Bibliography

=Bibliography=

Presentation Media Works Cited:



Project References: (please note that these are currently references as per [|Dartmouth] proposal outline) CurrTech Integrations. Curriculum Differentiation. //Reshaping Mathematics, Science, and NCLB//. 2009. PDF file. “Education.” //Issues//. The White House, 2010. Web. 29 Mar. 2010. . Morton, Todd. “Fixing US STEM education is possible, but will take money.” //ars technica//. Condé Nast Digital, 19 Mar. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. . STEM Education Coalition. Letter. 15 Feb. 2010. //Comment to PCAST//. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. //Microsoft Word// file. United States. Congressional Research Service. //CRS Report for Congress//. By Jeffrey J Kuenzi. March 21, 2008. PDF file. - - -. Department of Education. //A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary// //and Secondary Education Act//. March 2010. PDF file. - - -. - - -. “Competition Priorities - STEM.” //Race to the Top Application for Phase 2 Funding//. 2010. 171-173. //Microsoft Word// file.


 * These represent sources used and annotated as of 3/28/10. Please be aware that format is correct in microsoft word, just did not transfer well to wikispaces.

Casazza, Martha, and Laura Bouer. “Who is Being Left Behind?” //The Myth and Reality of No// //Child Left Behind//. Ed. Todd Alan Price and Elizabeth Peterson. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2009. 73-87. Print. By explaining the increase in college enrollments over the past 50 years, Casazza and Bauer give basic knowledge of NCLB and its major issue: failing to acknowledge gains by students from below basic to basic. Christina Fisanick. “Testing Is a Crucial Part of Measuring Educational Accountability.” //At// //Issue: Has No Child Left Behind Been Good for Education?// Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. N. pag. //Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center//. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. . Fisanick defends No Child Left Behind’s standardized testing requirement, as she feels it defends the student. By citing the accountability of standardized tests, she provides a contrary opinion to many scholars and gives insight to the Bush’s administration’s organization of NCLB. Clay, Tracy-Elizabeth. “Changing the conversation: a perspective on the no Child Left Behind Act.” //Journal of Gender, Race & Justice// (Fall 2008): 12. //Opposing Viewpoints Resource// //Center//. Web. 25 Feb. 2010. . As an employee of Teach For America, Clay represents a favorable opinion of No Child Left Behind, as she feels the national standards have united the country. This provides a contrary opinion to many educational experts, allowing statistics to be compared. Dillon, Sam. “Administration Outlines Proposed Changes to ‘No Child’ Law.” //The New York// //Times//. N.p., 1 Feb. 2010. Web. 4 Mar. 2010. . Dillon, in his assessment of the Obama administration’s recent action on reforming NCLB, reports various changes Obama plans to make. However, an extensive rewrite of NCLB will not solve every problem caused by the law’s vague language and the flawed system of Adequate Yearly Progress, revealing that NCLB should be removed. Dorn, Betsy Van. “Choosing a Quality High School: Five Questions You Should Ask.” //Family// //Education//. Pearson Education Inc., 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2010. . In Van Dorn’s five questions, her most important questions relates to whether or not the high school is working with national standards. This question reveals the change in public education bureaucracy, as schools which used to be managed by local governments now answer to national standards. Van Dorn represents the problem with popular opinion: it is wrong: states determine the standards, not the federal government. “Four Pillars of NCLB.” //US Department of Education//. The Federal Government of the United States of America, 1 July 2004. Web. 24 Feb. 2010. . The Four Pillars of NCLB webpage explains the rationale behind the program, which it ensures is based on accountability for results, more freedom for states and communities, proven education methods, and more choices for parents. However, these standards are contradicted by the execution of the program, which limits education methods. Haerr, Catherine. “The First Day of School.” //No Child Left Behind and the Illusion of Reform//. Ed. Thomas S Poetter, Joseph C Wegwert, and Catherine Haerr. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2006. 77-90. Print. By outlining a brief history of the public education system, Haerr reveals the federal takeover of the public education system and its negative effects on curriculum. Hollingworth, Liz. “Unintended Educational and Social Consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act.” //The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice// (Dec. 2009): 311-327. Print. Hollingworth very accurately depicts the background to NCLB and explains that history, music, physical education, art, and foreign language has all taken a hit in classroom curricula as schools move towards math, reading, and science. “How to Fix No Child Left Behind.” //Time Magazine//. Time, 24 May 2007. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. . This article provides basic background information to NCLB and explains the debate in 2007 whether or not to renew the Act. By outlining the controversy behind the Act, the article explains the problems being standardized testing and how the national government’s regulation comes which providing less than 10% of public school funding. Hunt, John W. “The Modification of School Improvement and Staff Development Efforts in Response to the Failure to Make Adequate Yearly Progress.” //The Myth and Reality of No// //Child Left Behind//. Ed. Todd Alan Price and Elizabeth Peterson. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2009. 119-129. Print. Hunt’s survey of Illinois public school superintendents from February to March of 2006 provides various statistics about the community reactions and state of educators following the introduction of NCLB, which do not provide evidence that NCLB has been successful. “Improving Public Schools.” //Pittsburgh’s Future//. N.p., 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2010. . This article assessed the current state of Southwestern PA’s public education system, where at least half of the 18-year olds are unable to read and/‌or do math at grade level. This reflects that “teaching to the test” is not an adequate way of instruction. Janesick, Valerie J. “Chapter 3: The Standards Movement and Assessment.” //The Assessment// //Debate//. Ed. Danny Weil. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2001. 95-117. Print. Janesick seeks to explain the problems behind standardized testing, which she feels leaves many urban students behind as funds are cut. Additionally, she points out that NCLB causes many states to threaten states with funding based on one test’s results, only hurting the failing school districts. Karaba, Robert. “No Cartesian Left Behind.” //No Child Left Behind and the Illusion of Reform//. Ed. Thomas S Poetter, Joseph C Wegwert, and Catherine Haerr. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2006. 29-40. Print. Noting that NCLB is too concerned with content and not process, Karaba points out the easy passage of the Act and how necessary changes have not been completed. Kohn, Alfie. “Standardized Testing and Its Victims.” //Education Week// (Sept. 2000): n. pag. Web. 23 Feb. 2010. . Kohn explains the issues with standardized testing, most importantly that preparation for state tests resulted in program cuts, and that was before the passing of NCLB. Additionally, Kohn points out that a student’s background has much more effect on test scores then the school’s curriculum. Morse, Robert. “Methodology: America’s Best High Schools.” //US News & World Report//. N.p., 2010. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. . Morse describes the process in which “Americas Best High Schools” were chosen, which relied heavily on meeting state standards and benchmarks, the first step which ensured a school served its students well. Even more awakening was that test performance was the sole determinant when comparing students from different tests, despite the fact that each state has different standards. Peterson, Elizabeth. “Drop Out or Pushed Out? Who’s Counted Out in High Stakes Testing?” //The Myth and Reality of No Child Left Behind//. Ed. Todd Alan Price and Elizabeth Peterson. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2009. 47-63. Print. Peterson explains how graduation statistics also account for AYP, however, she elaborates to note that they do not count for nearly as much as standardized tests, which hurt teacher morale and limit curricula. Peterson, Paul E, and Matthew M Chingos. “For-Profit and Nonprofit Management in Philadephia Schools.” //Education Next// (Spring 2009): 65-70. Web. 2 Mar. 2010. . Peterson and Chingos asses Title I of NCLB, which allows private management of public schools. President Obama has allowed this section of the Act to continue, and their research proves that there was not much difference between public and privately run schools, and nonprofit schools actually fell short of publicly run school districts. Poetter, Thomas S. “The Impact of NCLB on Curriculm, Teaching, and Assessment.” //No Child// //Left Behind and the Illusion of Reform//. Ed. Thomas S Poetter, Joseph C Wegwert, and Catherine Haerr. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2006. 1-14. Print. Poetter explains that educators have no choice but to teach to the test, as their jobs rely on test results. He explains that the public education system has become so concerned with results that the curriculum ignores creativity. This reveals that NCLB has hurt the public education system. Ravitch, Diane. “Time to Kill ‘No Child Left Behind.’” //The Education Digest// (Sept. 2009): 4-6. Print. Ravitch, who is a research professor of education at New York University and served as an assistant US secretary of education from 1991 to 1993, outlines that NCLB has not resulted in gains, and scores have not improved on average sine 1988. She believes trying to savor the Act is a waste, and the only possible solution is to start from scratch. Reichel, Anne Grall. “Unintended Consequences: The Teacher’s Story.” //The Myth and Reality of// //No Child Left Behind//. Ed. Todd Alan Price and Elizabeth Peterson. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2009. 131-150. Print. Reichel interviewed many teachers of all levels and reports on the problems of NCLB, explaining why it should not receive minor changes but should instead be replaced by another system. She explains that teachers and students are void of proper support. “Schools 2009: Ranking Methodology.” //Philadelphia// //Magazine//. N.p., 2010. Web. 21 Feb. 2010. . The ranking methodology for Philadelphia Magazine’s 2009 public high school rankings relied 15% on state assessment test averages and 15% on SAT averages, two out of the three highest categories for determining the best schools along with % of students going to college. This reflects that the ranking system relies too heavily on standardized tests and too little on curriculum vigor. Shear, Michael D, and Nick Anderson. “a $4 Billion Push for Better Schools.” //The Washington// //Post//. N.p., 24 Jan. 2009. Web. 3 Mar. 2010. . Anderson and Shear capture the President’s initial attempts at reforming NCLB after entering the White House, and in doing so outline the Race to the Top program in place currently. This program shows a new policy that is helping the public school system, and new programs like this cannot coexist with NCLB’s system of AYP and Title I mandates. “Standards Aligned System (SAS).” //Pennsylvania Department of Education//. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2010. Web. 24 Feb. 2010. . The Standards Aligned System is the current program put in place by the Pennsylvania Department of Education which defines the standards, oversees fair assessments, and builds statewide curriculum in public schools. Its focus on fair assessments, more importantly the benchmark assessment PSSAs, reflect the state’s reliance on standardized testing for instruction. Testerman, Jim. Representing Pennsylvania State Education Association. Pennsylvania School Funding Campaign. 23 Jan. 2008. //Pennsylvania// //State// //Education Association//. Web. 21 Feb. 2010. . Testerman’s statement reveals the goals of the Pennsylvania School Funding Campaign, an organization aiming to revitalize Pennsylvania’s public schools. Organizations like the School Funding Campaign represent the current push towards different school ranking systems, focusing on class sizes and instruction rather than passing one state test per year. United States Department of Education. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. //Letter// //to Secretary of Education of Pennsylvania Department of Education Gerald L Zahorchak//. By Kerri L Briggs, Ph.D. Washington, DC, 2009. PDF file. Briggs, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, writes to Gerald L. Zahorchak, Secretary of Education of the Pennsylvania Department Education regarding Pennsylvania’s implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Briggs outlines the goals for standardized testing, one still being the inclusion of students and student subgroups in accountability determinations, which causes many problems regarding those with minor disabilities.