Reading lessons and federal policy making: An overview and introduction to the special issue

Elementary School Journal

Volumn 107, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 4-15

  Allington, Richard L ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^b Department of Theory ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749548021     PISSN: 00135984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (60)

1. Allington, R. L. (1999). Crafting state educational policy: The slippery role of educational research and researchers. Journal of Literacy Research, 31, 457-482.
2. Allington, R. L. (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
3. Armbruster, B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
4. Benveniste, G. (1977). The politics of expertise. San Francisco: Boyd & Fraser.
5. Boyd, W. L., & Mitchell, D. E. (2001). The politics of the reading wars. In T. Loveless (Ed.), The great curriculum debate (pp. 299-342). Washington, DC: Brookings.
6. Bracey, G. W. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Where does the money go? (Report No. EPSL-0506-1140-EPRU). Tempe: Arizona State University, Education Policy Research Laboratory, College of Education.
7. Brownstein, A., & Hicks, T. (2005). When research goes to market, is it good for education? Title 1 On-Line [On-line]. Available: http://www.title1online.com/libraries/title1online/news_desk/t1o050825.html
8. Center on Education Policy. (2005a). Ensuring academic rigor or inducing rigor mortis? Issues to watch for in Reading first [On-line]. Available: http://www.cep-dc.org/pubs/
9. Center on Education Policy. (2005b). From the capital to the classroom: Year 3 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
10. Cochran-Smith, M. (2002). Reporting on teacher quality: The politics of politics. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 379-382.
11. Coles, G. (2003). Reading the naked truth: Literacy, legislation, and lies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
12. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13.
13. Cunningham, J. W. (2001). The National Reading Panel report. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 326-335.
14. Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining "'highly qualified teachers": What does the "scientifically-based research" actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31, 13-25.
15. Davenport, D., & Jones, J. M. (2005). The politics of literacy. Policy Review, 130, 45-57.
16. Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Edmondson, J. (2006). Policymaking influences on the Reading Excellence Act. Education Policy Analysis Archives [On-line], 13(11). Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n11/
18. Elliott, E. J. (1996). Literacy: From policy to practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(4), 590-595.
19. Elmore, R. F. (2002). Unwarranted intrusion. Education Next [On-line]. Available: http://www.educationnext.org/20021/30
20. Evans, K. S., & Walker, N. T. (2005). Reading First: Hidden messages, omissions, and contradictions. In B. Maloch, J. V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, & J. Worthy (Eds.), Fifty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 157-167). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
21. Garan, E. (2002). Resisting reading mandates: How to triumph with the truth. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
22. Garan, E. (2005). Scientific flimflam: A who's who of entrepreneurial research. In B. Altwerger (Ed.), Reading for profit: How the bottom line leaves kids behind (pp. 21-32). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
23. Gerstl-Pepin, C. I., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (2005). Tensions between the "science" of reading and a "'love of learning": One high-poverty school's struggle with NCLB. Equity and Excellence in Education, 38, 232-241.
24. Hicks, T., & Brownstein, A. (2005). Peer reviewers: The gatekeepers of Reading First. Title 1 On-line [On-line]. Available: http://www.title1online. com/libraries/title1online/news_desk/sidebars/tio050826-sidebar.html
25. Hiebert, E. H., & Fisher, C. W. (2005). A review of the National Reading Panel's studies on fluency: The role of text. Elementary School Journal, 105(5), 443-460.
26. Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. (2002). Consumer's guide to evaluating a core reading program: A critical elements analysis [On-line]. Available: http://reading.uoregon.edu/resources.php
27. Krashen, S. (2004). False claims about literacy development. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 18-21.
28. Lefkowits, L., & Miller, K. (2006). Fulfilling the promise of the standards movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 403-407.
29. Lewis, A. C. (2005). Washington commentary: An ammunition dump? Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 260-261.
30. Linn, R. L. (2005). Conflicting demands of No Child Left Behind and state systems: Mixed messages about school performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives [On-line]. Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n33/
31. Linn, R. L., & Huag, C. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 29-36.
32. Manzo, K. K. (2005). Inspector General to conduct broad audits of Reading First. Education Week, 25(11), 10.
33. McCallion, G. (2006). Reading First: Implementation issues and controversies (No. RL33246). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
34. McColl, A. (2005). Tough call: Is No Child Left Behind constitutional? Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 604-610.
35. Miskel, C., & Song, M. (2004). Passing Reading First: Prominence and processes in an elite policy network. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(2), 89-109.
36. National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The nation's report card: Reading highlights 2003 (No. NCES 2004-452). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
37. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
38. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). [On-line]. Available: http://edworkforcc.house.gov/issues/107th/ education/nclb/nclb.htm
39. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237-257.
40. Offenberg, R. M. (2004). Inferring adequate yearly progress of schools from student achievement in highly mobile communities. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9(4), 337-355.
41. Pearson, P. D. (2003). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 216-252.
42. Pennington, J. L. (2004). The colonization of literacy education: A story of reading in one elementary school. New York: Peter Lang.
43. Pressley, M., Duke, N. K., & Boling, E. C. (2004). The educational science and scientifically based instruction we need: Lessons from reading research and policymaking. Harvard Educational Review, 74(1), 30-61.
44. Ravitch, D. (2005, November 7). Every state left behind. New York Times [On-line]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/opinion/07ravitch.html
45. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). How should reading be taught? Scientific American, 286(3), 84-91.
46. Reyna, V. F. (2005). The No Child Left Behind Act and scientific research: The view from Washington, DC. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), The No Child Left Behind legislation: Educational research and federal funding (pp. 1-25). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
47. Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2005). The 37th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitude toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1), 41-57.
48. Ryan, J. E. (2004). The perverse incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act. New York University Law Review, 79, 932-989.
49. Shanahan, T. (2003). Research-based reading instruction: Myths about the National Reading Panel report. Reading Teacher, 56(7), 646-655.
50. Shelton, N. R. (2005). First, do no harm: Teachers' reactions to mandated Reading Mastery. In B. Altwerger (Ed.), Reading for profit: How the bottom line leaves children behind (pp. 184-198). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
51. Smith, M. L., Miller-Kahn, L., Heinecke, W., & Jarvis, P. F. (2004). Political spectacle and the fate of American schools. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
52. Strauss, S. L. (2002). Politics and reading at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Pediatrics, 109(1), 143-144.
53. Strauss, S. L. (2005). The linguistics, neurology, and politics of phonics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Sunderman, G. L. (2006). The unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes transform the law [On-line]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project. Available: http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/ esea/NCLB_Unravel.pdf
55. Sunderman, G. L., Kim, J. S., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
56. Toppo, G. (2005, August 8). Federally funded Reading First called into question: Audit of $1B program said to be underway. USA Today, p. 7D.
57. Tucker, M., & Toch, T. (2004). The secret to making NCLB work? More bureaucrats. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 28-33.
58. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge. Washington, DC: Author.
59. White, T. G., Graves, M. F., & Slater, W. H. (1990). Growth of reading vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 281-290.
60. Yatvin, J. (2003). Science means what we say it means, or, my adventures in Wonderland. In R. C. Lent & G. Pipkin (Eds.), Silent no more: Voices of courage in American schools (pp. 33-44). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.