Unsettling Conversations

The theme of accountability currently permeates conversations about education at every level, including teacher education and professional development. In our Call for Manuscripts for this theme issue, we invited empirical or conceptual manuscripts addressing assessment and accountability in teacher education that would move the community forward in considering the topics both more precisely and with greater complexity. The range of suggested subtopics and questions within assessment and accountability in teacher education was broad to elicit a wide range of responses. In general, we asked, Who is to be held accountable? For what? And by whom? As we reviewed the many excellent submissions, one predominant response to these questions centered on value-added modeling (VAM) approaches to accountability. Although this is only one of several answers to the questions we asked, it is one that has important intended and unintended consequences for various stakeholders in teacher education, including beginning teachers, mentor teachers, administrators, teacher educators, higher education institutions, and policy makers. Emergence of Value-Added Models for Teacher Education The rise of interest in VAM for teacher education is related to the search for the definition of teacher quality that has emerged as a primary factor in determination of K-12 student performance, probably as a confluence of a number of events (see Knight, 2011). The Tennessee study (Sanders & Horn, 1998), a landmark study using random assignment of teachers and students to classrooms, firmly established the advantage for students of having a high-quality teacher over a number of years. For many years, educators had struggled with the seemingly intractable socioeconomic factors related to poor student performance. The notion of teacher quality appeared to be manipulable and constituted a viable approach for closing student achievement gaps. Not only do teachers make a difference but their effectiveness can potentially be assessed, rewarded, and improved through recruitment, incentives, and/or professional development. No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top funding and legislation served to popularize the VAM approach for determination of teacher quality. Given the emphasis on teacher professional development as a contributor to teacher quality, the application of VAM approaches for teacher education accountability may have appeared to be an obvious connection to policy makers (see Floden, 2012 [this issue]). Despite the rather limited evidence of the impacts of teacher preparation programs on student achievement (Duckworth, Quinn, & Seligman, 2009), many policy makers concluded that the quality of teacher education preparation, as with individual teachers, can potentially be assessed, rewarded, and improved--or removed if necessary. However, just as VAM applied to determination of individual teacher quality resulted in a number of methodological, ethical, and other concerns, VAM used to determine the quality of teacher education programs carries similar concerns as well as others specific to teacher education. Possibilities and Limitations of VAM for Teacher Education In February 2012, Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) sponsored a Major Forum at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) Annual Meeting in Chicago that featured research using VAM for assessment of the quality of teacher education programs in several states and commentaries that focused participants on both the possibilities as well as the limitations of this approach. Participants agreed that the framing of VAM as a policy issue is important and that much is at stake as we consider the education of teachers and the education of young people in this country. Federal and state governments are investing a great deal of money in value-added assessment systems, and the consequences of policy implementation are complex and significant. …

School Reform: The District Policy Implications of the Effective Schools Literature

In a recent themed issue of Journal of Teacher Education (JTE 63.4) about of disability, diversity, and teacher education, guest editors Marleen Pugach, Linda Blanton, and Lani Florian (2012) invite readers to participate in honest, difficult, and much needed dialogue across the many diversity constituencies in teacher (p. 235). In this commentary, I extend the dialogue begun in this special themed issue by considering the affordances of a Disability Studies in Education (DSE) perspective for understanding the intersectional nature of diversity, disability, and the social, cultural, and political production of educational inequities. guest editors of JTE 63.4 are to be commended for gathering and presenting a collection of voices that seek to position identifications of alongside other markers of diversity in a conversation about preparing teachers to foster educational equity. Collectively, the articles represent an important first step toward disrupting the process of ability profiling (Collins, 2003, 2013), that is, the process of educationally marginalizing or segregating based on perceived differences in race, ethnicity, linguistic repertoire, social class, gender, and dis/ability. However, the articles in this issue also illustrate that the disciplinary discourses we bring to bear in identifying, locating, and responding to perceived differences and dis/abilities shape the voices that are heard and, subsequently, the understandings that are created. In this commentary, I draw on research in DSE to clarify some of what is obscured by the disciplinary lenses represented in JTE 63.4. I begin with a brief overview of the articles in JTE 63.4 and the foundations of DSE. I then move to more deeply explicate a DSE perspective on two important concepts, disability labels as a social and political response to difference and personal narrative as decolonizing methodology. After introducing a DSE perspective on each of these points, I contrast it with those represented in JTE 63.4. I conclude with a discussion of the perspectives that a DSE lens affords relative to teacher education and educational equity that are not otherwise addressed in the special issue. A Brief Overview of the Articles in JTE 63.4 authors of the five centerpiece articles in JTE 63.4 each foreground different aspects of the complex relationship between diversity and disability in teacher education. issue begins with Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Curt Dudley-Marling (2012) presenting an overview of the issues that divide general and special teacher educators, including the disciplinary roots of general and special education, deficit perspectives on difference (which they locate within special education), and access to the general curriculum for all students. authors also discuss those areas where connection seems possible, including teacher inquiry within preparation programs. Two of the remaining four centerpiece articles explicate specifically situated perspectives on diversity and disability in teacher education. In The 21st Century Teacher: A Cultural Perspective, Robert Rueda and Jamy Stillman (2012) foreground of cultural (in)congruence between teachers and and argue that teachers must become informed observers of all students (p. 250). In Complex Relationships Between Multicultural Education and Special Education: An African American Perspective, Jacqueline Jordan Irvine (2012) calls attention to the disproportionate representation of of color in general and of African American boys in particular in special education. She argues for an approach that would prepare all teachers to enact culturally relevant pedagogy as means of disrupting the deficit thinking that shapes overrepresentation. other two centerpiece articles, Preparing Teachers to Work in Inclusive Classrooms: Key Lessons for the Professional Development of Teacher Educators from Scotland's Inclusive Practice Project by Lani Florian (2012) and Enacting Diversity in Dual Certification Programs by Marleen C. …

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderASHA Convention Coverage1 Jan 2005Schools Forum at Convention Draws 400 Marat Moore Marat Moore Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.ACC2.10012005.2 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Members from across the nation shared challenges and brainstormed strategies on more than 40 topics in roundtable discussions at the 2004 Schools Forum. ASHA’s top leaders also addressed the group, announcing the breaking news of reauthorization for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Kathleen Whitmire, ASHA’s director of school services, served as moderator of the forum, held Nov. 18 at the ASHA Convention in Philadelphia. Leadership Reports “Schools are a priority for ASHA,” said President Larry Higdon as he welcomed the crowd. Of the 100,000 ASHA-certified SLPs, 56% are employed in the schools. Higdon outlined the Association’s ongoing program work through the 2004 Focused Initiative on school issues, including advocacy and training related to IDEA and No Child Left Behind (NCLB), ongoing literacy activities, promotion of a workload approach to caseloads, and the 2005 Schools Conference set for July 8–10 in Indianapolis. Celia Hooper, vice president for professional practices in speech-language pathology, listed the outcomes related to schools programs and services, which include: an increased number of states and districts that utilize workload models access to information on IDEA an increased number of states and districts that offer salary supplements for the CCCs support from the State Education Action Team to five targeted states consultations on workload to 25 districts and four states support to 38 districts in 14 states that gained salary supplements In the area of reimbursement, ASHA’s working group on Medicaid supervision developed a technical report and position statement on ASHA-certified SLPs providing supervision to lesser qualified personnel for Medicaid-reimbursed services in the schools. In 2005, ASHA’s focused initiatives include: personnel issues, doctoral shortage, reimbursement, and evidence-based practice. Catherine (Kate) Gottfred, vice president for governmental and social services, updated participants on IDEA reauthorization, the new schools finance committee, training materials and activities related to the No Child Left Behind Act, and the 2005 public policy agenda. President-elect Dolores E. Battle noted the “exciting time we’re in” related to the confluence of IDEA, NCLB, literacy, and workload. She spoke of the importance of accurate assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students, and noted the development of new intervention models, evidence-based practice, and the ongoing personnel challenges in the schools. For CLD students, “there are issues beyond bilingualism. We all have a culture,” she said, stressing that children “need a chance to show what they can learn.” Ellen Estomin, a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Caseload Size, gave participants more background on the workload analysis approach, noting that training has been offered in more than 40 states using ASHA’s practice documents. ASHA has contacts in 25 districts and four states related to implementation of the workload approach. Former president Nancy Creaghead updated the group on literacy resources and initiatives, including practice documents, the online “ Literacy Gateway,” advocacy with the U.S. Department of Education, and other program activities in the National Office and liaison work with external organizations. Roundtable Discussions Break-out roundtable discussions drew enthusiastic responses and prompted intense discussions of dozens of topics. Those topics included: apraxia, AAC, autism, auditory processing disorder, cleft palate, cochlear implants, collaboration, assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students, fluency, evidence-based practice, literacy, IDEA, Medicaid, NCLB, recruitment of SLPs, rural challenges, salary supplements, severe disabilities, Internet treatment materials, voice disorders, urban challenges, and workload. The discussion on eligibility and dismissal issues drew such a crowd that tables had to be combined. When the discussion turned to funding, facilitator Tom Ehren pointed out that “the most important part of money is not our paycheck, but where the money comes from.” One participant noted, “In lots of schools, there are inconsistencies among SLPs about which students qualify and which don’t. A spectrum is OK, but too many discrepancies are a problem. It sends a mixed message.” Another issue raised in the group related to parents who did not want their children dismissed. Ehren said, “We talk about dismissal from the very beginning, and we celebrate dismissal.” In the roundtable on CLD students, clinicians spoke about the challenges of dealing with multiple languages and parents who juggle jobs and are often transient. One participant said, “Don’t forget about the older kids, the adolescents who are facing more academically complex challenges.” Another participant said that their staff gives parents of young children books in their native language. Other approaches in the group include after-school programs and homework clubs, and finding interpreters in the community to assist clinicians in the schools. President-elect Battle, who acted as facilitator, noted the importance of communication with middle school students. “How do you get that level of conversation with parents to help their kids in middle school?” she asked. “Often they will drop out or end up in the criminal justice system.” The group also addressed the issue of scoring tests, and the need to take the time to do comprehensive assessments. Author Notes managing editor of The ASHA Leader, can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 10Issue 1January 2005 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Jan 1, 2005 Metrics Downloaded 56 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2005 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

This chapter seeks to examine the impact of two federal policies, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), on educators in the USA during the past decade of reform. NCLB was signed into law in 2002 and is having a profound effect on the education of all students, including students considered at risk for academic failure, such as students with disabilities, students from diverse racial and ethnic minority groups, students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds, and students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP), better known as English Language Learners (ELLs). NCLB “moved the federal government’s role in education from being primarily a source of funding—now about 9% of every public school dollar—to being a major factor in shaping the substance of P-12 curriculum and instruction” (Lieberman, 2008: 1). The most central requirements of NCLB relate to accountability and raising academic expectations. This law mandates that all students (including those from the aforementioned groups) must make adequate yearly progress (AYP). The overall goal is that all students should be achieving reading and math at grade level by the end of the 2013–2014 school year. NCLB establishes that all students must be taught core academic content by teachers who are highly qualified. A 2007 report by the US Department of Education (USDOE) states NCLB requires states to set standards for all teachers to be considered highly qualified and districts to notify parents of students … if their child’s teacher does not meet these ­standards. The requirements apply to all teachers of core academic subjects: English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography and the requirements also apply to teachers who provide instruction in these subjects to students with limited English proficiency (LEP) and students with disabilities. (USDOE/www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclb/execsum.html)

Drawing on eight waves of the Schools and Staffing Survey and the National Teacher and Principal Survey, we used a difference-in-differences research design to examine special education teachers’ (SETs) responses to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the subsequent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA was associated with decreases in the proportion of SETs with special education as a field of study and graduate degrees, an increase in co-teaching, and a decrease in the proportion of SETs working in a resource delivery model, with no evidence that NCLB influenced these outcomes. Little consistent evidence was found to indicate these federal policies influenced SETs’ job attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction). We identified differences in these associations based on school poverty status and grade level. These findings help to better understand the status and challenges of the current SET workforce and the unintended consequences of federal reform policies.

In the first issue of Volume 63, we focused our editorial on the need to improve research in teacher education by increasing the rigor and relevance of studies in the field. We referred to individual studies as in a structure that would serve as a knowledge base for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers (Knight, Lloyd, Arbaugh, Edmondson, Nolan, & Whitney, 2012). As researchers, we need to attend to both the quality of individual bricks and the positioning of those bricks within the framework. In other words, by situating our findings within the theoretical frameworks and prior research that undergird the knowledge base, we can advance the field. Research submitted to Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) is steadily improving. Although much of our own evidence as editors of JTE is anecdotal, coming from the hundreds of articles we encounter each year, evidence for improvement is emerging from other sources as well. Our acceptance rate has steadily increased while we have maintained the same high standards for publication. Although not the sole indicator of quality, the change in the impact of the journal may also signal a perceived increase in quality by readers of the journal. In a previous editorial (JTE 63:1), we cited our rank of 18 out of 177 education and education research journals and an impact factor of 1.891 as evidence of our standing in the field. Since that time, thanks to the efforts of previous editors and what we see as the improvement of research in teacher education leading to more citations, JTE has moved to number 10 of 203 journals and has increased the impact factor to 2.292 (Thompson Reuters, 2012). Nevertheless, we still have more to do. As editors, we spend a great deal of time articulating what makes some manuscripts publishable and others not. Manuscripts are often subjected to editorial team review prior to being sent out for peer scrutiny and always before their final acceptance. As we discuss the characteristics of various manuscripts, the complexity of defining research quality in a field with such diverse methods and topics becomes apparent. Others have explored the topic for education research in general (see, for example, National Research Council, 2002). However, as we continue this discussion, we find we are slowly acquiring a set of criteria which can be applied to diverse studies specifically in teacher education. Although these criteria are still emerging, we would like to expand the discussion to the JTE readership by sharing our thoughts on some of the criteria we have formulated to date. Criteria for Quality In judging manuscripts, we consider a number of questions related to criteria for quality. Some questions are dictated by criteria for appropriateness for JTE, but others revolve around more generic issues of quality. As editors of a journal with such a diverse readership, we find that to make the range of studies and topics accessible to proponents of different philosophies, research paradigms, and interests, authors need to be very explicit in their rationale and report of the research and how they have incorporated the criteria for quality in their studies. The following questions may help guide authors in this process. Appropriateness for JTE The first question we ask of any manuscript that comes across our desk is whether the study actually focuses on teacher education, and if so, would it be of interest to readers of the journal. Is the manuscript appropriate for JTE? Two types of manuscripts typically receive a negative response to this question. Studies that focus on teaching or teachers or students in elementary and secondary schools, without making an explicit connection to teacher education, constitute the first category. Merely mentioning the applicability of the findings for teacher education in the implications is not enough. The connection to teacher education should appear in the theoretical framework and the rationale for the study, as well as in the discussion and implications. …

Adamek, M. S. & Darrow, A.-A. (2005). Music in special education. Silver Spring, MD: American Music Therapy Association, 328 pages. ISBN: 1-8894914-15-2, $55 (AMTA member discounted price $40). Mary Adamek and Alice-Ann Darrow have brought their several collective decades of work in the field of special education to the text, Music in Special Education, and each author's solid background in the areas of disability served by special education is evident. Indeed, they could not have written this volume without their considerable expertise and years of work with the diverse populations of children having disabilities. Their writing validates the extensive experience that music therapists often have in the realm of special education and gives evidence of the strong knowledge base of that field available within the ranks of music therapy. Thus, with this volume in hand, music therapists have first hand access to core, basic information on students with various disabilities who are served by special education, legal aspects of service delivery, and practical applications. The major strengths of this work are the broad coverage of disabilities found in special education, key recommendations that serve as a snapshot of considerations in teaching students with special disabilities, overview of legislation affecting services to students with disabilities, and the focus on both music education and music therapy that make it a meaningful tool for the practitioner. Music in Special Education is extremely well organized and thorough. One of the most helpful design aspects of the book is the use of concise tables and figures presenting key points on topics in each chapter. From the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act comparison on page 34 to the fairly comprehensive examples of autism and music interventions on pages 190191, the authors provide information in easily accessible format. Tables and figures occur throughout and are a helpful addition to the written text. Chapters are further organized with overviews at the beginning and a summary with key points at the end. This format makes the book useful for a quick reference guide as well as an informed source of special education practice for the music educator/therapist. The authors follow a fairly standard and recognizable order of topics, beginning with the first six chapters that cover the provision of special education in the schools, laws affecting services, history, inclusion principles and teaching strategies, and music therapy/education techniques. The first chapter presents a brief overview of IDEA and other factors relevant to learning problems, along with the current philosophical orientation of people-first terminology and the changing role in schools for music educators and therapists. Chapter 2 reveals a very brief (perhaps a bit too brief) history of special education and music programs in the service of students with disabilities. Most of the content is recent history with a focus on legislation affecting special education, the six principles of IDEA, a comparison of IDEA and section 504, and a discussion of the other significant acts that impact service provision in special education (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act and No Child Left Behind). Chapter 3 presents an excellent overview of inclusion and its benefits; the authors also discuss barriers to successful inclusion along with strategies to overcome them. It is clear that Adamek and Darrow believe fully in the practice of inclusion and they write about all the positive outcomes that can accrue from this practice. It represents a philosophical orientation to the authors rather than simply a service delivery option to consider. The only negative aspect of their presentation on inclusion is that it is overwhelmingly positive and does not address any of the concerns voiced by some special educators and parents regarding the academic learning outcomes of students with high incidence disabilities, such as specific learning disabilities. …

Recent challenges concerning the quality of teachers and the programs that prepare them have resulted in responses from professional organizations that have been more widespread and intense than in the past (Robinson, 2011; Wiseman, 2012). The Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation (BRP) formed by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the merger of NCATE and Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) into Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) to improve teacher education (Cibulka, 2011), and the Teacher Performance Assessment Initiative which emerged from collaboration between the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), and American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) member institutions (Robinson, 2011) are examples of ways that professional organizations have responded to the challenges. In general, calls for performance assessments of teaching to provide both formative and summative information about the quality of teachers, teacher candidates, and teacher preparation programs pervade the current discourse on education at every level, including schools and districts, institutions of higher education, state and national policymaking entities, and professional organizations. As a result, a number of performance assessments have emerged that can provide feedback to teacher education programs about the strengths and weaknesses of their candidates as well as evidence for licensure and certification of teachers. For example, Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) was designed to provide information for program improvement through the use of a common set of performance assessments for preservice teachers and has also been adopted by states and districts for summative evaluation purposes (http://edtpa.aacte.org/). The multiple performance measures in systems like edTPA improve upon value added models (VAM) by providing information on teaching quality, not just teacher quality or teacher effectiveness, and provide information sooner than might be accomplished by use of VAM alone (Newton, 2010). For this theme issue, we invited research and conceptual articles related to teacher performance assessments specifically as they affect teacher education, including validation studies of measures used in the assessments. We posed a series of questions that we considered important for researchers to address related to performance assessments, including the following: What are the relationships between current performance assessments and teacher education, either conceptually or in terms of outcomes? What do we know about the use of performance assessments in the context of teacher education, and what do we need to know? How do performance assessments of teachers in schools map onto assessment of teacher education programs, or how don't they? What differences may exist across novice teachers and expert teachers with respect to performance assessment, and how does that impact their professional learning? What are the implications of the relationships between for-profit companies, university teacher education programs, researchers, states, and professional organizations with respect to performance assessments of teachers? What is the relationship between assessment criteria and the research on teaching and learning, and what are its implications for teacher education? How do states make decisions to move to statewide teacher assessment systems? What potential conflicts of interest may exist among various stakeholders in performance assessment efforts? How do policies related to performance assessment of teachers affect opportunities for teacher learning? What can we learn from the history of past efforts to evaluate beginning teachers? What is different this time? What do we know about the validity and reliability of performance assessments and why does this matter? …

THE National Education Association (NEA) has been asked whether we endorse petition (see page 273) being circulated by Educator Roundtable that calls on members of U.S. Congress to vote against reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The short answer? Absolutely not. While initiators of petition are well meaning and share many of same concerns NEA has about NCLB, petition does not represent our views. For example, it calls for dismantling of NCLB and does not propose any positive changes or alternatives, such as those articulated in our own document, ESEA: It's Time for a Change: NEA's Positive Agenda for ESEA Reauthorization. The NEA agrees with many of 16 reasons articulated in petition that argue why law cannot be salvaged. However, association disagrees with petition's conclusion--that NCLB should be repealed. Instead, we believe that several substantive changes that overhaul statute would produce a far better result. In addition, there is no chance that Congress will repeal NCLB. Those who do not articulate a positive set of changes to law will simply not be at table in negotiating any improvements to it. Furthermore, NCLB is current version of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), so it's not clear what repealing NCLB would actually mean. Eliminating ESEA and its important programs such as Title I? Reverting back to 1994 version of ESEA, which would eliminate key provisions added in 2002, such as strengthened rights for homeless children? Or eliminating law's negative features, such as adequate yearly progress (AYP) and annual testing provisions? Among positive provisions mandated by NCLB is disaggregation of student data. That requirement alone has highlighted deficiencies in educational opportunities for several groups of students. In addition, NCLB has good intentions--closing achievement gaps between various groups of students, raising overall student achievement (at least as measured on statewide tests in reading and math), and ensuring that all students have highly qualified teachers. However, NEA has long argued that law's good intentions have gone seriously awry. While Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has said that NCLB is like Ivory Soap; it's 99.9% pure or something ... there's not much needed in way of change, reality is that it is not working. Among its myriad flaws and negative outcomes are a narrowing of curricula and projection that virtually all schools will eventually fail to meet its one-size-fits all, all-or-nothing AYP mandate. There is also little evidence that NCLB has directly contributed to its own major goal--raising student test scores. In addition, law has significant flaws in how it tests and counts test scores earned by both English-language learners and students with disabilities. And its regimen of consequences, sanctions, and punishments has no research base and has not been shown to help close achievement gaps. Finally, NCLB is seriously underfunded--with cumulative shortfall between amounts actually appropriated and amounts authorized in law exceeding $56 billion over six years. The NEA is not alone in calling for fundamental changes in law. A coalition of more than 129 national groups--including NAACP (National Association for Advancement of Colored People), Children's Defense Fund, National PTA, National Council of Churches, and National Alliance of Black School Educators--has called for 14 changes to law, noting that the law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making systemic changes that improve student achievement.(1) Let's take a look at some of these flaws and failures in more depth. …

Camera, 208 Capitalism, scepticism of policies on education in future based on society with influx of, 42 Carnegie Learning, 251-252 Central government, 92 Challenges to inclusion, 84-85 Change of practice concept, 253 Character qualities of sets in twenty-first century, 25-33 communicative competencies, 28-31 digital competencies, 31-33 'grit' for inclusive and special education teachers, 27-28 high self-efficacy, 25-27 Children, rights and characteristics of, 4-5 Children with disabilities in rural areas in Telangana state, providing services to, 174-177 259 Children with special needs in VUCA world, preparation for education administrators to manage education for, 241-244 Chlorpyrifos, 64-65 City local government, 93-99 Civil rights, 39-40 Classic economic liberal theory, 41-42 Classrooms with assistive technology, improving efficiency of, 250-252 Climate change, 64-65 Collaboration, 180 Collaborative learning, 23-24 Communication, 180 channels, 29-30 disabilities, 211 Communicative competencies, 28-31 Community resource persons (CRPs), 175 Competency-based education, 23-24 Complexity, 80-81 Comprehensive teaching strategies, 236 Computer-assisted tools, 128 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (1945), 89-90 Constructive Alignment model, 21 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), 159 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 158-159 Conversations, feedback and recognition (CFR), 225 Core educational subjects, 179 COVID-19, 18-19, 118-119, 123-124 crisis, 7-8 inclusive learning for students with special needs during, 108-110 learning experiences during, 114-116 learning experiences of KU

Both the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation and the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) clause within Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 have impacted the educational service delivery for students with disabilities and the paraeducators that provide support services. As more schools turn to inclusionary practices, the impetus for highly trained paraeducators becomes of even more importance. The purpose of this mixed-methodology survey study was to identify the current practices and barriers of training for paraeducators who work with students with autism in inclusive settings and to compare and contrast the perspectives of principals, special education teachers, and paraeducators regarding these practices and barriers. This survey included 96 participants across the three participant groups. Discussion centers on the inadequate amount of training paraeducators receive, confusion on who is responsible for providing paraeducator training, the use of ineffective training methods, and making paraeducators a priority within the school structure.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002), introduced nearly 10 years ago, called for scientifically based and evidence-based practices. This 2001 legislation has led to subsequent changes in federal funding policies that encourage the use of a more quantitative approach to measuring cause-and-effect relationships between educational conditions and outcomes to produce generalized findings that can inform policy decision making (Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2002). Consequently, these government policies have spawned debates over what constitutes quality educational research and what direction the development of future educational research should take. (1) In this editorial, we examine the questions of What is quality research? and How can we judge it? by referencing research in teaching and education. We review briefly the landscape and characteristics of research in education. Then, using the National Research Council's (NRC; 2002) guidelines as a framework, we offer ideas about what constitutes quality research in education. Lastly, drawing on our experience reviewing 702 manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) during our inaugural year as editors, we discuss some of the standards that we believe are important for judging the quality of research in education. In doing this, we hope to stimulate discussions about how reviewers and editors evaluate research and how the reporting of research in education can be improved. Traditions of Research in Teaching and Teacher Education During the short history of educational research, two competing approaches to inquiry into teaching and education have emerged. Each importantly, yet differently, shapes the identity of educators as researchers and their relationships with the outside world. During the 1960s and 1970s, teaching and education research methods were heavily influenced and shaped by behavioral and social measurement in psychology (Zeichner, 1999). Much of the education research on process-product and teacher effectiveness in the 1980s likewise derived from behavioral psychology in that it focused on how the behavior of teachers affected student performance and learning (Beattie, 1995; McDonald & Elias, 1976). These earlier research studies commonly assumed that causality was linear and unidirectional: the behavior of the affected the behavior of students, which in turn affected student achievement (e.g., Doyle, 1977; Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Shulman, 1986; Zeichner, 1999). As the field evolved, the unidirectional conception of causality from behavior to observed student behavior was modified to a bi-directional relationship (Brophy & Good, 1986). Nevertheless, the research designs that dominated this era were primarily quantitative and focused on establishing and testing theoretical assumptions about behavior that could be generalized to various contexts of teaching. Research on how education influenced learning received relatively little attention prior to the 1990s (Zeichner, 1999). The behavioral approach that guided research on teaching and education ultimately had several important effects on research-active educators' identity in academia and their political relationships outside of academe. First, it aligned educators with scientists in academia where the status, prestige, and rewards of its members are determined by how hard the knowledge is that they produce (Labaree, 1998). Second, it pushed educators to be professionals, like those in medicine, who produced and used specialized, shared knowledge that consumers of education relied on to make judgments about the quality of services they received (Sykes & Bird, 1992). Third, it positioned educators closer to the powerful policy world in supplying reliable and verifiable information for furthering policy makers' agendas (Cochran-Smith, 2001; Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2005). …

The purpose of our overall research agenda is to develop and evaluate a methodology for the assessment of teachers in which experienced teachers, serving as judges, engage in dialogue to integrate multiple sources of evidence about a candidate to reach a sound conclusion. The project that provides the venue for this research agenda is the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), which is developing a portfolio assessment system to assist participating states in making a decision about teacher licensure. To develop the theoretical foundation necessary to support and evaluate such dialogic and integrative assessment practices, we turn, in part, to the tradition of philosophical hermeneutics, as a complement to psychometrics. In this article, we characterize and assess the processes in which judges, trying out an integrative approach to portfolio evaluation for the first time, engage as they collaboratively construct and document their conclusions, and we locate this work in the larger research agenda. The premise of this project, which is being carefully evaluated in the course of inquiry, is that these integrative practices cannot only lead to an epistemologically sound evaluation of teaching but also promote an ongoing professional dialogue of critical reflection on teaching practice. Current calls for reform in the professional development and practice of teachers consistently highlight particular themes—that successful teachers integrate complex evidence about their students’ learning and the context in which they work, that they engage in ongoing critical reflection about their own teaching practices, and that they work as members of active learning communities (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 1995; INTASC, 1992; Lieberman, 1990; Little, 1993; Lord, 1994; Meier, 1995; NBPTS, n.d.; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; Richardson, 1990; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Consistent with this reform effort is the movement toward performancebased licensing and certification of teachers and the preparation of accomplished teachers to serve as judges for these assessments (INTASC, 1995; NBPTS, 1994). These are important steps toward bringing assessment practices in line with the goals of reform. As important as these steps are, there exists a substantial disjunction between the assessment practices teachers typically engage in as judges or readers in large-scale assessment and the goals of the current reform movement. While psychometric theory has advanced to accommodate the evaluation of complex performances (e.g., Cronbach, Linn, Brennan & Haertel, 1995; Wiley & Haertel, 1994; Mislevy, 1994), conventional procedures for evaluating these performance assessments typically have individual readers working independently, scoring one exercise at a time, blind to the candidate’s performance on other exercises. To reach a decision about certification, these independent scores are algorithmically combined and compared to a cut score predetermined by a

SYNTHESIS OF ARTICLES DISCUSSED AS APART OF THE RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM AT THE 24th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LEARNING DISABILITIES SPONSORED BY THE COUNCIL FOR LEARNING DISABILITIES, OCTOBER 11, 2002. Newly nominated must reads can be found on the Web at: www.cldinternational.org/shortly after the October 9-11 conference. Click on scholarly initiatives. Readers of professional literature know how difficult it is to keep up with the volumes of information published annually. Many confess to having stacks of materials waiting to be read that instead get shelved when a stack finally topples over. A total of 1,005 scholarly-academic education journals are published annually in the United States (a number that jumps to 4,708 when including trade magazines, newsletters and papers). Seventy-five of these are devoted to special education topics (311 when including trade publications) (Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, January 29, 2003). Despite the fact that busy readers can barely sample all that is published, professional publications are a primary means for communicating research, theory, and policy within the profession. Keeping up is a daunting challenge. To help special educators keep abreast of recently published research, the Council for Learning Disabilities (CLD) Research Committee organizes a panel at CLD's annual conference to nominate important research publications on learning disabilities (LD) from the previous year. The audience, primarily teachers, learns about published research that is important to understanding the field of LD today. Invited panelists each year are leading researchers and practitioners from a variety of traditions and interests within the learning disabilities profession. Methods for the 2002 Panel Panelists for the October 2002 session held in Denver, Colorado, responded to the invitation to nominate three to five research publications on LD from the past year that they considered must reads. Selection criteria were not specified beyond that charge so that each panelist would be free to form her or his own standards for what is most important to read from among the stacks of research on LD that had accumulated over the previous year. Interestingly, the 2002 panelists demonstrated considerable overlap in their selection criteria and, in several instances, in the publications they nominated. In this article, the panelists present their nominations in relation to topics that dominate the special education field today. So often, researchers, teachers, and administrators fleetingly acknowledge evolving movements as they go about their business of doing what they know works. However, at times initiatives so fundamentally impact how practice can be done that they cannot be ignored. We are in such an era. Three major movements currently shaping the field of LD include the rapidly emerging debate on identification and eligibility criteria for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the now familiar practice of inclusion, and concomitant concerns for access to the general education curriculum for students with LD. None of the three movements has just burst onto the scene but their presence demands attention more than ever. The practice of inclusion has steadily emerged since at least Assistant Secretary of Education Madeline Will's 1986 regular education initiative (REI), and has received a substantial boost by the 1997 Amendments to the IDEA, which require efforts to provide all special education in general education environments. The impending congressional reauthorization vote on the IDEA has already resulted in debate on the identification and eligibility criteria for LD that would force reconsideration of current practices (e.g., LD Summit, 2001). The push for meaningful access to the curriculum is both a product of and a catalyst for the other two movements, and is strongly tied to standards and high-stakes accountability efforts as well. …