CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Teacher Education and AssessmentsGlobal Educational Policies and ReformsEducational Assessment and Improvement

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Metrics, Standards and Alignment in Teacher Policy: Critiquing Fundamentalism and Imagining Pluralism

Holloway, Jessica·2021·Springer eBooks
DOI 10.1007/978-981-33-4814-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-981-33-4814-1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Untitled work

    Hulme, M. (2026) · Educational Action Research · doi:10.1080/09650792.2026.2626541 · Cited by 2

    “Education policy networks facilitate the travel of HQIM assumptions – ‘standards’, ‘alignment’, and narrow evidence forms – across the Anglosphere (Holloway 2021; Savage 2021).”

See all 28

Metadata

Authors
Holloway, J.
Affiliations
Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Holloway, Jessica
ORCID
Holloway, Jessica
Venue
Springer eBooks
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published
2021
DOI
10.1007/978-981-33-4814-1
OpenAlex
W4250721562
Cited by
28
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2
FWCI
10.13
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Springer eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Educational Policies and Reforms
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Improvement
Keywords
teacher policy, educational metrics, educational standards, compliance, teacher evaluation, standardization of teaching

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Metrics, Standards and Alignment in Teacher Policy: Critiquing Fundamentalism and Imagining Pluralism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-981-33-4814-1
The paper
Holloway, J. (2021). Metrics, Standards and Alignment in Teacher Policy: Critiquing Fundamentalism and Imagining Pluralism. Springer eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4814-1