Teacher perspectives on no child left behind and arts education: A case study

Arts Education Policy Review

Volumn 109, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 3-12

  Spohn, Cydney ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AKRON   (United States)

Author keywords

Arts education; Arts education funding; No child left behind; Reauthorization

Indexed keywords

EID: 79951481968     PISSN: 10632913     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/AEPR.109.4.3-12     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Arts Education Partnership. 2002. Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development, ed. R. J. Deasey, 1-157. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.
2. Ashford, E. 2004. NCLB’s unfunded arts programs seek refuge. Education Digest 70 (2): 22-26.
3. Cavanagh, S. 2006. Students double-dosing on reading and math. Education Week 25 (40): 1-13.
4. Center on Education Policy. 2006. From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. http://www.cep-dc.org (accessed April 10, 2006).
5. Center on Education Policy. 2007. Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. http://www.cep-dc.org (accessed July 25, 2007).
6. Chapman, L. 2004. No child left behind in art? Arts Education Policy Review 106 (2): 3-17.
7. Colwell, R. 2005. Whither programs and arts policy? Arts Education Policy Review 106 (6): 19-29.
8. Creswell, J. W. 2005. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
9. Darling-Hammond, L. 2004. From “separate but equal” to “No Child Left Behind”: The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In Meier and Wood 2004, 3-32.
10. Glesne, C. 1999. Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
11. Hamilton, L. S., B. M. Stecher, J. A. Marsh, J. S. McCombs, A. Robyn, J. L. Russell, S. Naftel, and H. Barney. 2007. Standards- based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. http://www.rand.org (accessed July 29, 2007).
12. Horowitz, R. 2004. Summary of large-scale arts partnerships evaluations. http://www.aeparts.org (accessed June 3, 2006).
13. Jennings, J., and D. S. Rentner. 2006. Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan 8 (2): 110-13.
14. Kotler, P., and J. Scheff. 1997. Standing room only: Strategies for marketing the performing arts. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
15. Manzo, K. K. 2006. Older students play catch-up on uncovered, vital lessons. Education Week 25 (40): 13.
16. Massie, J. 2004. Debating options for when the arts get the squeeze. Teaching Artist Journal 2 (2): 115-16.
17. McElroy, E. 2005. A case for arts education. http://www.web.ebscohost.com (accessed November 2, 2005).
18. Meier, D., and G. Wood, eds. 2004. Many children left behind. Boston: Beacon.
19. Meyer, L. 2005. The complete curriculum: Ensuring a place for the arts in America’s schools. Arts Education Policy Review 106 (3): 35-39.
20. Mishook, J., and M. Kornhaber. 2006. Arts integration in an era of accountability. Arts Education Policy Review 107 (4): 3-11.
21. Neill, M. 2004. Leaving no child behind: Overhauling NCLB. In Meier and Wood 2004, 101-19.
22. O’Fallon, D. 2006. Observations, perspectives, and questions on arts and education. Teaching Artist Journal 4 (2): 76-83.
23. Pedulla, J., L. Abrams, G. Madaus, M. Russell, M. Ramos, and J. Maio. 2003. Perceived effects of state-mandated testing on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy. Eric Document Reproduction No. ED481836.
24. Pink, D. H. 2006. A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York: Riverhead Books.
25. Psilos, P. 2002. The impact on workforce preparation [Issue brief]. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association, Center for Best Practices. Eric Document Reproduction No. ED465119.
26. Robinson, K. 2001. Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. West Sussex, Eng.: Capstone.
27. Ross, R. 2005. Arts education and the newer public good. Arts Education Policy Review 106 (3): 3-7.
28. Tambucci, S. 2006. The promise of arts education. American School Board Journal 193 (6): 34-35.
29. von Zastrow, C. 2004. Academic atrophy: The condition of the liberal arts in America’s public schools. Council for Basic Education. http://downloads.ncss.org (accessed February 6, 2006).
30. Wood, G. 2004. A view from the field: NCLB’s effects on classrooms and schools. In Meier and Wood 2004, 33-50.