Page 20 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 20 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
11
No Child Left Behind
Ultimately, the Bush administration created the “No Child Left Behind Act,”
which is the most recent reauthorization of ESEA. It expands on the previous
Improving America’s School Act, in that it urges states to comply with a plethora of
stricter assessments, accountability measures and performance requirements.
According to Epstein (2004), this legislation required states to test all students in
grades 3 through 8 in a variety of content areas; however, the legislation placed a
specific emphasis on reading, math and science. Furthermore, states were required
to developed “adequate yearly progress” objectives that would promote students
becoming proficient in core subjects within twelve years. Also, states had to
participate biennially in a version of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) in order to determine the rigor level of standards and assessments.
In order to ensure that low performing schools would be able to meet their state
mandated performance levels, NCLB also included a section that required that
“highly qualified” teachers and paraprofessionals to be placed in every classroom to
offer additional support to students. Although the task appeared detailed in its
design, it only increased requirements and did not specifically focus on better
pedagogy to improve the academic achievement of low performing students
(Gordon, Kane, & Staiger, 2006).
It is important to note that simply creating education policy does not
necessarily guarantee that the opportunity gap will narrow. According to Oakes et
al. (2006), “the usual approaches to school reform—technical reforms that change
Object Description
| Title | Co-constructing community, school and university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two |
| Author | Woodyard, Savina M. |
| Author email | SavinaW@aol.com; savinaw@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Education |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Education (Leadership) |
| School | Rossier School of Education |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-03-22 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-19 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Rousseau, Sylvia G. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Stowe, Kathy Huisong Marsh, David D. |
| Abstract | Community-school-university partnerships represent a new model of urban education reform that incorporates the overlapping spheres of influence in the transformation process. Co-constructed relationships between communities, schools and universities have the potential reshape organizational hierarchy and enable all partners to develop a new cultural model capable of transforming K-12 urban schools. This study the second and third year of one co-constructed community-school-university partnership that attempted to transform the cultural model of one urban high school.; The aim of this study is to identify and analyze the extent to which a community-school-university partnership is able to sustain elements of co-construction and other ongoing processes that are beneficial to the partnership. Also, the study will identify the persistent barriers to co-constructions and effective strategies to overcome those barriers within a community-school-university partnership. This study expands on the research conducted during the first year of the partnership’s operation and will offer insight as to the sustainability of the co-constructed processes between the community-school-university partnership. This study will also identify the methods in which the community-school-university partnership can develop a new cultural model for parental engagement in the interest of school transformation. |
| Keyword | partnership; co-construction; urban school; transformation; parental engagement |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Geographic subject (country) | USA |
| Coverage date | 2000/2010 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3759 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Woodyard, Savina M. |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Woodyard-4509 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume62/etd-Woodyard-4509.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 20 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 11 No Child Left Behind Ultimately, the Bush administration created the “No Child Left Behind Act,” which is the most recent reauthorization of ESEA. It expands on the previous Improving America’s School Act, in that it urges states to comply with a plethora of stricter assessments, accountability measures and performance requirements. According to Epstein (2004), this legislation required states to test all students in grades 3 through 8 in a variety of content areas; however, the legislation placed a specific emphasis on reading, math and science. Furthermore, states were required to developed “adequate yearly progress” objectives that would promote students becoming proficient in core subjects within twelve years. Also, states had to participate biennially in a version of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in order to determine the rigor level of standards and assessments. In order to ensure that low performing schools would be able to meet their state mandated performance levels, NCLB also included a section that required that “highly qualified” teachers and paraprofessionals to be placed in every classroom to offer additional support to students. Although the task appeared detailed in its design, it only increased requirements and did not specifically focus on better pedagogy to improve the academic achievement of low performing students (Gordon, Kane, & Staiger, 2006). It is important to note that simply creating education policy does not necessarily guarantee that the opportunity gap will narrow. According to Oakes et al. (2006), “the usual approaches to school reform—technical reforms that change |
