Search results

More than five years have passed since A Nation at Risk was published in 1983 by then‐Secretary of Education Terrance Bell's National Commission on Excellence in Education. Those years have seen the publication of an enormous body of both primary material, composed of research reports, essays, and federal and state reform proposals and reports; and secondary material, composed of summaries and reviews of the original reform reports and reports about effective programs that are based on reform recommendations. This annotated bibliography seeks to identify, briefly describe, and organize in a useful manner those publications dealing with K‐12 education reform and improvement. The overall purposes of this article are to bring organization to that list, and also to trace relationships and influences from the federal initiatives to the states and professional associations, and from there to the school districts and individual schools.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is the most sweeping policy legislation in the history of public education in the United States. It is an umbrella for many federal government initiatives impacting public education, including ESEA, Title I, the large federal compensatory education program that began as part of President Johnson's “Great Society” program in the mid-1960s. A brief review of selected interventions to improve public education and social justice for poor African-American public school students, whose education was heavily impacted by decades of slavery and other forms of racism are discussed. Specific requirements of NCLB are presented in detail, including a review of advantages and disadvantages of this legislation. Since its implementation, NCLB has been unpopular with many public school districts and professional education organizations because it seeks to hold them accountable for results obtained with different subgroups of students. Several recent challenges to NCLB are discussed as well as concessions to reduce requirements for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) recently negotiated between the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) and state departments of education will permit more school to make AYP. Parents views of NCLB and public education in general are presented. Finally, a discussion of poverty, as seen through the revealing lens of Hurricane Katrina, and its impacts on achieving the laudable goals of NCLB are presented in this chapter.

The purpose of this paper is to apply a feminist perspective to the crisis in prison higher education in the US by exploring whether gender shapes access to on‐site, non‐occupational college programs in state prisons differently for women than for men.

The paper utilized a content analysis of official US state departments of correction websites and an email survey of state directors of education.

Findings show that while both women and men had little access to on‐site, non‐occupational college programming in the 2005‐2006 academic year, women in state prison had slightly greater access than men.

Theoretical implications of the findings include the importance of focusing a gender lens on correctional education programming, as well as the importance of extending analysis beyond gender alone towards an analysis of the intersections of gender, race, and class inequalities on access to prison higher education.

Practical implications include the identification of an emergent educational justice movement in the USA, and the presentation of exploratory data on the current college‐in‐prison programs useful for progressive activists, policymakers, correctional education administrators, equity scholars, and others interested in organizing around democratic access to postsecondary correctional education.

As there is little current research on college‐in‐prison programs in the US, and less on the gendered dimensions of program access, the paper makes an original valuable contribution to several literatures.

This chapter examines evidence-based practice in the Australian education system, with particular reference to special education. Initially a brief overview of the Australian education system will be provided, followed by consideration of the incorporation of the concept of evidence-based practice into Australian educational policy at both national and state level. Subsequently, Australian teacher registration and teacher education program accreditation standards will be examined with regard to the adoption of evidence-based practice. We then describe the use of evidence-based practices in teacher education programs, particularly in the area of classroom and behavior management and in special education/inclusion subjects. We will overview several research studies to illustrate the degree of penetration of the concept of evidence-based practice into educational systems and teaching practice. Although we found little evidence of a commitment to evidence-based practice in Australian education systems beyond rhetoric, we are cautiously optimistic that increasing emphasis will be given to the use of empirical evidence in the future.

Presents a case study of the emergence and early stages of implementation of Queensland Education Department′s policy for devolution of responsibility to State Schools. Has four major purposes: to clarify the rhetoric by which the Department has developed and promoted its devolution policy; critically to examine the efficacy of the policy when it is “played out”, in “reality”, at the “school face”; to explore possible positive outcomes of the policy, potential impediments (within the Department and school community), and prerequisites to effective implementation; and to consider what is needed in pre‐service teacher education to enable future teachers readily to function in a school‐based organizational context. The “message” which emerges from these considerations is that stakeholders at all levels need to be vigilant observers, watching for inconsistencies as they develop, between the rhetoric and the reality of devolution policy in practice – in particular, “regression” towards centralized, bureaucratic control. Proposes an approach to a safeguard mechanism which could be applied at regular intervals. Poses questions at two levels: at the system level and at the level of the community at large.

Little is known about how assistive technology standards have been implemented in preservice teacher preparation. This chapter provides a review of the literature concerning the importance of evidence-based practice and the research base supporting assistive technology in order to set the context for reporting the results of a comprehensive national study of the status of assistive technology state standards for teachers in all of the 50 states (plus Washington, DC). This chapter includes the findings of the study, the research that the study was based upon, and a review of relevant research in the fields of assistive technology, educational technology, and evidence-based practice. Only six states reported having AT standards and six states reported having AT competencies. Three states reported having both standards and competencies, yielding nine unique states (out of 51) with AT standards and/or AT competencies. Regression analyses to determine the relationship between the study variables and national reading and math performance of students with disabilities were inconclusive. The implications of the study findings and recommendations for future research are presented.

Education is primary a state and local responsibility in the United States. It is states and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The appropriate roles for state in the education of all children continue to be an issue of urgent concern. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandates cooperating and reporting between state and federal educational agencies. State educational agencies, in turn, must ensure that local schools and teachers are meeting the state’s educational standards. The importance of this responsibility creates controversy on how public education should be implemented and what policy directions state and local governments should take. It is apparent that enhancing public education programs to benefit all students requires a process of system change, as opposed to isolated programs and invalidated instructional practices often common with programming in some school districts. This chapter discusses the role of government agencies in enhancing special education and problems associated with it.