Elementary And Secondary Education Act Research Articles

Presidents, Congress, and the public schools: the politics of education reform

April 2015 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the landmark legislation that has provided the foundation of federal education policy in the United States. In Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools , longtime policy analyst Jack Jennings examines the evolution of federal education policy and outlines a bold and controversial vision for its future. Jennings brings an insiderAEs knowledge to this account, off ering a vivid analysis of federal efforts in the education arena and revealing some of the factors that shaped their enactment. His rich descriptions and lively anecdotes provide pointed lessons about the partisan climate that stymies much federal policy making today. After assessing the impact of Title I and NCLB, and exploring the variety of ways that the federal government has intervened in education, Jennings sets forth an ambitious agenda for reframing education as a federal civil right and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to learn.

Federal ESEA Waivers as Reform Leverage: Politics and Variation in State Implementation

Under President Obama, over 80 percent of states have received executive approval for waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act in the absence of Congressional reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). These comprehensive ESEA waivers have been quite ambitious, in that they were designed to address broad changes in K-12 education in nearly all fifty states and not in response to specific-state concerns or to foster experimentation on a focused set of issues. In reviewing the actual state implementation, we found that the Obama administration has enjoyed substantial success in using the waiver process to leverage states to adopt policy changes. But there are limits, as seen in the difficulties the administration has encountered in leveraging changes in teacher and principal evaluation, and inducing changes in student learning and performance standards. The major obstacles to the accomplishment of administration objectives are internal state political dynamics.

Fifty years later: A chance to get ESEA back on track

Looking at the evolution of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) over the last 50 years, this paper argues that many of the racial, social, and economic inequities of 1965 that President Johnson was hoping to address have only been accelerated. It’s not only time for a modern rethink on educational equity, but also a much broader set of metrics for policymakers to consider for determining the progress of students, families, educators and school systems. Some of these indicators include equitable resources, multiple measures of inputs and outputs, professional competence, meaningful measures of success, responsive parental engagement and a system of shared responsibility inside and outside of schools to foster student learning.

Alternate Assessments as One Measure of Teacher Effectiveness

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility requires states to develop and implement teacher effectiveness measures that consider student assessment results, including assessment results for students with disabilities participating in general and alternate assessments. We describe how alternate assessment results for students with significant cognitive disabilities could appropriately be used in teacher effectiveness measures. In addition, we discuss the unique parameters faced by teachers serving students with significant cognitive disabilities that may warrant a multiple measures approach to evaluating teacher effectiveness. Using one of the two national initiatives presently developing alternate assessments based on the Common Core State Standards as an example, we describe how these new assessments might be applied in measuring teacher effectiveness. Finally, we offer implications for both policy makers and practitioners in measuring teacher effectiveness for teachers serving students with significant cognitive disabilities participating in alternate assessments.

ESEA and the Civil Rights Act: An Interbranch Approach to Furthering Desegregation

To understand the impact of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Civil Rights Act in contributing to school desegregation, it is necessary to take an interbranch perspective that accounts for the ways in which interplay among the branches of the federal government occurred to further a policy agenda that would have been improbable had one branch acted alone. This paper examines the passage and implementation of the ESEA and the Civil Rights Act during the Johnson and Nixon years, considering how the legislative, judicial, and executive branches collaborated with each other to strengthen the impact of this legislation beyond what was initially conceived. Despite complex desegregation issues left unresolved, this period marks the only time when all branches of government employed their unique powers to implement and enforce desegregation, offering important insights into the ways in which the federal government can effectively accomplish progress in changing local practice on contentious civil rights issues.

Schooling the State: ESEA and the Evolution of the U.S. Department of Education

This article examines the evolution of the role of the “state” in American K–12 education and analyzes the history of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) through the entity responsible for its implementation, the U.S. Department of Education. More specifically, it explores how and why national administrative capacity and the design and implementation of federal policy in education in the United States underwent a dramatic shift between 1965 and 2014. It will address these questions through an analysis of the ways in which the mission and activities of the Department of Education have changed since the passage of ESEA in 1965. For the department to be effective in gaining states’ compliance with federal education policies, it needs sufficient statutory authority, administrative capacity, and political support. However, throughout most of the history of the department these resources have not been present.

Getting to Sesame Street? Fifty Years of Federal Compensatory Education

“Sunny day, sweeping the clouds away, On my way to where the air is sweet, Can you tell me how to get, How to get to Sesame Street?” —Stone and Hart Theme Song, Sesame Street Education research primarily draws from the social science disciplines of psychology and sociology (and to some extent, economics). Each of these disciplines contributes much to our understanding of education in complex societies. This article argues for the inclusion of anthropological or cultural perspectives in understanding the policy known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Rethinking culture might help policymakers be more aware of and challenged to include culture as an important construct to factor into decision-making when serving traditionally underserved communities.

The Common Goals and Elusive Solutions for Providing Access to Students with Visual Impairments to Standardized Testing

Horace Mann, an early American educational reformer, considered public education essential for democracy. In 1975, P.L. 94142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, expanded the rights to a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) further refined those rights. In 2001, No Child Left Behind, the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), was intended to improve education for all students. Every child, regardless of their circumstances, would achieve to high standards. If achievement was mandated, then how could schools demonstrate that all students were leaving school for college and careers? Assessment took on new significance as outcomes became ever more important for students, their teachers, and their schools. Yet major differences between schools in funding, community support, curriculum, and achievement still existed. Not all schools produced the same outcomes. Not all children with disabilities had access to a rigorous curriculum and highly qualified teachers. U.S. states began working to standardize the content of educational coursework. By doing so, a diploma would represent the same high standards across states and would emphasize necessary skills, particularly in reading and math. The U.S. Department of Education explained the intent was to close achievement gaps, promote rigorous accountability, and ensure that all students are on track to graduate, college and career ready (Department of Education, 2014). Enter the common core curriculum (which has been adopted by 43 states as of this writing) and on its heels a need for large-scale standardized testing. Twenty states have adopted tests from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (2014); 12 states and the District of Columbia have adopted tests created by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PAARC, 2014). Both companies are developing tests that will be taken and scored using computers. The past school year (2013-2014) was considered a practice year for these evaluations, an opportunity to test the online assessments and work out any issues. The 2014-2015 school year will be the first year in which these new testing systems will be fully implemented. The computerized tests have embedded and non-embedded supports (calculators on the screen, for example, or enlarged print). There are tools, supports, and in the Smarter Balanced platform. These supports are designed to provide universal accessibility at levels needed by students as designated in their Individualized Education Programs or 504 plans. PAARC provides both embedded and external accommodations. Although there were numerous problems during the trial phase, many of the issues that were identified have been reported and are being addressed. The biggest issues affected braille, readers who needed to have access to refreshable braille displays and tactile graphics printers or needed hardcopy braille with tactile graphics in order to take these tests. At this time, neither company appears to be fully prepared to facilitate access to braille readers in a smooth and coordinated fashion, and these accommodations may encounter additional obstacles in individual school settings. …

Reading, Writing, and Regulations: A Survey of the Expanding Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education Policy

Since its inception, the education system in the United States has been structured in a very decentralized way. The federal government has historically played a limited role in public schools, leaving the majority of decisions to be made at the state and local level. The extent of federal involvement began to widen, however, in 1965 with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). While the original legislation was relatively narrow in purpose, its scope broadened dramatically with subsequent amendments and reauthorizations. This study provides a survey of how federal education legislation and associated regulations have increased across time, highlighting the changes generated by the ESEA and its successors, as well as recent developments in programs like Race to the Top and Common Core. Both the descriptive summary and empirical measurements show strong?and sometimes very rapid?growth of federal influence.

Thirty-Seven and Counting: How Has AEFP Evolved from Its Origins?

It has been a busy time for the Association of Education Finance and Policy (AEFP). Over the past few years the association has acquired a new name, a new journal, and many new members. The 2012 annual conference, convened in Boston last March, proved to be the largest conference in the association’s thirty-seven-year history, with 556 members in attendance. The theme, selected by incoming president Deborah Cunningham, was “Education Finance, Policy, and Practice: The Role of Evidence in a Dynamic World,” which underscores the contemporary challenge to the association: how to apply an increasing abundance of information and sophisticated analytical tools to produce the evidence needed to guide decision making by educational policy makers and practitioners. The Boston meeting was notable not only for the number in attendance. The unique qualities and strengths of the association were in clear display: papers of unusual methodological rigor; an interdisciplinary mix of academics from the social sciences, public policy schools, and colleges of education; educational finance professionals, policy analysts, and practitioners, a mix rarely found in the same place; and sessions addressing today’s hot topics as well as issues that have endured over the years. Having said this, all indications are that AEFP is what it has always been: a small, diverse group of people tackling some really big problems. Of particular note was a trend that has been growing for years but has clearly come into full flower: the large

Public Policy Agenda Adapts to Needs

Public Policy Agenda Adapts to Needs

Federal Group Reviews Paperwork Burden in Schools

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderPolicy Analysis1 Sep 2012Federal Group Reviews Paperwork Burden in Schools Ingrida Lusis Ingrida Lusis Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.PA2.17112012.4 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Paperwork and other administrative burdens are a top concern of school-based speech-language pathologists and audiologists—as well as teachers and school administrators nationwide. And now an independent agency is recommending that the U.S. Department of Education do something about it. School districts and states that receive money from federal programs—including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and school meal programs—must complete myriad forms and data reports to comply with federal regulations. In July 2011, a congressional committee asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the paperwork burden. ASHA members have long indicated their concerns with paperwork and reporting requirements. In every ASHA survey [PDF] of school-based professionals since 2000 (conducted every two years), most SLPs (80%–88%) reported that a “high amount of paperwork” was their greatest professional challenge. Paperwork is listed as a top-level concern in ASHA’s 2012 public policy agenda, which calls for the association to “Develop paperwork reduction strategies in collaboration with critical stakeholders, including the educational community, disability advocates, parents/guardians/families, ASHA members and federal/state agencies.” The GAO, a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress to investigate how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars,reviewed the time and effort required in fiscal year 2011 to comply with the requirements of ESEA Title 1, IDEA Part B, and the National School Lunch and Schools Breakfast program. In its review, the GAO requested information from selected officials in three states and 12 school districts on the most burdensome requirement, the cost of complying with the requirements, and federal efforts already underway to reduce or eliminate onerous requirements. The report recommends that the Department of Education: Take additional steps to address duplicative reporting and data-collection efforts across programs. Work with stakeholders to identify unnecessarily burdensome statutory requirements and develop legislative proposals to help reduce or eliminate the burden. In the study, key stakeholders identified 17 federal requirements as complicated, time-intensive, or both. GAO also reported that several of these “most burdensome” requirements ask for duplicative data. Many of those 17 may have an impact on SLPs and audiologists in the schools: ESEA, Title I Part A (assistance to local educational agencies and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families) Academic assessments Adequate yearly progress data collection and reporting Alternative assessments Provision of services to eligible private school children State and district report cards Supplemental education services (SES) 20% obligation SES provider approval and monitoring IDEA, Part B (assistance for education of all children with disabilities) IDEA indicators Individualized education program (IEP) processing Transition from Part C to Part B Although stakeholders named these requirements as burdensome, they also identified some benefits for the data collection, including those related to IEP processing and to SES provider approval and monitoring. The report also found that states and school districts do not collect information about the cost to comply with federal requirements, and that some school districts have a difficult time distinguishing federal requirements from state requirements and, therefore, may not be able to track costs separately. To ensure that concerns of school-based SLPs and audiologists are addressed in Department of Education changes, ASHA has established an internal team to examine paperwork burden complexities and to develop legislative, regulatory, and practice strategies to help address this issue. ASHA conducted focus groups at the 2012 Schools Conference to gain a better understanding of the issue and its complexities, and is meeting with other provider groups and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive solution to this growing problem. Author Notes Ingrida Lusis, director of federal and political advocacy, can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 17Issue 11September 2012 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Sep 1, 2012 Metrics Downloaded 116 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2012 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Education Reform and the Political Safeguards of Federalism

The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001 sparked widespread controversy over the federal government’s proper role in public education. Opponents criticized the legislation as an unprecedented federal intrusion on state and local governments’ policymaking authority. Whereas previous incarnations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) required local schools and districts to comply with detailed rules about how to spend categorical funds, federal moneys were never before made contingent on a rigorous testing and accountability regime. By requiring annual testing and tying federal funding to student outcomes, the new legislation signaled a shift in the federal government’s role vis a vis subnational governing bodies. This shift in authority led some to question whether state and local governments’ structural protections from federal overreaching are dead — at least in the field of public education. In The Political Safeguards of Federalism, Herbert Wechsler argued that because states’ rights are preserved through the legislative process, the Supreme Court need not intervene to protect states from federal regulatory intervention. The legislative process shelters state autonomy, Wechsler argued, by ensuring that federal legislation must gain the approval of the Senate, which is responsive to state interests, the House, whose congressional districts are dictated by state legislatures, and the President, who depends on states through the electoral college system. According to critics, congressional acquiescence in President George W. Bush’s drive for top-down standards-based reform (SBR) demonstrates the failure of these traditional safeguards. Beginning in the 1990s the Supreme Court stopped deferring to federal regulatory authority and began striking down legislation it deemed overly intrusive. According to the Court, national political institutions had failed to protect state interests, thus necessitating a more robust role for the judiciary in preserving the delicate balance between state and federal interests. Because federal legislators are under pressure to solve pressing national problems but are not responsible for implementation, they will inevitably pass the buck to state representatives by voting for coercive, unfunded mandates. Bipartisan support for NCLB, which brought together the likes of Representative Tom DeLay, a fierce opponent of federal intervention who once sought to eliminate the Department of Education, and liberal Democrats such as Senator Edward Kennedy, lends support to the Supreme Court’s more aggressive stance. It could be argued that federal representatives arrived at a legislative compromise without seriously considering NCLB’s impact on a broad spectrum of state and local constituents. In response to mounting criticism of Wechsler’s theory, Dean Larry Kramer has developed an alternative version of the political safeguards framework. He posits that the political party system itself protects states from federal intrusion because each party has representatives operating at multiple layers of government, all of whom are mutually dependent. According to this theory, representatives at the national level must respond to local and state concerns in exchange for political support, thus producing a natural check on federal encroachment. Dean Kramer further characterizes the proliferation of bureaucratic agencies beginning with the New Deal as an additional political safeguard of federalism. Like national political parties, regulatory agencies link federal, state, and local administrators together because the federal government relies on administrators at lower levels of government to implement policy. Dean Kramer’s revived political safeguards theory has interesting implications for the education field because of the unique role that politics and bureaucracy have played in the promulgation and implementation of federal education legislation. In this paper, I will apply Kramer’s political safeguards thesis to four educational reform movements: a New Deal Youth Program, administrative progressivism, the ESEA, and the modern standards-based reform (SBR) movement culminating in NCLB. Specifically, I will draw on educational reforms of these four periods to explore the extent to which bureaucracy and the party system can successfully mediate disputes over the division of power between local, state, and federal government. I will begin by comparing the role of bureaucracy in furthering or frustrating federalist aims in education governance under President Roosevelt’s New Deal and President Johnson’s Great Society. Then, I will consider the role of party politics in federal education reform, from progressives’ attempt to depoliticize the field to the political consensus embodied in NCLB.

Letter from the Editorial Board

Letter from the Editorial Board Jennifer Job, Managing Editor As we publish the second issue of our 95th volume, Occupy Wall Street protests have inspired people in over 1500 cities around the world to take to the street. The protesters feel that their voices are being ignored in a corporation-run market, and they are looking to their governments for relief. Currently, the Occupy Wall Street protests are in their second month with no signs of abating. America's schoolshadtheir own"Occupy" moment when Senator Rand Paul (Klein, 2011) stood up against the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary EducationAct (ESEA).OnOctober 19th, the ESEA, most widely known for its implementation of No Child Left Behind, was due to move easily through committee and onto the Senate floor. However, Sen. Paul used a rare procedural rule to put a halt to the meeting. He argued that there had been no hearings on the bill, and he wanted to hear from teachers and school superintendents before he was asked to make the decision to reauthorize ESEA. "I have yet to meet a teacher who is in favor of No Child Left Behind," Education Week quoted him as saying (10/19/11). The hearings Sen. Paul called for, which began November 8th, included several teachers, principals, and one superintendent as witnesses. These occurrences may be signaling an opening in public debate over education that may finally invite educators. After nearly a decade of the academy bemoaning the corporatization of education, perhaps the pendulum is ready to swing back to listening to public voices more than corporate ones. If we as researchers are to play a role in our communities, it is more important than ever that the academy do good work and that we make that work accessible to those in schools, where ever-shrinking budget conditions are demanding new ideas and approaches. And, more than ever, we need to listen to the voices of teachers and students in our efforts to create better schools. This issue highlights three studies that are working to those ends. The first, "Promising Homework Practices: Teachers' Perspectives on Making HomeworkWork for Newcomer Immigrant Students," by Hee Jin Bang, investigates how teachers of English Language Learners can re-envision the purpose of homework in order to better serve students. "Systems Thinking Tools for Improving Evidence-Based Practice: A Cross-Case Analysis of Two High School Leadership Teams," by Lisa Kensler, Ellen Reames, John Murray, and Lynne Patrick, examines how dialogue and evidence-based practice can improve school climate. And finally, "A Preliminary Examination of Academic Disidentification, Racial Identity, and Academic Achievement among African American Adolescents," by Kevin Cokley, Shannon McClain, Martinique Jones, and Samoan Johnson, looks at the role academic disidentification plays in the academic success of African American students. These three articles also share another commonality—they recognize successes going on in schools across the country. Educators are doing great things in American schools—our challenge now is to expand those pockets of excellence to meet the needs of all students. Jennifer Job, Managing Editor jgjob@email.unc.edu Reference Klein, A. (2011). ESEA markup paused due to Sen. Paul procedural objection. Education Week Blogs. Retrieved from: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2011/10/esea_markup_paused_due_to_sen.html. [End Page 1] Google Scholar Copyright © 2011 The University of North Carolina Press

Leveraging social innovation in US educational reform: a review of legislation and policy recommendations

President Obama’s State of the Union Address in January 2011 included a commitment to re-authorise the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. NCLB had been criticised by education leaders (Berliner, 2009; Noddings, 2007), policymakers and practitioners, while others had noted benefits in its implementation. Critics, hoped that instead of abandoning NCLB, a new administration would make substantial improvements to it. This paper proposes to review major principles of the act, explain some of the benefits and disadvantages of the mandates for accountability as perceived by educational experts, and summarise what is known currently about President Obama’s proposals to address accountability in re-authorising ESEA.

The Black Charter School Effect: Black Students in American Charter Schools

This literature analysis examines the experiences of Black students in public charter schools in the United States by analyzing the current literature and enrollment data in this domain. Through the investigation of multiple empirical studies that examine the effects of charter schools on the academic achievement and enrollment trends of Black students, the author introduces the concept of Black Charter School Effect. The Black Charter School Effect encompasses the ability of public charter schools to successfully attract, and in many cases, educate Black students. This analysis offers implications for policymakers to consider the redesign of state charter laws that impact urban communities.Keywords: charter schools, African American students, best practices, charter school effectThe Black-White achievement gap, the gap in traditional measures of academic achievement between Blacks and Whites, has been debated and analyzed among scholars, legislators, and practitioners for decades. The federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was authorized to address the achievement gap. However, since its passage, the achievement gap has changed relatively little. The 2009 National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES) achievement gap statistical analysis, that reports on national achievement scores among fourth and eighth grade students, revealed, that in both mathematics and reading, White students scored on average 26 points higher than Black students (Vanneman et al., 2009)- only five points lower than when earlier studies were conducted (mathematics in 1 990 and reading in 1 992).Countless authors have attempted to identify the causal factors associated with the achievement gap. Many have identified several influences that are school related such as low teacher expectations, lack of curriculum rigor, poor teacher training programs, lack of school resources, tracking, a lack of appreciation for Black culture, incompetent administration, and so forth (Delpit, 1995; Kozol, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Meier, 2002; Steele, 1992; Thompson, 2004). Conversely, other scholars have identified socioeconomic and home environment triggers such as a lack of time reading to children, lack of parental involvement, student apathy, lack of adequate healthcare, mobility, lack of affordable housing, and low socioeconomic status, as reasons Black students perform poorer than White students (Coleman, 1988; Rothstein, 2004). One group of researchers contends that a combination of factors such as student turnover rates, inexperienced teachers, and student racial composition, significantly contributes to the achievement gap (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2006).Despite the lack of coherent agreement on what causes the achievement gap, the pervasive achievement disparity between Black and White students is directly tied to a relatively new phenomenon among Black families in this country today - public charter schools. Black families in America are seeking public charter schools in unprecedented numbers (Alliance, 201 la).Nationally, Black students are choosing charter schools nearly double the rate that they are choosing traditional public schools. During the 2010-201 1 academic year, Black students accounted for roughly 1 6% of the national student population in traditional public schools, while in public charter schools they accounted for 29% of the student population (Alliance, 2011a). Studies have documented this phenomenon through both qualitative and quantitative analyses, and have presented differing outcomes for the effects of charter schools on Black student enrollment (Abdulkadiroglu et al., 2009; Bifolco & Ladd, 2006a, 2006b; Bodine et al., 2008; Booker, Zimmer, & Buddin, 2005; California Charter Schools Association, CCSA, 2008; Frankenberg & Lee, 2003; Hoxby, Murarka, & Kang, 2009; Zimmer & Buddin, 2005).This analysis seeks to address the phenomenon and to paint a picture of the overall Black student experience in American charter schools by addressing the following questions:* Why are Black families choosing public charter schools? …

Academic Achievement for English Learners: What can we Reasonably Expect?

As the cultural and A linguistic diversity of U.S. schoolchildren grows and as federal legislation mandates greater accountability in school districts, states are feeling a sense of urgency to support successful outcomes for learners. Over 5 million students are learning in America's public schools, accounting for more than 10% of the K-12 population. That's an increase of over 50% in the last decade alone. This demographic change has been matched by changes in national policy. Before No Child Left Behind, states set their own accountability policies. Now, they must demonstrate that learners are making progress in and achieving challenging content standards. When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is reauthorized, it will likely continue the trend of establishing and meeting explicit expectations for this growing population. Assuring that learners succeed has proven to be much more challenging than most educators assumed. The challenge appears to be rooted in what it means to in school. Academically successful learners do not simply learn to manage their everyday lives in English-speaking contexts; rather, they learn to negotiate multiple environments, make sense of complex content, articulate their understanding of that content in forms, and assess their own growing understanding. That is, they learn to use academic languages. Education research describes the language demands learners face in American schools in terms of the linguistic and literacy skills associated with core subject areas (Anstrom et al., 2010). These skills involve more than specialized, content-specific vocabulary. Proficient use of in science class, for example, involves the ability to communicate scientifically. That is, used in science classrooms draws on vocabulary, grammar, and discourse unique to science. For example, scientists seek to be objective. They often use the passive voice in their writing and speaking. For example, rather than stating what a plant root or leaf does (active voice), a biology teacher is more likely to describe a general process through which water and nutrients are absorbed by root systems and are transported to leaves where carbohydrates and sugars are produced (passive voice). Why? Because the passive voice suggests distance or objectivity. Similarly, each discipline uses specialized vocabulary, grammatical structures, and discourse features. All students must learn to speak, write, and think in these specialized ways, but the journey for learners is longer and more difficult. In this article, we share findings about the journey to proficiency for learners and offer insights on how to establish clear expectations for learners and their schools. We address the relationship between language and content proficiency, the rate at which learners acquire English, and the time needed for learners to become proficient. Specifically, we focus on two questions: * What does it mean to be English proficient? * How long does it take learners to reach this status? There isn't enough good research in this area to give clear answers to those who teach learners, but some studies provide valuable insights. Also helpful are discoveries from the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment Consortium (WIDA), a 27-state alliance that shares language proficiency standards and assessments, and engages in research and professional development. Federal policy The that teachers speak with students in the classroom is different from the spoken on the playground, in the mall, or at home. used in informal settings has less complex grammatical forms, few uses of technical vocabulary, frequent use of slang and idioms, frequent cultural and contextual references, and a much more personal sense. …

States and Their Struggles With NCLB: Does the Obama Blueprint Get It Right?

This article analyzes challenges states identify in implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) with the Obama administration's proposals for Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization. Drawing upon information from six states, this study shows that the Obama administration Blueprint for Reauthorization of ESEA responds to a number of state concerns with NCLB but fails to acknowledge the sheer magnitude of the challenges states face. The Blueprint addresses the overall concern for greater flexibility in timing, focus, and remedies that states express. Furthermore, the Blueprint acknowledges but does not fully address the importance of teacher and leader quality and the distributional challenges. The Blueprint falls short, however, in addressing the need for a more robust body of knowledge regarding effective intervention, the pragmatic obstacles to redistribution of high-quality teachers and leaders, and the political and fiscal challenges that states combat in intensifying and funding the level of performance it demands.

2010 Election Changes Congressional Balance

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderPolicy Analysis1 Nov 20102010 Election Changes Congressional BalanceNew Congressional Composition May Affect ASHA-Related Issues Kate Fry Kate Fry Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.PA2.15142010.2 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In American voters called for a new direction on Nov. 2, following an election cycle driven by a referendum on the economy, a rejection of the status quo, a strengthened Tea Party movement, millions in advertising spent by anonymous groups as a result of a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision, and even the party called “The Rent Is Too Damn High” created on YouTube. More than 500 seats were contested in House, Senate, and gubnatorial races. Although the election results were a resounding statement on the current mood of the country, they leave a plethora of questions about the country’s legislative and political future. Control of Congress The Republican Party rode the largest election wave since 1948, capturing more than 60 seats to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives. They also tightened their margins in the U.S. Senate, winning 24 of 37 races. The flood of new legislators from both political parties who will make up the 112th Congress will result in one of the largest classes of new members of Congress in the nation’s history. The Congress that will decide legislation important to ASHA members will look dramatically different from its predecessor. Many of the more than 100 new faces will serve on committees with jurisdiction over health care and education policies. The partisan ratio of members serving on these committees reflects the overall makeup of each chamber, leaving Republicans a significant number of slots to fill and leaving Democrats with fewer committee appointments. In the House, ASHA works primarily with three committees—Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means. Together they lost more than 20 members in the election and will experience leadership changes on the full committees and their subcommittees and membership changes when new committee assignments are made. In the Senate, ASHA works primarily with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and the Finance Committee, which also will see a restructured membership and a change in leadership. ASHA-PAC: Bipartisan Force The ASHA Political Action Committee (ASHA-PAC) was extremely active leading up to the elections. ASHA-PAC supported 58 candidates in the primary and general elections; 93% won their races in the general election. ASHA-PAC rejects partisan politics and supports candidates who stand up for issues of importance to speech-language pathology and audiology and who are an in a position to influence legislation important to ASHA members. 2012 and Beyond The Republican takeover of the House and increased Republican presence in the Senate creates a scenario of legislative uncertainty for the next two years. Will the divided Congress usher in a new age of compromise or will it add to partisanship? ASHA’s public policy agenda is nonpartisan, but it will face a challenge in the new fiscally conservative and partisan legislative atmosphere. The new Republican majority will allow partisan legislation to pass the House, but the Democratic-controlled Senate can succeed in halting progress on bills. The administration already has announced its intent to use the veto if needed. Republicans undoubtedly will seek to make their mark on a number of initiatives, including health care reform. The likelihood of outright repeal of the reform bill is slim, but the House may find success in negating certain provisions of the bill through appropriations measures. Congress and the administration may be able to find common ground on education policies; work has already begun at reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), but with a change in leadership, the future of these efforts is uncertain. Overall, members of both political parties likely will use the next two years to position themselves for the 2012 election cycle. Expect “statement” legislation to emerge from both chambers as leadership teams seek to solidify their base of support and brand their image. Author Notes Kate Fry, director of political advocacy, can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 15Issue 14November 2010 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Nov 1, 2010 Metrics Downloaded 67 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2010 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Opposition by the States: How Negative Responses to the No Child Left Behind Act has Impacted the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

The initial passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 was seen as a bipartisan victory towards education reform that would close the achievement gap. Since the passage of the NCLB, 38 states have shown opposition to the legislation through a variety of responses including producing legislation in attempts to opt-out of provisions, turning to the judicial system for recourse when funding is withheld, and passing symbolic resolutions. This paper completes a cross-state analysis to determine why so much opposition exists to NCLB and how states’ responses have influenced Congress’s inability to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 2007, under which NCLB was created. States showing opposition vary tremendously, including by size, average family income, political ideology, and academic achievement prior to passage. By analyzing policy feedbacks due to implementation concerns of states, this paper adds to current scholars’ theories about the implementation process. By recognizing how excluded actors from the adoption of NCLB have influenced previously supportive actors of the law this paper combines elements of both top-down and bottom-up implementation approaches discussed in the literature to provide a richer and more accurate understanding of the implementation process. The starting point for such a study comes from understanding the response of those who have struggled with implementing NCLB.