, hoe deze worden vastgesteld en geëvalueerd, hoe toetsen worden ontworpen op basis van standaarden, wat de resulatten zijn van onderwijs dat op standaarden wordt gestuurd.
Zie allereerst de reeks rekenblogs op het forum van BON, waarvan vele direct gaan over de referentieniveaus rekenen en de daarvan afgeleide rekentoetsen.
Heather C. Hill (2001). Policy Is Not Enough: Language and the Interpretation of State Standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 289-318. abstract
Dit artikel is een absolute aanrader.
Many curricula, including Saxon, have evolved their language toward the NCTM standards, talking of “strands” and “concepts” and “understanding” while retaining what appear to be more traditional lesson formats and content. Professional developers, likewise, argue that their product is “aligned” with the national standards, yet often offer a slightly different version of those standards than its authors might find preferable. Although these are not overt political challenges to reform like those that have occurred in California and other states, they are still political challenges, and are in some ways more deadly. Teachers and administrators adopt curricula or use professional development that employ national reformers’ language, and as a result feel assured their local work lines up well with external standards. Yet where similar words obscure differences in practice, this agreement in symbol thwarts any possibility of coming to agreement on meaning, for people seldom question what they think they understand.
Pamela A. Moss & Aaron Schutz (2001). Educational standards, assessment, and the search for consensus. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 37-70. abstract
Dit artikel is een absolute aanrader.
In this article, we critically examine the nature of the “consensus” reflected in educational standards used to orient high-stakes assessment programs. We analyze two complementary cases of practice in the assessment of teaching. One focuses on the discourse of standards creation and one examines how standards like these are typically used to orient assessment development and judgments about individual performance.
Thomas Popkewitz (2004). The Alchemy of the Mathematics Curriculum: Inscriptions and the Fabrication of the Child. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 3-34. abstract
The ways that children are talked about in research and policy literature do not vary significantly across school subjects. This is obvious in the curriculum standards of current school reforms (see Popkewitz & Gustafson, 2002). For instance, the national music curriculum standards are fundamentally about the child’s ability to participate through informed decision making or problem solving, develop skill in communication (defending an argument, working effectively in a group), produce high-quality work (acquiring and using information), and make connections with a community (acting as a responsible citizen). The national mathematics standards deploy a similar terminology, prescribing a path of cognitive development for children whereby they become autonomous and responsible for their own learning, problem solving, and thinking processes.
This article focuses on mathematics education as an exemplar of the alchemy that takes place in the school curriculum. It textually analyzes the inscription devices related to constructivist4 and social linguistic research traditions that are cited nationally and internationally in efforts for standardsbased reforms. My aim in the first section of the argument is to consider the standards of the standards-based reform (to play on a key term of contemporary school discourse) in its broader historical context of governing, that is, making the child legible and administrable for producing the future citizen.
Victor Schmidt, Ira Locartelli en Jos Tolboom (februari 2011). Concretisering referentieniveau 3S rekenen - voortgezet onderwijs. SLO. pdf