The elementary and secondary education act at 40: Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education

Review of Research in Education

Volumn 29, Issue , 2005, Pages 51-67

  Thomas, Janet Y ^a   Brady, Kevin P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645768427     PISSN: 0091732X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X029001051     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14.
2. Batt, I., Kim, J., & Sunderman, G. (2005). Limited English proficient students: Increased accountability under NCLB. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
3. Borman, G. D., & D'Agostino, J. V. (2001). Title I and student achievement: A quantitative synthesis. In G. D. Borman, S. Stringfield, & R. E. Slavin (Eds.), Title I: Compensatory education at the crossroads, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Billingsley, B. S., & McLeskey, J. (2004). Critical issues in special education teacher supply and demand. Journal of Special Education, 38, 2-4.
5. Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the requirement for accountability: "No Child Left Behind." Journal of Special Education, 37, 157-163.
6. Brownell, M. T., Hirsch, E., & Seo, S. (2004). Meeting the demand for highly qualified special education teachers during severe shortages: What should policymakers consider? Journal of Special Education, 38, 56-61.
7. Camilli, G., Vargan, S., & Yurecko, M. (2003). Teaching children to read: The fragile link between science and federal education policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(15). Retrieved August 18, 2005, from http://eppa.asu.edu/eppa/v11n15/
8. Center on Education Policy. (2003). From the Capitol to the classroom: State and federal efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
9. Children's Defense Fund. (2001). Twenty-five key facts about American children. Retrieved October 17, 2003, from www.childrensdefense.org/data/ keyfacts.aspx
10. Cronin, J., Kingsbury, G. G., McCall, M. S., & Bowe, B. (2005). The impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on student achievement and growth: 2005 edition. Lake Oswego, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.
11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Apartheid in American education: How opportunity is rationed to children of color in the United States. In T. Johnson, J. E. Boyden, & W. J. Pittz (Eds.), Racial profiling and punishing in U.S. public schools (pp. 39-44). Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.
12. Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Research and rhetoric of teacher certification: A response to teacher certification reconsidered. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(36). Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/eppa/v10n36html
13. Driscoll, W., & Fleeter, H. (2003). Projected cost of implementing the federal "No Left Behind Act" in Ohio. Columbus, OH: Levin, Driscoll & Fleeter.
14. Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Winikates, D., Mehta, P., Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading disabilities Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 225-276.
15. Gasiorowski, B. P. (2004). Special ed. teachers' 'No Child' complications. Education Week, 24(12), 34.
16. Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of research-based instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 445-447.
17. Graham, H. D. (1984). The uncertain triumph: Federal education policy in the Kennedy and Johnson years. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
18. Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2004). The revolving door: A path-breaking study of teachers in Texas reveals that working conditions matter more than salary. Education Next, 4(1), 77-82.
19. Hoff, D. J. (2005a). Education Department fines Texas for NCLB violation. Education Week, 24(34), 27-31.
20. Hoff, D. J. (2005b). NCLB law needs work, legislators assert. Education Week, 24(25), 1-20.
21. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortage: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 449-534.
22. Institute of Education Sciences. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
23. Jennings, J. F. (2001). Title I: Its legislative history and its promise. In G. D. Borman, S. C. Stringfield, & R. E. Slavin (Eds.), Title I: Compensatory education at the crossroads (pp. 1-23). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
24. Johnson, S. M., Berg, J. H., & Donaldson, M. L. (2005). Who stays in teaching and why: A review of literature on teacher retention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
25. Keller, B. (2003). NEA takes stand against Bush education law. Education Week. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from www.edweek.org/ew/indes.html
26. Kirst, M., & Jung, R. (1991). The utility of a longitudinal approach in assessing implementation: A thirteen-year view of Title I, ESEA. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 39-63). Albany: State University of New York Press.
27. Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Melendez, R. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 411-429.
28. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Arguelles, M. E. (1999). Sustaining research-based practices in reading: A three year follow-up. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 263-274.
29. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Schumm, J. S., & Elbaum, B. (1998). Outcomes for student with and without learning disabilities in inclusion classrooms. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 13, 153-161.
30. Kreider, H. (2003). The Evaluation Exchange report on scientifically-based research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
31. Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). The effectiveness of "Teach for America" and other under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37). Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://eppa.asu. edu/eppa/vol10n37/
32. Lagemann, E. C. (2005). 40 years of federal education policy: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.educationweek.com
33. Lehr, C. A., Hansen, A. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Christenson, L. S. (2003). Moving beyond dropouts towards school completion: An integrative review of data-based interventions. School Psychology Review, 32, 342-364.
34. Mathis, W. J. (2003). No Child Left Behind: Cost and benefits. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 679-687.
35. McClure, P., & Martin, R. (1969). Title I of ESEA: Is it helping poor children? Washington, DC: Washington Research Project and Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
36. McDonnell, L. M. (2005). No Child Left Behind and the federal role in education: Evolution or revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.
37. McDonnell, L., & Fuhrman, S. (1986). The political context of reform. In V. D. Mueller & M. P. McKeown (Eds.), The fiscal, legal, and political aspects of state reform of elementary and secondary education (pp. 43-64). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
38. McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject matter preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 125-145.
40. Murphy, J. T. (1973). The education bureaucracies implement novel policy: The politics of Title I of ESEA, 1965-1972. In A. P. Sindler (Ed.), Policy and politics in America (pp. 160-198). Boston: Little, Brown.
41. Murphy, J. T. (1991). Title I of ESEA: The politics of implementing federal education reform. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 65-80). Albany: State University of New York Press.
42. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
43. National Education Association. (2005). NEA organizations urge major changes for 'No Child Left Behind. ' Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://nea.rog/newsrelease/2004/nr041021.html
44. Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., & Shrikanth, K. (1997). A review of curricular research in severe disabilities from 1976-1979 in six selected journals. Journal of Special Education, 31, 36-55.
45. Novak, J. R., & Fuller, B. (2003). Penalizing diverse schools? Smaller test scores, but different students bring federal sanctions. Berkley: University of California.
46. Orfield, G. (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
47. Raudenbush, S. (2002, February). Scientifically based research. Paper presented at the Scientifically Based Research Seminar, Washington, DC.
48. Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49. SRI International. (1999). Teaching and California's future. Menlo Park, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
50. Stein, S. J. (2004). The culture of education. New York: Teachers College Press.
51. Sunderman, G., & Kim, J. (2004). Inspiring vision, disappointing results: Four studies on implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
52. Sterba, J. (2004). Limited-English school deadline may gain a year. Arizona Daily Star. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.dailystar.com/ dailystar/relatedarticles/10740.php
53. Thomas, J. Y. (2004). Educating drug-exposed children: The aftermath of the crack baby crisis. London: Routledge/Falmer.
54. Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K., & J. Conway (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.
55. Torgeson, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Roshotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, J., & Garvin, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579-594.
56. Tyler, N. C., Yzquierdo, Z., Lopez-Reyna, N., & Saunders Flippin, S. (2004). Cultural and linguistic diversity and the special education workforce: A critical overview, The Journal of Special Education, 38 (1), 22-38.
57. U.S. Department of Education. (1998). National Assessment of Educational Progress, Washington, DC: Author.
58. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, Washington, DC: Author.
59. U.S. Department of Education. (2002, August 7). U.S. Department of Education awards contracts for 'What Works Clearinghouse' [press release], Washington, DC: Author.
60. U.S. Department of Education. (2003a). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary's second annual report on teacher quality, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
61. U.S. Department of Education. (2003b, December 9). New No Child Left Behind provision gives schools increased flexibility while ensuring all children count, including those with disabilities [press release], Washington, DC: Author.
62. U.S. Department of Education. (2004a, March 2). Additional guidance offered to help students with significant cognitive disabilities [press release]. Washington, DC: Author.
63. U.S. Department of Education. (2004b, February 19). Secretary Paige announces new policies to help English language learners [press release]. Washington, DC: Author.
64. U.S. Department of Education. (2004c, March 15). New No Child Left Behind flexibility: Highly qualified teachers [press release]. Washington, DC: Author.
65. U.S. Department of Education. (2004d, March 29). Secretary Paige issues new policy far calculating participation rates under No Child Left Behind [press release]. Washington, DC: Author.
66. U.S. Department of Education. (2005a). Raising achievement: Alternative assessments for students with disabilities. Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/print/policy/elsec/guid/raising/alt-assess-long.html
67. U.S. Department of Education. (2005b, May 10). Spellings announce new special ed guidelines, details workable, "common sense"policy to help states implement No Child Left Behind [press release]. Washington, DC: Author.
68. Viadero, D. (2004). What Works research site unveiled. Education Week, 23(42), 1-33.
69. Wagner, M., Newman, L., D'Amico, R., Jay, E. D., Butler-Nalin, P., Marder, C., & Cox, R. (1991). Youth with disabilities: How are they doing? The first comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
70. Watson, S. (2003). Recruiting and retaining teachers; Keys to improving the Philadelphia public schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.