No child left behind thesis statement

What Is The No Child Left Behind Act?

What is the No Child Left behind Act?

Define this act and describe its original intentions. Has it been successful overall in regards to helping students, teachers, and schools? Why or why not?

I have attached the five scholarly sources.
Please provide well-researched evidence to support each claim.
Write a paper that is approximately five pages of content based on the references
five pages of body text at least 1,500 words
Format the paper according to APA
Must begin with an introductory paragraph that has a succinct thesis statement.
Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought, well-supported claims, and properly cited evidence.
Must end with a conclusion that reaffirms your thesis.

The Final Research Paper will be assessed on the following components:

Structure
Development
Style
Grammar
APA formatting
Resources

I need an outline of the paper, start with an outline helping you structure the essay. I have attached an outline guide for you to structure the paper. Fill out the outline and then write the paper from there but separate the outline to be by itself.

Recap: Please write 5 pages of content on the research paper: What is the No Child Left Behind Act? Please address this information in the paper:

Define this act and describe its original intentions. Has it been successful overall in regards to helping students, teachers, and schools? Why or why not?

First complete the outline based on the research material attached and then complete the paper based on the outline. I have already attached the references page below please cite these references correctly within the paper.

If you have any questions please ask me, this needs to be original information, no plagiarism.

No Child Left Behind: What it means fer U.S adoiescents and what we can do ahout it

Mark W. Conleyy Kathleen A. Hinchman

The No Child Left Behind Act promises all students a hetter chance to learn, hut does that promise include adolescents?

Through considerable eltort over the past decades, researchers have con- tributed a great deal to our under- standing of adolescents and adolescent literacy learning. Reviews in the Handbook of Reading Research have provided use- ful syntheses of this research (see Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Bean, 2000), as has the International Reading Association's Summary of Adolescent Literacy: A Position Statement (Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw,&Rycik, 1999).

Despite these advancements, the U.S. federal government recently launched an unprecedented push for an overhaul of early literacy education in the form of the No Child left Behind Act of 2001. In signing this legislation, President George W. Bush optimistically declared,

Today begins a new era, a new time for public educa- tion in our country. Our schools will have higher expectations—we believe every child can learn. From this day forward, all students will have a better chance to learn, to excel, and to live out their dreams. (Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2002)

At first glance, with its emphases on early literacy and early intervention. No Child Left

Conley teaches at Michigan State University (359

Ericksen Hali, East losing, M 48824, USA). E-mail

conleym@msu.eilij. Hinciiman teaches at Syracuse Univepsity.

Behind (NCLB) seems unconnected to adoles- cents and their needs, despite assertions that this new legislative approach will improve the per-

formance of the United States' ele- mentary and secondary schools (Bush, 2001). However, comparisons between adolescent literacy research and the new U.S. federal policies pro- vide a unique opportunity to review what we have learned about adoles- cent literacy, reconfirming and

strengthening some of our insights and raising questions about future directions.

This article explores the connection between what we know about adolescent literacy and No Child Left Behind. Our purpose is to consider ways in which research, policy, and classroom practice could be more forcefully directed toward supporting adolescents and their literacy learning.

The new legislatien and adolescent literacy With No Child Left Behind, President George W. Bush captured the frustration felt by many about the progress, or lack of progress, in U.S. schools. President Bush noted.

As America enters the 21st Century fijll of hope and promise, too many of our neediest students are being left behind. Today, nearly 70 percent of inner city fourth graders are unable to read at a basic level on national

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT & AOULT LITERACY 4 8 : 1 SEPTEMBER 2 Q 0 4

reading tests. Our high school seniors trail students in Cyprus and South Africa on international math tests. And nearly a third of our college freshmen find they must take a remedial course before they are able to even begin regular college level courses. (Bush, 2001, p. 1)

These claims are especially disturbing con- sidering that the federal government spends US$120 billion each year, while states and local communities spend additional untold billions, on elementary and secondary education. In short, for the amount being spent, many politicians ar- gue, the U.S. public has not been getting its mon- ey's worth.

In January 2002, the principles of NCLB were incorporated into the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The reauthorized ESEA

redefines the federal role in K-12 education and will help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers. It is based on four basic principles: stronger accountability for re- sults, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work, (www.ed.gov/ programs/readinglirst/legiiilation.htmt)

This legislation suggests that greater ac- countability is to be gained through increased at- tention to results of annual assessments in grades 3 through 8. Parents, administrators, and policy- makers are more able to pressure schools to make needed improvements, closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and other groups of students. Reduction of bureaucracy is to result in greater local control. More options are to be available for parents of children from failing schools, such as school choice and vouchers.

The bill authorizes US$900 million in funds to be spent on early literacy instruction grounded in scientifically based reading research. Funds are also targeted to improve literacy education for limited English proficient students and others at risk of failure due to lack of understanding of essential elements of reading.

The principles of the NCLB legislation, em- bodied in the reauthorization of ESEA, represent the most sweeping national education reforms since the Sputnik-inspired reforms of the 1960s. Given the political concerns underlying the legis- lation and the principles inherent in the legisla- tion itself, it is critical to discover what effect NCLB has on U.S. adolescents. Evidence exists of deepening crises for our older youth, especially with respect to literacy-related concerns (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 1997, 1999a, 1999b, 2000). Will NCLB offer support for adolescents who face increasingly complex learn- ing, health, social, and emotional issues?

Reviewing wiiat we know Before considering whether or how NCLB might be helpful to adolescents and those who work on their behalf, it is important to review the findings and implications of the wealth of research that has been conducted in adolescent literacy. We used metaethnography (Noblit & Hare, 1988), that is, an interpretive synthesis, to review recent research and reviews of research on adolescent literacy. We used this strategy, as opposed to a sta- tistical review, because much of the recent work in adolescent literacy has been qualitative in na- ture. Also, this approach allowed us to examine the implications of both qualitative and quantita- tive studies.

Our review considered research from the past 10 years inReading Research Quarterly and Journal of Literacy Research. Two recent compila- tions of adolescent literacy research (Alvermann, Hinchman, Moore, Phelps, & Waff, 1998; Moje & O'Brien, 2001) and various more focused reviews from the Handbook of Reading Research were con- sidered (e.g., Alexander & Jetton, 2000; Aivermann & Moore, 1991; R.C. Anderson & Nagy, 1991; T.H. Anderson & Armbruster, 1984; Bean, 2000; Beck & McKeown, 1991; Blachowicz & Fisher, 2000; Nagy & Scott, 2000; Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991; Pearson &

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 4 8 : 1 S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 4 43

Fielding, 1991; Pressley. 2000; Tierney & Cunningham, 1984; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991; Wade & Moje, 2000). Recent national assessment reports and statistical analyses (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 1997,1999a, 1999b, 2000) were also included. The goal of this reviev '̂ was to identify a set of categories or themes that reflect the most common concerns and recom- mendations for NCLB. Categories that emerged fVom this analysis include the problems faced by adolescents; developmental issues; and recom- mendations for literacy practices, schooling, funding, and parent choices and involvement.

We compared this review with topics and themes within NCLB, including the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act, White House white papers, and government websites. Ways in which NCLB could support our efforts with adolescent literacy were identified, along with places where the legislation explicitly leaves adolescents out. Finally, using our comparisons between adolescent literacy and NCLB, new areas for research and questions about classroom prac- tice were conceived. The following sections out- line the results of our analyses.

NCLB and adolescent literacy: Areas of convergence There are a number of recommendations in No Child Left Behind that confirm recommendations from research on adolescent literacy. These include attention to three important areas of emphases.

Continuous reading instruction with an empha- sis on developing strategic knowledge for deal- ing with unknown words and comprehension. Those interested in adolescent literacy have long recommended reading instruction that continues in content areas across grades, especially as ado- lescents are required to read more demanding materials while responding to increasingly com- plex tasks. These recomtnendations usually in- clude special attention to vocabulary and

comprehension instruction that helps students to be successful reading various types of texts (e.g., Moore, Readence, & Rickelman, 1983). Recent, well-respected reviews by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000) and the Rand Reading Study Group (Snow, 2002) confirm the importance of direct and incidental vocabulary development (and teaching compre- hension) through activating prior knowledge, determining importance, imagery, and summa- rization, across age groups.

Another significant insight concerns the need for developing students' strategic under- standings of how they read (e.g., Greenleaf, Schoenbach, & Cziko, 2001; Palincsar & Brown, 1986). Not only do adolescents need to work on developing comprehension, but they must also understand where, when, and how to apply varied comprehension strategies.

Individually appropriate reading instruction, anchored in assessment of individuals and pro- grams. One of the joys of working with adoles- cents is that they can contribute immeasurably to diagnoses of their literacy-related needs. Recent work suggests that individual teenagers can rec- ognize the sources of their difficulties and, from this recognition, can learn to strategize and move forward to the reading of increasingly complex texts. Indeed, such attention can heighten teens' sense of self-efficacy in important ways (Capella & Weinstein, 2001; Pajares, 1996; Schunk & Rice, 1993).

In similar ways, research suggests that we need to ensure that our schoolwide literacy pro- grams are also self-diagnosing. Research on schoolwide reform suggests there is value in ongo- ing attention to program outcomes coinciding with the use of reliable evaluation measures (FuUan, 2001). Schools seriously concerned with their own effectiveness often build their capacity to set and recognize the achievement of small reform goals. Chief among the more successful reforms for adolescents is developing greater capacity for heightened attention to individual students, which is fueled by ongoing individual and programmatic

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT & ADULT LITERACY 4 8 : 1 SEPTEMBER 2 0 0 4

l l i l .

assessment (Sizer, 1996). Just as adolescents can serve as guides to their own learning, they are also key to determining the appropriateness and im- pact of secondary literacy programs.

Multiple opportunities to use a variety of texts within a context of comprehensive schoolwide reform. Some vestige of attention to literacy across the curriculum has been apparent in the literature since just after the turn of the last cen- tury (see explanation in Moore etal., 1983). The renaissance for this idea occurred in the 1970s and 1980s with the publication of a variety of texts recommending teaching reading in content areas (e.g., Herber, 1970; Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1981; Vacca & Vacca, 1981), all of which were anchored in a schema-theoretic approach to supporting reading organized around pre-, during-, and after-reading heuristics.

Recent attention in the last decade to school- wide reform (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Falk, 1995; Freedman, Simons, Kalnin. Casareno, & The M-Class Teams, 1999; Meier, 1995; Sizer, 1996), especially in urban schools, has reignited efforts to promote literacy across the curriculum. But the contexts and recommendations are different from the past, placing more attention on urban and ru- ral disadvantaged students. This new thrust also involves promoting subject-area study accompa- nied by increased attention to problem solving and learning to read and write within and across subject-specific discourse communities (Daniels, Bizar, & Zemelman, 2001).

What No Child Left Behind faiis to say ahout adolescent literacy Most of the program money in No Child Left Behind is targeted for contexts up to third grade. Moneys that are allocated for adolescent literacy are earmarked for developing accountability sys- tems, for supporting reform for schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress, and, to a more limited extent, for providing interventions for

those who struggle beyond grade 3. Three specific areas, critical in the recommendations from ado- lescent literacy research, are not mentioned: con- texts for teaching and learning in content areas, teacher preparation and ongoing education, and adolescents' interests and needs.

Limited attention to contexts within which lit- eracy strategies are developed. The research base cited for NCLB emphasizes individuals' develop- ment of alphabetic knowledge, fluency, and com- prehension strategies. The last of these is most important for adolescent literacy, partly because most teens have developed alphabetic knowledge and some measure of fluency and pardy because new contexts of content area study present new contexts for developing reading comprehension strategies.

However, little, if any, of the research cited for NCLB reflects the varied literacy contexts within which adolescents find themselves (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). One study even suggested that the narrow criteria for research recognized by these reviews and NCLB made it nearly impossible to say much about strategies across varied subject-matter domains (Alexander & Jetton, 2000).

Research on teaching for adolescents empha- sizes the importance of social constructivism and context for literacy strategies (Bean, 2000). Skilled content area teachers are those adept in under- standing their students' individual motivations and needs while creating conditions through dis- cussion and strategy, for literacy success in multi- ple contexts (Alvermann, 2001; Kos, 1991; McCray, Vaughn, & Neal, 2001). This image of creating conditions for comprehension in content areas contrasts starkly with methods for building phone- mic awareness and fluency identified as promoting the literacy of young children in NCLB.

Unfortunately, through its emphasis on the details of literacy (e.g., alphabetic knowledge, phonemic awareness, fluency) and accountability, one might hypothesize that NCLB could usher in

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A O U L T L I T E R A C Y 4 8 : 1 S E P T E M B E R Z 0 0 4 45

a new era of lecture-driven practices that conflict with the adoption and use of known content area literacy strategies; teens will not need to learn to read or write richly if their task is simply to learn the facts. Given what we have learned through adolescent literacy research, it would be wise to re- sist any move away from embracing strategies that help adolescents use literacy to solve the problems posed by complicated content and contexts.

Limited attention to those who teach. The kind of research cited as most credible by those who authored NCLB has not examined teacher learn- ing in detailed, replicable ways. It says little about how teachers are to learn best practices or to adapt practices to different kinds of learners. The legislation authorizes staff development in scien- tifically based methods of reading instruction but does not acknowledge that many important ques- tions remain about how best to contribute to teachers' ongoing learning.

NCLB mentions that classroom paraprofes- sionals and special education teachers should receive staff development as providers of instruc- tion for those who struggle with literacy in grades 3 through 12. No role is specified for content teachers who might provide developmentally ap- propriate instruction in comprehension strategies to all youth throughout these same grades, de- spite a long history of recommendations in this area. No recommendation is made for reading specialists at these grade levels, despite attention to such recommendations in the literature (Moore e t a l , 1999).

Implied attention to adolescents' varying needs and interests. NCLB's attention to schoolwide re- form, drop-out prevention, and technology may be very important to adolescent literacy, at least in implicit ways. However, increasing amounts of qualitative research have focused attention on adolescents' varying constructions of literacy in and out of school, given social concerns related to gender, race, class, and ability (Alvermann et al., 1998; Hinchman & Moje, 1998; Moje & O'Brien, 2001). Sometimes adolescents who are quite skilled in some contexts are viewed as deficient in

academic contexts that promote narrow, even dis- connected notions of what it means to know (Alvermann, 2001). An example concerns adoles- cents who are sophisticated users of technology while rejecting effort in math, science, English, or social studies. Researchers have only begun to ex- plore the roles technologies will play in adoles- cent literacy development into the next century (Alvermann, 2002).

NCLB and its legislation say nothing about the dilemmas posed by adolescents who fail be- cause they choose not to play the game of aca- demics or about school systems that favor some forms of literacy (such as print based) over others (such as technology). The legislation is also silent about the implications of an increasingly techno- logical world for adolescent literacy learning.

Questions raised for adoiescent literacy by NCLB No Child Left Behind represents a unique initia- tive to reshape the entire educational system around a set of research-based, early literacy prin- ciples and practices. As such, the legislation holds potential for influencing educational practices of all kinds, including those in adolescent literacy. One strong implication from NCLB concerns the use of scientifically based reading research for program development and evaluation. This prompts the following question:

Should those interested in adolescent literacy invest more in the kinds of research and class- room practices promoted by NCLB? As has al- ready been noted, NCLB rests on a mantra of scientifically based reading research. This raises important questions for those who are interested in adolescent literacy, an area where much recent research and some implications for practice have been derived from qualitative approaches. NCLB does not give the qualitative perspective much credence, despite the fact that many important generalizations about contexts, teachers, and.

46 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT & ADULT LITERACY 4 8 : 1 SEPTEMBER 2 0 0 4

NO CMlit Lett B^feHt: Wtiat It maa tor U.S. »lotesc«it8 and wtiat we can Ai about It

most important, adolescents, can be drawn from considering this body of work in its entirety.

If researchers in adolescent literacy would like to make more forceful instructional recom- mendations, to get federal funding or funding that is sensitive to federal priorities, the answer to the question is probably, "Yes." In many cases, guided by NCLB, funding proposals at the na- tional and state levels require practices and evalu- ations grounded in experimental research. It would be a mistake to ignore the message that standards are important and reliable and that valid measures of accountability are essential as the basis for instructional conclusions. The exclu- sion of qualitative research as a source of evi- dence is unfortunate, given the insights about context, teachers, and adolescents that have emerged through this type research in the past several decades. It becomes tragic when one con- siders that many of the schools that are not mak- ing adequate yearly progress could greatly benefit from the recommendations of qualitative re- search in adolescent literacy when making indi- vidual child and program evaluation decisions. Moreover, a heavy reliance on experimental research could instigate a return to an over- emphasis on narrowly prescribed accountability measures and accompanying instructional prac- tices that stress fitting adolescents to standards, when alternative strategies and flexibility would be more desirable and have a greater chance of success. Thus, the answer to the question of whether adolescent literacy researchers and sec- ondary teachers should be influenced by NCLB's methodology is "Yes"—but only if more inclusive constructions of adolescent literacy can also be considered such as those nuances that have been discovered through qualitative research.

Missing pieces frem research and current legisiatien We have available a number of resources from which to draw in order to attend to adolescents' proclivities and needs. Comparing the research

on adolescent literacy to NCLB legislation, as we have done here, suggests at least three areas where much more work is needed.

Forging connections between work on reform and community. More work needs to be done to understand and support adolescents in classroom, school, and community contexts—-work that ties together what we know about adolescent literacy and school reform and drop-out prevention re- search. Connections between research on adoles- cent literacy and the NCLB legislation are very limited in these areas, despite the fact that teachers and schools deal with adolescents, drop out pre- vention, and school reform programs on a daily basis. Many secondary teachers remain ill- equipped with strategies that could help them build bridges between adolescent, classroom, and community.

Providing an authentic role for parents in ado- lescent literacy. NCLB specifies a number of roles for parents in early literacy education, both in school and at home. Comparatively, parents are seldom seen in secondary schools, and very little research has been devoted in the area of adoles- cent literacy to parents and their role in schools.

Though many argue that it is critical to in- volve parents in their children's education, this is a tricky issue for parents of adolescents (Dauber & Epstein, 1993; Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998). Many adolescents work to discourage their parents' participation or, at a minimum, to delin- eate an existence apart from everything their par- ents imagine for them. Few studies have explored what it takes to involve parents in improving their adolescent's literacy or have documented the complexities or effect of such efforts. Teachers and other school professionals could benefit from more insights on what it takes to bring parents into secondary schools as partners in their ado- lescents' education.

Designing interventions for adolescents who struggle with reading. NCLB acknowledges that much research has been conducted on interven- tions prior to grade 3. It also notes that much

J O U R N A L O F A O O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 4 8 : 1 S E P T E M B E R Z 0 0 4 47

I n ClriM luff BririnK fttM ft mranisp B

research has highlighted the inefficacy of inter- ventions beyond grade 3 (Allington & Johnston, 1991).

Despite the lack of measurable gains from programs that likely "warehoused" students with packages of workbooks and isolated skills in- struction (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989), one can imagine other kinds of interventions by which individuals through adulthood can be helped to improve literacy skills. However, more work also needs to be done to connect individual differences, individually appropriate reading in- struction, and accountability for growth. There is little but anecdotal evidence for methods in this area (Curtis & Longo, 1999; Tovani, 2000).

Moreover, there continues to be a tension between raising standards and providing instruc- tional opportunities and the various ways that students learn and grow in their literacy abilities. NCLB represents the world of higher standards and measuring growth. In contrast, the world of adolescent literacy has highlighted student diver- sity and multiple instructional approaches. Ways must be found to bridge these worlds so that pol- icy, research, and practice are more congruent, particularly when it comes to measuring individ- ual student growth and rewarding teachers and schools when it happens.

Research on adolescent literacy has explored factors such as multiple literacies; personal identi- ty issues; the influence of race, gender, and eth- nicity; teaching and learning beliefs and practices; and the roles of text and context. NCLB focuses on increasing accountability through expanded assessment, greater school choice, increased parental involvement, early intervention to pro- mote reading success, and the promotion of greater English proficiency. One could conclude from this contrast that much of the adolescent lit- eracy research has focused on identifying and ex- plaining the conditions that promote or hinder adolescent literacy while U.S. government initia- tives seek to create conditions for greater achieve- ment. There is a paradox in that research suggests that accountability and assessment plans need to

be applied with great care if they are to improve students' learning (Linn, 2000). What we don't have yet are empirically supported strategies for attending to both concerns at the same time.

In addition, there is emerging evidence that school choice and vouchers can lead to improved results on reading tests for African American stu- dents {Howell & Peterson, 2001). These results have been attributed to the combination of high- er standards, smaller class sizes, and, in some cas- es, greater parental involvement when compared with public schools. Few studies have focused on the broad range of factors that influence adoles- cent literacy in school choice or voucher contexts or that consider that students from different backgrounds may need varying kinds of support.

Ongoing crises While considerable attention is currently applied within the research and policy communities to early literacy, there continue to be ongoing crises in adolescent literacy. In connecting the findings of adolescent literacy research to No Child Lett Behind, this article creates the potential for in- cluding adolescent literacy in the renewed interest in promoting literacy for all students. This article poses some new directions for research in adoles- cent literacy It connects adolescent literacy to ini- tiatives for early literacy, thus making possible a broad dialogue about research and policies for building literacy from the preschool through the middle and secondary years.

REFERENCES Alexander, P.A., & [etton, T.L. (2000). Learning from text: A

multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285-310). Mahwah, N|: Eribaum.

Allington, R.,8i)ohnston, F. (1991). Remediation. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 984-1012). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Allington, R., & McGili-Franzen, A. (1989). School response to reading failure: Instruction for special education and

48 J O U R N A L OF A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 4 8 : 1 S E P T E M B E R Z 0 0 4

No CfilM Lalt BeMnd: What It imnns fep U.8. adolesceiits and what we can do about H

Chapter 1 students in grades 2,4, and 8. Elementary School !ournal, 89, 529-542.

Alvermann, D.E. (2001). Effective lilerdcy instruction for ado- lescents. Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Alvermann, D.E. (Ed.). (2002). New literacies and digital technologies: A focus on adolescent learners. New York: Peter Lang.

Alvermann, D.E., Hinchman, K., Moore, D., Phelps, S., & Waff, D. (1998). Reconceptualmng the literacies in adoles- cents' lives. Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Alvermann, D,E., & Moore, D.W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M.L Kami!, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 951-983). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Anderson, R.C., & Nagy, W.E. (1991). Word meanings. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamii, P.B. Mosenthal, &. P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 690-722). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Anderson, T.H., &. Armbruster, B.B. (1984). Studying. In P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 657-679). New York: Longman.

Bean, T. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social con- structivist dimensions. In M.L. Kami!, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, 8c R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading re- search (Vol. 3, pp, 629-644). Mahwah, N|: Eribaum.

Beck, M., & McKeown, I. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 789-814). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Blachowicz, C.L.Z., & Fisher, P. (2000J. Vocabulary instruc- tion. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 503-523). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Bush, G.W. (2001). No child left behind: Executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Capella, E., & Weinstein, R.S. (2001). Turning around read- ing achievement: Predictors ot high school students' aca- demic resilience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 758-771.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1998). Turning points: Preparing Atnerican youth Jor the 21st cen- tury. Washington, DC: Carnegie [foundation.

Committee on Education and the Workforce. (2002). President Bush signs landmark reforms into law [Press release]. Washington, DC: White House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Curtis, M., & Longo, A.M. (1999). Wlien adolescents can't read: Methods and materials that work. Nev\ion Upper Falls, MA: Brookljne.

Daniels, H., Bizar, M., & Zemelman, S. (2001). Rethinking high school: Best practice in teaching, learning, and leader- ship. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Darling'Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995).

Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and stu- dents at work. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dauber, S., & Epstein, ]. (1993). Parents' attitudes and prac- tices of Involvement in inner city elementary and middle schools. In N.E. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 2-106). New York: State University of New York Press.

Eccles, I.S., Wigfietd, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998), Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psy- chology: Social, emotional and personality development (5thed.,Vol. 3, pp. 1017-1095). New York: Wiley.

Ereedman, S.W., Simons, E.R., Kalnin, I.S., Casareno, A., & the M-Class Teams. (1999). Inside city schools: Investigating literacy in multicultural classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Eullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Greenleaf, C , Schoenbach, R., & Cziko, C. (2001).

Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic iiteracy. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 79-129.

Herber, H.L. (1970). Teaching reading in content areas. Englewood Cliffs, N): Prentice Hall.

Hinchman, K.A., Sc Moje, E.B. (1998). Locating the social and political in secondary school literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 117-128. doi:10.1598/ RRQ.33.1,6

Howell, W., & Peterson, P. (2001). The education gap: Vouchers and urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Kos, R, (1991). Persistence of reading disabilities: The voices of four middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 875-895.

Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.

McCray, A.D., Vaughn, S., & Neal, L.L (2001). Not all stu- dents iearn to read by third grade: Middle school stu- dents speak out about their reading disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 35, 17-30.

Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston: Bt-acon Press.

Moje, E., & O'Brien, D. (2001). Constructions of literacy: Studies of teaching and learning in and out of secondary schools. Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Moore, D.W., Bean, T., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. (1999). Summary of adolescent literacy: A position statement for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Moore, D.W., Readcnce, J.W., & Rickelman, R. (1983). An historical exploration of content area reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18,

JOURNAL OF AD0LE8CEIVT & ADULT LITERACY 4 8 : 1 SEPTEMBER 2 0 0 4 49

No Ghld liin BeMnd: Wtnt It fneans lop U.S. adotascnts ami wint m

Nagy, W.E., & Scott, J.A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Moscnthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), liandbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 269-284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the Nntkmai Reading Panel Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assess- ment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction INIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Noblit, G.W., & Hare, R.D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

O'Brien, D., & Stewart, R. (1990). Preservice teachers' per- spectives on why every teacher is not a teacher of reading: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Reading Behavior^ 22, 101-129.

Pajares, F. (i996). Self-efficacy beliefs iu academic settings. Review of Educatiomi! Research, 66, 543-578.

Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 39,771-777.

Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, \.C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, 8c P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 609-640). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Pearson, P.D.,

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruc- tion be the instruction ol? In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, 8( R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NI: Erlbaum.

Readence, J., Bean, T., & Baldwin, S. (1981). Content area reading: An integrated approach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Schunk, D.H., & Rice, J.M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and compre- hension among students receiving remedial reading serv- ices. Journal of Special Education, 27, 257-276.

Sizer, T. (1996). Horace's hope: What works for the American high school. Boston: Houghton Miffiin.

Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.

Snow, C , Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Tierney, R.J., & Cunningham, l.W. (1984). Research on teaching reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. KamU, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609-655). New York: Longman.

Tierney, R.|., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D, Pearson (Eds.), Handbook oj reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 246-281). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Tovani, C. (2000). I read it but I don't get it: Comprehension strategies for adolescent readers. York, ME: Stenhouse.

U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Dropout rates in the United States (NCES 98-250). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999a). TheNAEP 1998 reading report card for the nation and the states (UCES 1999-300). Retrieved August 21, 2001, from http://nces.ed,gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/mainl998/ 1999500.asp

U.S. Department of Education, (1999b). TheNAEP 1998 writing report card for the nation and the states (NCES 1999-462). Retrieved August 21, 2001, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid= 1999462

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance (NCES 2000-469). Retrieved August 21, 2001, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid= 2000469

Vacca, R., 8( Vacca, J. (1981). Content area reading. Boston: Little, Brown.

Wade, S.E., SE Moje, E.B. (2000). The role of text in class- room learning. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 609-627). Mahwah, Nl: Erlbaum.

50 J Q U R I U A L OF A D O L E S C E N T ft A D U L T L I T E R A C V 4 8 : 1 S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 4