possible paper sources

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472084
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164513
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071129
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30069447
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30133807
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30050911
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30050911
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699464
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3593031
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3202164
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3202170
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3568128
http://www.jstor.org/stable/748259 <---- importance of "scaffolding" and social construction in education

hey wendy, gee, you've been looking really pretty lately. maybe you should Make Your Searches More Specific if you want to Get the Ball Rolling on your research papers from now on???
also, summer is inequitable because it exacerbates the home life problems of the poorest students(possible sources: When Work Disappears, early chapters of Moving Every Child Ahead, that one article?)
NCLB's lack of teacher training emphasis and OTL emphasis means that students cannot receive necessary "scaffolding" support.

Word bank:
Opportunity-to-learn
Scaffolding
Equal Opportunity Education
Proficiency goal vs. opportunity goal
Meaningful educational opportunity
2014 mandate

Moving Every Child Ahead plan in the final chapter:
Intro
P1: NCLB revitalized American egalitarian heritage. Minimally qualified teachers "highly qualified". States will be held to high standards, supposedly, but not enforced. Demands miraculous progress(literally unprecedented) without providing necessary resources to that end.
P2: NCLB 2 primary goals; fair, equal and significant opportunity for high qual education, proficient on challenging state acad standards and assessments. Proficiency stressed, opportunity deemphasized; should be reversed.
P3: 100% proficny by 2014 is untenable, undermines credibility of act. NCLB should eliminate mandate, replace w "meaningful educational opportunity"

Meaningful Educational Opportunity
P1: Root of achieve gaps is opport gaps of low-income minorities. NCLB focus on accountblty, rejects resources/support. No pressure on states.
-Congress should eliminate 100% profic mandate, meaningf ed oppor
-Draw on legis history of NCLB and state court experience to define mean ed oppor
-8 in school essentials: 1. effective teachers, principals + personnel 2. appropriate class sizes 3. adequate school facilities 4. rich/rigorous curricula 5. full platform of services: guidance, after school, summer, weekend programs, tutors, addit time on task for poverty students 6. English learners and disabiility students need appropriate programs 7. instruments of learning: labs, textbooks, libraries, computers 8. safe, orderly learning environment
-5 out of school essentials: 1. early childhood edu 2. nutrition + physical activity 3. phys + mental care 4. home family community support for acad achievmnt 5. access to arts, culture, employment(!!!), community service, civic, other critical nonacad experiences
-in annual report cards, states should demonstrate appropriate resources + opports for school and out-of-school areas are provided, including extent to which equitable dist of resources + service quality has been achieved; providing should be left to the states
-Dep of Edu should issue annual report on resources and edu practices of most effective states in terms of combatting achvmnt gaps.

Effective Teachers
P1: Teacher quality only one mandated by NCLB. Not enough for at-risk students(by the time students reach teachers they may already be too late) Students need in and out of school resrces
P2: NCLB increased number of state-certed teachers, but not "highly" qualified... hyperbole.
-NCLB must require states to identify qualifications of teachers and identify 3 types of teachers: provisionally qualified, qualfed, and highly effective. Provis qualfed teachers = teachers in training who meet state alternat cert reqs. Qualfed = college degree w/ major in field directly related to subject they teach and meet cert reqs. Highly effective = teachers w deep understanding of subject, state academic content stds and proficny reqs, demonstrated competence to impart knowledge to diverse students
-NCLBs reqs for equitable distribution of highly qualfed teachers should be applied using this system; minority students shouldnt have unequal distribution of low-qual teachers
-States should articulate methods for maximizing effective teachers and provide info on their cert reqs, education school accredit stds, and induction/mentoring/profsnl development practices in their annual report cards and state plans.

Adequate Funding
P1: NCLB neglects adequate levels of funding are in place so students can have mean ed oppor. Does not cover own costs.
-Fed gov should be responsible for identifying costs of NCLB compliance and determining fair alloation of funding between fed/states
-Congress should authorize comprehensive cost studies of complying with NCLB, achieving goals, and closing achvmnt gaps.
-Analysis should consider not only school-based resources but also out-school. Study should include recommendations on handling achvmnt gaps in a cost-effective manner.
-States responsible for ensuring school districts with low tax bases + high needs receive enough state aid. fed aid should ensure that states with insufficient resources to do this receive fed assistance.
-NCLB should require state plans to include info on present + projected funding levels and describe states efforts to ensure funding equity.

Challenging Standards
P1: Challenging state stds that prep Amer students for 21st cent. NCLB requires these, but prevents Dep of Ed from reviewing standards set by states. Fed must be more proactive in ensuring quality of state standards.
-Aspen Institute's NCLB Comission: model national content + performance tests created by commissioned panel based on National Assessment of Education Progress(NAEP) standards. States can: 1) adopt these stds as their own,2) build their own based on the model, 3) keep existing stds or revamp them in response.
-Model stds should extend beyond core of English, art, maths + science. From state court adequacy cases, conclusions drawn about broad knowledge + skills needed by students to be competitive and function productively(definition?) NCLB should adopt these and provide a floor of quality.
-Stds + state exams should emphasize higher-order cognitive skills needed in college + work, NCLB must balance subject matter emphases by "highlighting importance"
-US ed secretary should issues reports comparing state stds with national model
-States using low-grade stds should be required to bring up to the level of the model.

Valid Assessments
P1: State tests often not aligned w/ content standards or valid profsnl stds. Rampant manipulation of cut scores to inflate number of 'profcnt' students, dramatic variation btwn states. NO SUBJECT MATTER TESTS USED TO MEASURE ENGLISH-LEARNING STUDENTS HAS BEEN VALIDATED, THEREFORE NO ACCURATE DATA
-NCLB should require states to undergo external review of test validity + cut score procedures by Dep of Ed approved independent agency
-Dep of Ed should develop model tests for mandated subjects + grade levels in foreign languages. Costs should be borne by fed. States should be required to use unless they can demonstrate fully valid tests on their own.

Sound Progress Requirements
P1: -Ambitious but realistic progress reqs must be substituted for present mandate
-Given NAEP scores' importance as nat profcny benchmarks, content + profncy levels should be reconsidered
-AYP should be based on value-added growth model that credits schools for student improv over time and provides more accurate picture of school prformnc
-States should augment capacity of data systems to implement val-add growth model + assess resources adequacy
-Reform of AYP should include fair + consistent criteria for size of subgroups, confidence intvls and std errors, and timeline factors. Consider growth targets for spec ed students which challenge them but do not hold schools responsible for unfeasible goals.
-Once credible profncy levels established and val-added growth model in place, precise + strategic targets for annual progress can be established.

Local Capacity for School IMprovement
P1: States must impose cascade of penalties on schools that fail AYP targets, doesnt provide capacity-building assistance. Most schools do not have capacity to apply well conceived plans
-Penalties should be replaced w effective system for technical assistance + accountability for capacity building in low performing schools, state services should be provided
-States should carry out a resource audit to determine adequate funding is in place and resources equitably distributed. Sufficient staff? Basic tools(textbooks computer libraries and labs)? adequate programming?
-Must be fully funded. specific forms of assistance needed should be determined by state.
-Timetables should be replaced with long-term flexible goals.

Federal-State Partnership

P1: By establish national goals and imposing on states, NCLB sets education as fed-state venture. If this partnership is to work, responsibilities of each level must be clarified and respected. NCLB tilts too far in direction of unwarranted federal intrusion in some areas and laxity in others.
-More proactive federal role needed to ensure integ + qualt of state acad content and prfmnce stds, and to guarantee assessments validity including ones for English learners
-Fed should require states to annually report on school and school district progress in disaggregated format that illustrates progress by racial/ethnic group and low-income students and enlgish learners + disability students
-Fed should require + support expansion of state data systems so annual progress measured by val-added growth models rather than static cohort performance statistics
-Clear uniform criteria to enforce reqs must be stated + applied fairly, no political "waivers and acommodations"
-fed involvement in low-performing school improvement directives should be reduced, technical assistance/incentives/sanctions should be left to states
-fed-state partnership should maximize state role in devising effective methods, when this is ineffective fed should pressure to raise standards and resource equity