Child Abuse and Neglect: A Weak Spot in Teacher Education

Hi!
The following is a paper I wrote for a course while working towards a PhD in General Education at Capella University. The paper explores teacher training in relationship to children who are abused and neglected. Although not published, or peer reviewed, I think the research is sound. I post it here for the general use of anyone exploring the concepts included. However, I remind you that the "teacher detectives programs" probably can track this work, so please feel free to use it, but don't directly copy! I applaud anyone interested in this direction and wish you best of luck in your studies!
A Child is Waiting.
Take Care...Be Aware.
Nancy Lee Gray

Stellar Teachers, Falling Stars:
Creating Teachers that Leave No Child Behind

Capella University Abstract

This paper represents a review of the literature in an attempt to contribute to the debate concerning institutions of higher education, how teachers are educated and the relationship to the No Child Left Behind mandate that by 2005 all schools will have high quality teachers. Within that framework, the focus is on maltreated children as they were, are, and can be affected by teacher education. All 50 states plus the District of Columbia have laws requiring teacher reporting of suspected child maltreatment, and yet the education received by teachers includes little on child maltreatment. Maltreated children, unidentified and disenfranchised, affect classroom environment, test results, teacher enthusiasm and energy. In effect, this affects teacher quality and student proficiency as mandated by NCLB.

Table of Contents

Abstract 2
Table of Contents 3
Introduction 4
Today is Not Yesterday: Educational Precedents 12
The Hand is Quicker than the Eye:
Smoke and Mirrors in Education Today 20
Moving Toward the Light: Conceiving Stellar Teachers for Tomorrow 29
No Child Left Behind: Paradigm or Paradox? 34
References 36
Stellar Teachers, Falling Stars: Creating Teachers that Leave No Child Behind
The public education system in America
Is one of the most important foundations of our democracy.
After all, it is where children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens,
And learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage
Of our fantastic opportunistic society.
~George W. Bush~
Santa Clara, CA
May 1, 2002

If the public education system in American is as important as President Bush contends, the institutions of higher education as the vertex represents either the sun of a dying educational system or the prime mover of a nascent one. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation of 2002 (White House, n.d.) promotes educational excellence for America's, "estimated 46.8 million public school children, nearly 3 million public school teachers, more than 89, 599 public schools and nearly 17,000 local school districts." The highly qualified teachers required, the proficiency of the students mandated, and the accountability expected by NCLB for that system depend for their sources on institutions of higher education providing higher caliber instruction as a foundation. Maltreated children as a component of success or failure of the NCLB requirements must be included in that instruction to a greater degree. Unacknowledged, marginalized, and disenfranchised maltreated children represent an unstable element that serves as a black hole in the educational system, as they do in society.
According to Miner, (2001) President Bush's NCLB legislation exhibits "faulty assumptions" that "standardized tests are the best way to measure academic success," and "schools are failing because they aren't trying hard enough and that the threat of sanctions will magically transform these troubled schools." Tomlinson (2002) says, "The No Child Left Behind Act does nothing to focus our national conversation, teacher training, or classroom planning on what would be necessary to teach young people to be truly literate." These opinions represent others that suggest NCLB alone will not change what Lucas (1996, p. 203) suggests are "substantial numbers of poorly prepared entering students" that lead to "one in every six collegiate degree holders…missing basic literacy competencies…and [unable to] perform even at a secondary school level."
Imagine, however, a magic that transforms schools to ones where stellar teachers catch falling stars as a matter of due course. Envision an elementary and middle school where Winerip (2003) says "non-testing is the norm." Conjure up a principal who "hates tests as much as the kids do." Fabricate an urban public school where a student is "given two hours to prepare an oral presentation…as part of her final …grade," where another student presents a "three-month-long research paper." Visualize a school where a student's reading progress is determined by taping her reading in kindergarten, where "she cannot pick out a single word in 'Caps for Sale,' and progressing to… fifth grade reading 'Johnny Appleseed' fluently."
No imagination needed. This magic is real. The schools exist. They are not the kind where Koppich (2000, p. 288) claims, "The least able and capable teachers" are usually assigned in "high-poverty schools…. [and in the] highest minority enrollment school." Neither are they schools with "high concentrations of poor students" and "low-track math students." These teachers are stellar, not the kind Barone (2002, p. 13) quotes as saying, "I want to go to a school where the kids have high test scores so I can teach." These students succeed, but to a higher level than where a mandated "proficiency" which Tomlinson (2002) says "can be defined at somewhat minimal levels is good enough." Does it take magic for that to happen?
Not according to Winerip, (2003) who says of the process needed to achieve such results, "You go deep and give it your all." That direction, that going deep and giving it your all, according to a parent of two students attending that school means the difference between a successful school and one that is "deadening for teachers and kids," a school, she says, where "everything there…is teaching to the state tests." A student (In Winerip, 2003) adds, "At my other school, we prepped like crazy, we'd take the test and forget it." There is no need to imagine these other schools where testing is the norm. They exist, too, in far greater numbers, with results far more devastating and less imaginable than many realize. As Bush might say of such schools, "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" (In Weisberg, 2003, Bush, Florence, SC, January 11, 2000). No need to ask. The president has spoken.
Evidence makes clear that students are not learning, apparently at any level of education in the United States. Last fall according to Winter, (2003) The Texas State Board of Education voted to relax its "third-grade reading standards when it became evident that thousands of students would be held back after failing a statewide achievement test." That happened Dillon (2003) says, after reviewing the "results…from a field trial of a new statewide achievement test," while "guards stood outside their locked meeting room, and board members were asked to sign a secrecy pledge." At schools around the country, high school students with passing grades, some qualified to graduate with honors, some already accepted to college, collapse in dismay when informed they will not graduate because they didn't pass a standardized tests as required by state law. New York State was recently "thrown into shock" when "63 percent of students statewide — including thousands of seniors — failed a math test." In Florida, (The New York Times, 2003) "more than 12,000 high school seniors failed to graduate this year because they did poorly on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. The California State Board of Education voted to "postpone the consequences of its high school exit exam for two years…. [because] as many as 92,000 students would have been denied diplomas." Moreover, Winter (2003) states that Georgia pushed "back its 'end of course' exams for a year,"(2003), for similar reasons.
More recently, an audit of the Houston schools, which according to Schemo (2003) had been a "pillar of the so-called Texas miracle in education "recommended lowering the ranking of 14 of the 16 schools from the best to the worst," and also recommended that the "whole Houston school system be ranked 'unacceptable'." Part of the reason was that in order to make the numbers look good, (2003) Houston "cooked the books, Enron style," altered data and pushed "students likely to mar a school's profile--through poor attendance or low test scores--out the back door." Nevertheless, although educational researchers offer "near unanimous agreement that students should never be evaluated on a single test, especially a fill-in-the-bubble standardized test," the 2002 NCLB legislation is expected to depend on nothing more. Bush (U.S. Department of Education, 2001, p.1, 3) calls NCLB the "cornerstone of his Administration." That cornerstone mandates that by the 2005-2006 academic year, (Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002, p. 3) "all students in Grades 3 through 8" will be tested in reading and mathematics. In addition, Corwin (2003, p. 3) explains testing in "at least three grades in science by 2007-2008, with all students expected to test "proficient" by the end of the "2013-2014 school year." NCLB (Linn et al, 2002, p. 3-4) identifies those included as "all students and subgroups of students defined by socioeconomic background, race-ethnicity, English language proficiency, and disability" and provides for adjustments in state standards of what constitutes "proficiency" for each sub-group, although without regard for the fact that "proficient" has "quite different meanings" in different states.
Although, as Corwin explains, "Some people have charged that No Child Left Behind is only about testing." Others as adamantly insist "that absolutely isn't true." Moreover they maintain, "Testing, even good testing, is hardly the only thing, or the most important thing, needed to raise academic achievement of at-risk students." So what does matter? According to Corwin, (2003, p. 5) "Motivated and highly qualified teachers, a strong curriculum, a climate of high expectations, and a safe school environment are all at least as important and must be part of the total package." What important factor is missing from that list? The strengths of the at-risk students themselves receive no consideration.
President Bush (2002, p. 1) says, "Certain kids, they just get quit on. And we know who they are. They're generally inner-city kids, kids whose parents may not speak English as a first language." President Bush and those who drafted NCLB consistently ignore another subgroup of children--children not necessarily identified as minority, lower-income, inner city, disabled or ESL, who "just get quit on." Researchers test, study and label these children in terms of measurable effect academically, psychologically, their impact environmentally, on peer achievement and teacher performance, then lump them all into one category as "maltreated children." These children "aren't just quit on." They are not always identified, or otherwise labeled within the classroom, where they remain "at-risk." They affect test results, safe environments, curriculum implementation, high expectations and even the results that even "highly qualified teachers" can foster in any classroom. Maltreated children, if left unidentified and not accommodated for testing as are the other groups and subgroups mentioned, skew the results of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and "proficiency" levels of every other group of which they are a part.
Child maltreatment knows no borders, respects no boundaries, and (In Gullatt & Stockton 2000, Brodkin & Coleman, 1995, p. 3), "weaves through all segments of society, regardless of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic locale, religious belief, or the age of the perpetrator." No group or sub-group of students is exempt from the presence, influence and unintended consequences of unacknowledged maltreated students in their midst. Maltreated children, and the adults they become, exist in every sector of the educational field, from pre-K through PhD levels. Although research indicates they are frequently ignored, sometimes hidden, rarely addressed in the curriculum decisions of schools, occasionally excluded, marginalized, disenfranchised, or seemingly invisible, maltreated children remain an important factor in education. Any attempt to separate levels of education as though they exist independent of others is a failure in vision, representing a myopic view of the educational process. As Kolodny (1998, p. 217) points out,
Although we speak of our educational system as a series of fragments--daycare, preschool, primary school, middle and high school, with some form of higher education at the apex--in fact, education is a linked continuum, with student success (or failure) at one level presaging success (or failure) at the next. If we don't offer quality education at every level, then all subsequent levels suffer.
Kolodny (p. 242). also claims, "The surest way to improve student achievement across the educational spectrum is to improve teacher preparation." (Such statements suggest the obvious without saying it. Teacher preparation is not adequate. Teacher preparation needs improvement.
Teacher preparation must include an increased emphasis on those taught.
Unfortunately, the recipient-of-teaching, the student, seems less important in teacher education, training and professional development, than an emphasis on the perceived qualities of effective teachers, interesting and dynamic methods and creative activities to be used, applied, or in other ways manipulated to effect desired change in the recipients of the procedures. Such directions in teacher education are not working, if the result expected is educated students. Few would dispute that students, whether children or adults, are complex. Everything they experience contributes to what they learn, how they learn and whether they learn at all. Among the factors not given enough attention in terms of that affect are those contained in the phrase "child maltreatment." Until the highest levels of teacher education, training and professional development in institutions of higher education, account for child maltreatment as a major factor in teaching, little will change at the Primary, Elementary and Secondary levels of education. Although government mandates simply do not change academic achievements, schools, principals, and teachers can. Hill (2000, p.29) explains, "Government has succeeded in what it can do best, which is to create broad movements, make investments, and redistribute opportunities." Nevertheless, Government has not, and cannot, succeed "in doing what it cannot do, which is to create intimate, imaginative, and highly productive institutions." No doubt, according to Hill the major reason for that failure is that "Government programs and prescriptions can inhabit an unreal world in which contrary prescriptions can be smoothly integrated, adult tasks can be easily distinguished, and children can be easily classified." Unfortunately, as Hill points out "teachers, students, and parents do not live in such a world." They actually live in a world where maltreated children are epidemic.
Adult students, parents, teachers and administrators alike, develop measurable cognitive and academic effects from earlier, often forgotten abuse and neglect they experienced as children. Eventually, Hill (2000, p. 37) maintains, the realization may come that "Federal policy must work with, not against, the reality that the only people who can help a student are that child's teachers, parents and neighbors." However, one might add, only then when the "teachers, parents and neighbors," because now they know not what they do, are no longer creating more harm than good through ignorance of the consequences of what they do. In the meantime, institutions of higher education have an obligation to begin making the changes that will contribute to the dawning of that day.
Societal change has long been an important aspect of higher education, an important factor in the purpose of each institution. The mission and goals of the institutions relate to the degree to which the institution accepts that historical mandate, which in turn affects the admission and curriculum decisions that provide the direction of the programs they offer. If teachers are made, not born, hope remains for the creation of others in the image of those mentioned in the beginning of this paper. Institutions of higher education involved in the education, training, and professional development of teachers can reevaluate their mission, goals and policies. They can examine the ways in which their mission, goals and policies affect the governance of the institution, their admission and curriculum standards, and the academic accountability of their professorate in terms of a "trickle down effect" that benefits all children from the bottom, up through the quality of the teachers created at the vertex of the educational system.
This paper does not directly address those changes except in the abstract and peripherally in relationship to their connection to the teaching of teachers who teach the children who represent the future of the United States. The paper reviews recent literature and public awareness that lead to the development of a connection and relationship among institutions of higher education, teachers, maltreated children and the No Child Left Behind Act. It represents an attempt to contribute to the debate concerning the influence of the NCLB legislation at the level of higher education on the education, training and later professional development of teachers as those teachers will affect maltreated children, and every other child by extension.
This additional factor of maltreated children included here, is generally given short shrift in literature and practice regarding the education of teachers. The factor is not mentioned in literature about NCLB. The factor that may ultimately be determined to be a basis for major educational changes that will actually leave no child behind, the one that may lead to the creation of more teachers who go beyond "highly qualified" to stellar teachers who routinely catch falling stars, is the purpose for the effort involved here. If it contributes to critical reflection and continued constructive debate, the paper satisfies the purpose for which it is written. In any case, one caveat needs mentioning; the reader should not assume that this paper represents an objective or neutral analysis of this subject. It does not.

Today is not Yesterday: Educational Precedents
We want our teachers to be trained
So they can meet the obligations, their obligations as teachers.
We want them to know how to teach the science of reading.
In order to make sure
There's not this kind of federal--
Federal cufflink.
~George W. Bush~
At Fritsche Middle School
Milwaukee, WI
March 30, 2000

An African proverb says simply, "Today is not yesterday." Although that is axiomatic, those who strive to surpass the present "low-level of expectation," seen at all levels of education, need first to look at the past. To reach for what Tomlinson (2002) regards as "academic growth" that enhances the opportunity for all children to strive for the "two bedrock values: equity and excellence" that "throughout our history, Americans have stood strong for," demands it. Today is not yesterday. However, whatever education in the United States is today, that past continues to influence mission, goals, governance, tenure of faculty, curriculum and every aspect of institutions of higher education as they relate to teacher education today.
Historically, higher education in the United States had little to do with the subject of teaching teachers to teach. Before the latter half of the nineteenth century, the teaching of teachers was simply not a goal for institutions of higher learning. Until that time, institutions of higher learning focused on "pure" research, scholarship and inquiry. Process, not results, was the core of education. Today a shift has occurred that suggests somehow results in education, as evidenced by test results, are the end that matters, and whatever means used to achieve that end is irrelevant. A brief look at the changes in education through time puts that change in perspective.
Public schools were founded in the1840's and 1850s. (Travers & Rebore, 2000, p. 50). According to Brickman (2003, p.2) as early as1855, institutions such as Brown University "began to offer students courses in the new field of pedagogy, or education." In 1868, the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed equal protection before the law, and provided means for minorities to fight for equal educational practices. "Most of the state legislatures had passed laws providing for the establishment of normal schools" to train teachers by 1875. As entrance requirements became stricter, teacher colleges, which granted college degrees and trained students to teach" were developed. By the end of the 19th century, Travers and Rebore (2000, p. 53) point out that schools were well established and "teacher training was taken more seriously." The states had firm control of public education.
Lucas (1996, p. 67) mentions that the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 lead to the view of "the university as a seat of learning …a place where the specialized knowledge required by emergent professions would be required." In the latter half of the nineteenth century, an increasing number of vocations were "elevated" by having the status of "professional" conferred upon them. This lead to the "installation of an extended preparatory program for a particular career within a university curriculum." Higher education shifted. Not surprisingly, "no occupation aspiring to recognition as a true profession wanted to be left out." Teaching was no exception. Teachers, Lucas explains, (1996, p.69) "began clamoring for a place within the university." With its acceptance as a discipline, teaching found its place among the "professions." Lucas (1996, p. 71) adds, with the increased respect, teaching also became a responsibility as a "third general aim of the university, coexisting somewhat uneasily along with a public service and research." Henceforth, the teaching of teachers would take on a new dimension, adding to the "creeping vocalization" of academe, leading to a focus in education on results without regard to process.
Travis and Rebore (2000, p. 102). State the National Education Association Committee of Fifteen declared in the late 19th century, "Teachers…were not born but made." This position "implied the need for a thorough grounding in academics, child growth and development, and methods of teaching." The early 20th century added "compulsory attendance" for all children, including ever-increasing numbers of "exceptional children, offspring of non-English-speaking European immigrants, and unruly teenagers." Travis and Rebore (2000, p. 107) claim teachers were "not educated to cope with this new population, nor was the curriculum geared to meet all needs…in a sense, the public school failed to serve well the nonwhite, the immigrant, the poor, and the exceptional child." The 1960's brought added emphasis, funding and federal expectations that public schools do more to meet the needs of children beyond the academic.
Child maltreatment did not officially enter the educational scene until 1974 (Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Adoption and Family Services Act 1992, in Gullatt & Stockton 2000, p. 4) when "the U.S. Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, requiring states receiving federal funds…to adopt mandatory reporting Before the 1970's child abuse and neglect were not recognized as problems. Up until the last century, (2000, p. 1) as long as parents did not kill or permanently maim their children, neither the state nor society believed it their responsibility to intervene in the discipline of a child." Today, (2000, p. 4) all fifty states and District of Columbia require teachers, counselors, social service providers, mental health professionals, and physicians to report suspected child abuse and neglect." The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (2003, p. 89) explains that the law defines educational to "include all employees of a public or private educational institution for program; includes teachers, teacher assistants, administrators, and others directly associated with the delivery of education services." In spite of the legal requirement to report, in 2002, (2003, p. 8) only 16.2% of the reports made were by education personnel. Sechrist poignantly reminds the reader (2000, p. 2). "The true numbers and exact nature of the problem remain unknown, and the troubling fact of abuse or neglect often remains a terrible secret that is buried with the child." Where child maltreatment and education are concerned the past offers little evidence of change in process, or change in results.
Schools have made significant difference on other social issues. Schools can make a difference on the issue of child maltreatment. Kessner and Robinson (2002, p. 7) explain, "In today's society schools are becoming agents of social change." Perhaps anticipating the oft-heard complaints of teachers that society already expects too much of them, Kessner and Robinson argue that "rather than ponder the reasons for and propriety of this new role, school personnel should be at the frontline in the battle to address child maltreatment, because no one else is better positioned to ensure the health and safety of children."
Today, the states exercise the constitutional right, and legal responsibility to protect children and to provide public education to children in grades K-12. The questions about who teaches and how they teach once again comes to the forefront with the 2002 passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 legislation (Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002, p. 3), that holds states responsible to insure that schools have "quality" teachers, holds them accountable for what they teach, and expects that teaching to result in all children achieving academic proficiency within the next few years. The question now asked by many is, how can teachers educate children if they are not literate in the subject they presume to teach? Perhaps a more important question might be about how teachers can educate children if they lack knowledge and understanding of the children they presume to teach. According to Travers and Rebore, (2000, p. 98) "teachers especially will be judged by the instructional 'output' of their students. Although this may not seem entirely fair because of the numerous variables involved in successful learning, it is nevertheless going to be a widespread reality."
Although as Barone (2002, p. 22) says "a narrow view of instruction among teachers is not unusual in schools and classrooms where students are considered at-risk," the teachers there are not the only ones who choose to complain about what they perceive as unfair or unreasonable expectations of teachers. Educators in institutions of higher education have voiced the same and similar complaints. Part of the reason stems from the continuing debate in education that pits those who see higher education from ideological poles not easily reconciled against one another. One side seeks to keep higher education from being reduced to nothing more than a result, what Robert Maynard Hutchins (In Lucas, 1996, p. 79) described as "rampant confusion, capitulation to materialism and consumerism, and craven institutions distinguished chiefly for their unabashed vocationalism and unprincipled opportunism." Hutchin's "ideal university" would be a "center of independent thought and criticism," with the objective "to tame the pretensions and excesses of experts and specialists by drawing them into the academic circle and subjecting them to the criticism of other disciplines." (1996, p. 81). The ideal university and the education expected from attendance there would remain a process, unchanged for centuries, unchanging ever.
At the opposite pole, are those who are convinced that higher education in America should follow in the direction suggested by Ernest Boyd (In Lucas, 1996, p. 85). Boyd believed higher education should "be of greater service to the nation and the world." According to Lucas, (1996, p. 85) Boyd also thought "what was needed…was a commitment and a resolve on the part of the professorate to focus its efforts more closely on the production and dissemination of socially useful knowledge to its application to the pressing social issues of the day." Education then must be ever changing to accommodate an ever-changing society. In the nebulous area between these poles are those who seek some balance between them. They believe that institutions of higher learning must also "pay the bills" and "serve a vocational purpose," if they are to survive.
For the purposes of this paper, the debate is to others to continue…, resolve…, or watch as it eventually becomes a moot point in the ever-expanding global view of education as all result--and process is forever damned. According to Lucas, (1996, p. 157). "Most four-year colleges and universities have mindlessly mixed vocational training and academic education, and have done so bereft of any guiding vision of the whole." Perhaps the debate may already be "merely academic" for those institutions without a vision, who stare intently along the track for the first glimpse of a train to catch that will move them forward…not realizing that train already passed them by.
In any case, the direction for today focuses more along that much-maligned "creeping vocationalization" as it relates to the increasing demand for "greater accountability" in the education and training of "quality" teachers. The aspect that most increases pressure on institutes of higher education regardless of which way they are heading or even if, as Clark Kerr (Qtd. in Lucas, 1996, p. 82) said, they are "riding off in all directions and still staying in the same place" is the No Child Left Behind legislation. It mandates "highly qualified teachers" in all classrooms by 2005-6. Implicit is the demand for improved teacher education. Implied is the expectation that the improvement will be quick, and effective, the results reflected in the measurement of proficiency results at all lower levels of education.
In order to meet that NCLB mandate to produce "highly qualified teachers," institutions of higher education must become ever more like Lucas' (1996, pp. 140-141) description of them as "knowledge factories," dispensing knowledge as a "commodity, something to be used or consumed," with ever more emphasis on "all that is objective and quantifiable, precise, and publicly verifiable?" This is so they can pass tests," and enter a "profession" that teaches others to pass tests. The ever more "larger questions of human meaning, purpose, or significance" must be consigned to the "realm of the unanswerable and the insignificant," in order to teach teachers to teach only that which can be tested.
According to Lucas (1996, p. 160), the list of irrelevant goals for institutions of higher learning now include the development of "values and habits of mind considered integral to the academic enterprise, for example, tolerance and respect for honest differences of opinion." He adds, "the importance of critical analysis and logic; respect for the role of evidence in argumentation; intellectual honesty; awareness of the differences among opinions, beliefs, normative judgments and empirical facts; aesthetic facts; aesthetic appreciation of creative works; and so on," to that list of irrelevant goals. NCLB's mandated results of "proficiency" leave no room for an institutional objective "to induct learners into ways of knowing, assisting students to 'pass into' and 'walk around' inside varying fields of study, to explore, as it were, the several worlds of humankind's physical and biological environment, of contemporary civilization and its historical antecedents?" As Lucas (1996, p. 162) suggests, the quest to learn about "the 'inner space' of the human mind, its workings, and the products of its creative imagination" now join other relics of an educational history dismissed by many teachers, as "irrelevant."
Imagine if it could be otherwise. Do institutions of higher education have to do as said in Lucas (1996, p. 158), and "disavow any intent to prepare students directly for employment at the baccalaureate level?" Should they "…disabuse… [any] mistaken notion that the primary purpose of coming to college is to enable a graduate 'to get a better job?" Alternatively, might there be a third option in the educational debate? An option that enables a future for institutions of higher education that embodies the past, learns from the present, and has a mission and goal that no child be left behind in our society?
Will a day dawn when institutions of higher education no longer maintain missions, policies and curriculum that fail to teach present and future teachers how to teach all students that educational proficiency is more than a mandated result measured on a test? Will a sun rise upon a day when teachers learn that education can be rather a process measured eventually by the quality of life each child manifests through the lessons he or she learned in school and make every teaching decision based on that goal? Will the sun shine on every child, even those maltreated ones now lurking in the shadows, because so few care to bring them into the light? As today is not yesterday, today does not have to be tomorrow.



The Hand is Quicker than the Eye: Smoke and Mirrors in Education Today
Oftentimes, we live in a processed world--
You know,
People focus on the process
And not results.
~George W. Bush~
Washington, D.C.
May 29, 2003

Magicians know the hand is quicker than the eye. They count on that as they practice to create an illusion intended to keep people focused on anticipated results. The magician counts on people as willing accomplices to the success of the deception. They ignore the process and eagerly anticipate the results. They see what they expect to see. Creators know the hand is quicker than the eye, too. They count on that while they practice skills to reach a level of proficiency that enables them to manifest unimaginable levels of excellence through their efforts. Those watching are amazed and with all evidence to the contrary, insist no process but only magic can account for what they see. Some already suggest that NCLB is about smoke and mirrors. Is the warning enough to cause more people to open their eyes?
Everyone, not only children, is left behind when education becomes a result, not a process, when the end, as in testing "proficient" under "qualified teachers" justifies the means. No one wins when The California State Board of Education (School Wise Press, 2002, p. 1) is sued "for trying to deem almost all teachers 'highly qualified' by edict." All lose when anyone forgets as AAC&U President C. G. Schneider (Qtd. In Carnegie Foundation Press Release, 2003) explains, "Success in fostering education requires intentionality and interconnection at every level of the education system." This is a "complex world." As J. Holmgren, chair of The Carnegie Foundation's board of trustees, (Qtd. in Carnegie Foundation Press Release, 2003) clarifies for those who might not understand the need for intentionality and interconnection,
The ability to integrate learning from different sources is incredibly important for professional success, for civic responsibility, and for one's own understanding. One of the defining features of liberal education is achieving this solid connection--among courses, between academic course work and life experiences, between theory and practice, understanding and action, ideas and values.
Although education, today, chooses to focus on results rather than process, life continues according to natural laws of connectivity, and relativity, not controlled by man's mandates. Process continues whether the Bush administration believes in it or not.
The lessons learned by maltreated children, the values, ideas, understandings, strengths, and skills developed from surviving their life experiences, and the unique perspectives they develop are the result of a process. Their lessons learned offer connections and relationships not recognized by others lacking such experiences about "understanding and action, ideas and values" of others. Ironically, the lessons learned by maltreated children may have more to do with understanding and developing "professional success, civic responsibility," and education of the "masses" of societal maltreated children in the global economy and world of the future. Associate Deputy Under Secretary Corwin (2003, p.1) said at the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Annual Conference, "a very pervasive theme of No Child Left Behind is to hold States, school districts, and schools accountable for educating all children to high academic standards." He specified all children as "all children of all racial and ethnic groups and including those who are economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, or disabled." All children by definition include maltreated children. They are part of every other group of children identified by the No Child Left Behind legislation.
Child maltreatment knows no boundaries. Brodkin & Coleman (In Gullatt & Stockton 2000, p. 3) found it "among all segments of society, regardless of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic locale, religious belief, or the age of the perpetrator." Not surprisingly, research indicates that maltreated children share similar characteristics with other more studied groups of children. For example, Tabors and Snow (In Barone, 2002) found children from minority and low--income backgrounds are "difficult to teach." Others "(Allington & Walmsley, 1995; Au, 1993; August & Hakuta, 1997; Delpit, 1995; Fitzgerald, 1995; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Natriello, McDill & Pallas, 1990; Walker-Moffat, 1995 in Gullatt & Stockton, 2000) find they "experience difficulty learning in schools." Research also indicates (Cates, Markell, & Bettenhausen 1995; in Gullatt & Stockton, 2000) "Child abuse often leads to a full range of problems in children, from poor academic performance and social maladjustments to varied physical and cognitive disabilities. In addition, research (Reyome & Gaeddert 1998; in Gullatt & Stockton 2000) has consistently "linked child abuse with educational failure,"
Other research findings (James-Weagraff 1998; in Gullatt & Stockton 2000) indicate that, "disability, developmental delay, or problem adjusting to the school environment may be directly related to an abusive home environment." Romeo (2000, p. 1) finds that "all forms of child abuse… [affect] "their ability to focus their energy upon the task of learning" and adds, (2000, p. 3) any form of abuse "interferes with the child's ability to learn." Brodkin and Coleman (In Gullatt & Stockton, 2000) determined that child abuse may lead a child to "lose ground academically, socially and behaviorally," may cause "wariness around adults, frequent school absences, proneness to accidents, poor concentration, academic failures, increased aggression, hanging around school before and after classes, and poor peer relationships." Overall, Staudt (2001, p. 6) found "maltreated children were 2.5 times more likely than non- maltreated children to have experienced grade repetition…lower scores on the standardized math… lower English grades than did no maltreated children…[and] more discipline referrals and suspensions." Even more evidence exists to demonstrate that maltreated children's life experiences affect every aspect of their academic experiences, which in turn affects the environment of the classroom for teachers and peers as well.
As failures of students increased in classrooms, efforts to change that without first determining what causes are involved, lead to more "results oriented" decisions in the educational community. Koppich (2000, p. 268) explains "early reform (1983- mid 80's) efforts were based on the notion that if educators continued to do what they had always done--but did it harder, faster, and generally under stricter state scrutiny--improved student achievement would result." According to Koppich, policy changes and actions taken "centered primarily on four aspects of education improvement." One is "higher and more rigorous academic standards for students." A second is "designing new curricula around these standards." A third involves "ensuring that all students take larger numbers of academic courses." The fourth requires the creating "of new kinds of assessments aligned with new standards and curricula." A "second reform cycle" [late 1980's-mid-1990's] criticized "teachers' limited professional decision making authority and the relatively low level of teachers' salaries."
By the end of the "1980's, policymakers and reformers began to zero in on the conditions of teaching." Koppich (2000, p. 268) adds the preposition was:
If teaching began more closely to resemble a profession, with better compensation, and a taste of the kind of discretion professionals in other fields enjoy, more competent people would be attracted to teaching and good teachers…would remain. Improving student achievement was the desired result."
Unfortunately, Koppich (p. 269) continues, "state departments of education and local school districts clearly had made the choice, in the way they expended Eisenhower funds, to trade quality for quantity." They elected to pay for "low-intensity in-service training," staff development that was both "generic and benign," and had "little impact on improving teaching, or, by extrapolation, on increasing student achievement." By the mid 90's, Koppich (2000, p. 271) explains, "Improved teaching quality…came to encompass three fundamental elements." Better "teacher preparation," definite "standards for both beginning and accomplished teaching," and "higher quality professional development, using research about effective teacher learning to shape programs designed to increase teachers' expertise in ways that lead to improved student performance
Today, Brickman (2003, p. 2) says, "A wave of educational reform…has begun to affect teacher training." Brickman adds that "Several hundred teachers colleges in the U.S., as well as private schools that train teachers… [In addition, universities] have established departments of education." In spite of these important changes in education today, learning and understanding more about the students, the supposed recipients of teaching, remains off the lists of ways to improve teaching. Given that, and the tendency to avoid learning about child maltreatment and its effects on teaching and learning, it is not surprising that so many (Hazzard & Rupp, 1983 Maher, 1987; David, 1993; Birchall & Hallett, 1995; in Hodgkinson & Baginsky, 2000) confirm, "Little attention has been paid to the provision of child protection training within courses of initial teacher training." Even when there is any teacher training about maltreated children it "mainly concentrates on concerns for teachers' legal and professional responsibilities and school procedures." Few teacher-training courses "include any specific child protection element." Some courses referred to child protection "when other general issues were covered." Others "did not think it was necessary at all." Comments of respondents about existing "training make clear how devastatingly inadequate many are….We deal with it [child abuse] in passing rather than as a separate issue." Another respondent said "We thought of it late and just stuck it in….We don't deal with child abuse in the home context, except through chance….we are not specifically targeting….it will come up in a haphazard manner." One summed up the opinion of many by saying, "We have to keep it short and snappy."
Sadly, although there seems little time or inclination presently to teach or learn about maltreated children and the impact they have on educational results, the same is not true about training for testing. Schwartz and Robinson (2000) point out that The Higher Education Act reauthorization requires "teacher education programs…to prepare their students to teach in a standards-based environment." Standardized testing is a means for measuring linear learning. Students learn specific information culled from their learning materials with the intention to enable them to pass tests. Students claim they frequently forget the information before they leave the testing facility. Whatever else one might call such "learning" Schulman (2002) indicates it isn't based on Bloom's taxonomy of Educational Objectives, with its six categories of "knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation." There is no indication that the follow-up Affective Taxonomy comes into play either. Where is the "receiving, responding, valuing, organizing, internalizing" of information taught to pass a test…an objective that research indicates is not met anyway? As Linn, Baker and Betebenner (Linn et al, 2002) explain "it is not uncommon for the percentage of students scoring at currently identified levels for proficient or better on a state test to be 50% or 40%, or even less for the state as a whole." This hardly represents successful learning through the present emphasis on preparing teachers to prepare students for testing.
The teacher/principal (Winerip, 2003) described in the introduction to this paper said she "is offended that many politicians leading the standardized testing charge, including President Bush and his brother Jeb, the governor of Florida (graduates of Phillips Academy in nearby Andover, Mass.), are products of private schools that are exempt from state testing." She added, "It's like they're saying a safe mediocre education is good enough for public school." Because she was not willing to accept that, some students today have the opportunity to prove they can succeed far beyond expectations of what children "at risk" are capable of accomplishing.
Unfortunately, more may be necessary than positive examples of teachers who choose an alternative pedagogy before change becomes less newsworthy in the field of education. Barone (2002) mentions studies that document "even systemic support may not be sufficient to bring about sustained change in instruction, especially when there is increased pressure for students to do well on standardized tests," as is likely to occur with NCLB. Others in the teaching profession might more easily follow positive examples if they understand the importance of alternative forms of teaching and learning in practice rather than briefly glossed in theory, and played with on a superficial level in teacher education classes.
Consider alternative pedagogies of engagement (Herbert, 2003) as ways to involve the minds, the hearts, the hands and feet, the passions and interests of students who are otherwise inclined to learn passively. In addition, they may motivate those who resist learning because family or peer influence dictates that learning is not as important as "chillin' and playin' around in school." Can the pedagogies of engagement provide enough to overcome the pressure of "friends and sometimes relatives" who see the "courageous act" of studying as "a threat and react bitterly?" Is the hallmark of these pedagogies the fact that they grab the student's interest? Alternatively, is their purpose not only to grab but also to hold that interest, not only to entice, but also to instruct?
Schulman (2002, p.3) wanted to know if "engagement is a worthwhile end in itself," not simply "a means to some other end?" Could it be, Schulman wondered, that process perhaps is more important than results? This questioning lead Schulman to develop his "pedagogical content knowledge" category of knowledge needed for teaching. In essence, Schulman (2002, p.2) advocates a form of teaching that combines both knowledge of content and knowledge of pedagogy that lead a student to make a "commitment which, in turn, make new engagements possible--even necessary." His "taxonomy" makes the following assertion:
Learning begins with student engagement, which in turn leads to knowledge and understanding. Once someone understands, he or she becomes capable of performance or action. Critical reflection on one's practice and understanding leads to higher order thinking in the form of a capacity to exercise judgment in the face of uncertainty and to created designs in the presence of constraints and unpredictability. Ultimately, the exercise of judgment makes possible the development of commitment. In commitment, we become capable of professing our understandings and our values, our faith and our love, our skepticism and our doubts, internalizing those attributes and making them integral to our identities.
Schulman (2002, p.11) is convinced "In both the emotional and collaborative aspects of learning, the development of trust becomes central. Learners must learn both to trust and to be worthy of trust." Maltreated children, who have learned the importance for survival of learning to trust no one, will not easily reach the level of trust necessary to learn in the classroom, but Schulman's methods offer more incentive to such children to do so. In a world where survival is a daily mission, whether one passes a test or not is hardly relevant, and serves as no incentive at all. Learning as a process enjoyed and mastered for its own sake could be.
No doubt, to those opposing teaching to the test, "the best rejoinder" is to ask, '"why not?" as well. As Lucas explains, "if comprehensive examinations were assembled such that student performances on them were valid and reliable indicators of what had been learned (or a reasonable sampling thereof)," then why shouldn't the testing process itself "be considered unobjectionable." (1996, p. 163). Unfortunately, for those with such a perspective, research does not support that view. Countless studies attest to the fact that "far too many professors implicitly treat teaching as a simple, linear 'information-transfer process, a straightforward matter of getting information or knowledge directly into students' heads…" (1996, p. 170) Sadly, many studies demonstrate the "students" of those professors lack sufficient knowledge to teach any differently in pre-school, elementary and secondary schools.
Apparently, for many today--perhaps even for the majority--"testing is not the problem." Rather they are inclined to say it is the imposition of tests, combined with the failure "to invest the necessary money and attention to make sure that students in the poor districts have qualified teachers and decent schools" (The New York Times, June 30, 2003) that is the problem. Ironically, a supply of "qualified teachers" is not available for that. Teachers are made, not born. In the beginning, teachers create in the image of those who taught them. While those at institutions of higher education who are teaching future teachers are not necessarily qualified to do so, what can change for those who follow?
Whereas Lucas (1996, p. 213) says "the underlying objective of statewide planning in higher education is easier to articulate than it is to achieve or enforce," the fact remains that there is enough research available today to provide alternative methods to try, to test, and to research. These actions in turn provide directions in a search for ways to achieve change in higher education that can "trickle down" through other levels of education, and return with the next generation of students as advances, which in turn lead to more and better changes. Teacher education can be recursive rather than linear. Basically what is needed is political consensus in support of the notion that, ideally publicly colleges and universities should function as elements of an ecologically balanced, interdependent whole." [Emphasis, Lucas'].

Moving toward the Light: Conceiving Stellar Teachers forTomorrow
I want it to be said
That the Bush Administration was a results-oriented administration,
Because I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy
On teaching children to read
And having an education system that's responsive to the child
And to the parents,
As opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change,
Will make America what we want it to be--
A literate country
And a hopefuller country.
~George W. Bush~
Washington, D.C.
January 11, 2001

If teacher conception doesn't begin in schools attended, doesn't gestate in institutions of higher education and doesn't reach term on the threshold of the first classroom door through which the would-be-teacher crosses, but rather, a teacher is made, not born, as suggested by so many, then what makes a stellar teacher/principal like Ms. Meier and her cohort mentioned in the introduction? What factors contribute to their excellent performance in teaching, their ability to save falling stars? Lucas (1996, p. 237) states "Traditionally teaching has been considered a private activity." and yet, without a transparency in the classroom how will inadequate teaching methods be identified, exceptional methods as those used by Meier, et al, be learned from and taught to others? That "privacy" so long a tradition of teaching may be a contributing factor to low student achievement evidenced at all levels of society today. Certainly it deserves investigation.
Bush, (GWB aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003 in Weisberg, 2003), the self avowed "master of low expectations" the power behind the NCLB mandates for testing, reminds the country, he GWB, Florence, SC, January 11, 2000 in Weisberg, 2003) will "not stand for the subsiation of failure." Perhaps it is time for someone to suggest that if teachers must sacrifice their privacy in teaching for the good of the order, well, then so be it. Bush (GWB, CNN online chat, Aug. 30, 2000 in Weisberg, 2003) says, "As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our public schools, and I have met those standards." Given that prime example, some might easily assume the setting of standards, the requirement for testing, the mandating of schedules for student proficiency is not enough to ensure positive results. Presumably, the process of teacher education is paramount to the results now in evidence, the processes now lacking as means to create high quality teachers. According to Lucas, (1996, p.232) "The fact of the matter is, most novice teachers teach as they themselves have been taught or as they observe others around them teaching." Browne (1999, p. 1) says "College students develop the skills and attitudes that faculty encourage." (Nevertheless, teacher education is only the beginning of what makes a stellar teacher.
Obviously, if teacher education generally isn't creating teachers of the caliber of Meier, and others like her, over time they apparently refined and modeled their philosophies of teaching, honed and polished their skills accordingly, selected tools and methods to enhance the achievements and successes of their students through other means and processes. Along the way they learned from others' experiences and from self- evaluations what "higher quality teaching" encompasses. Kolodny (1998, p.166) claims, "When faculty examine our own learning styles, we are reminded that we all tend to teach in the modes through which we ourselves learn best." Meier, and those teachers like her, obviously expanded beyond that limited mode of teaching defined by Kolodny, which suggests by extension that teachers can effectively teach only those students who learn as they do.
Additionally teachers can teach only what they know. Studies reveal the importance of teacher preparation and expertise. According to Koppich (2000, p. 286-287) "Teacher qualifications….are said to account for 50 to 90 percent of the variation in student achievement." Yet, Koppich adds, "More important, beyond these general standards, studies confirm that teachers' subject matter knowledge counts." Research on effective professional development exists as well. From that, "something of a consensus…has emerged about what constitutes effective professional development. Programs that are "likely to increase teacher knowledge and skill and contribute to improving student learning have a set of common qualities." These qualities include "effective staff development programs [that] revolve around the subjects teachers teach, the curriculum for which they are responsible, and the standards they are to help students meet. In addition teachers need opportunities "to become deeply immersed in subject matter," and "continuous, sustained, and cumulative [training]."
Whereas research indicates, "one-shot workshops, one day courses, and one-time lectures do little to improve teaching practice," they need to be "directly linked to what teachers do in their schools and their classrooms." Ultimately, Koppich (2000, p. 290) insists, what matters most, is that "effective professional development makes the connection between subject matter and pedagogy." Parsons (2000, p. 290) simply says, "Knowing and believing in what you teach helps make you a powerful educator in the lives of children." Koppich quotes Cohen and Hill (Qtd. in Koppich, 2000, p. 291).as saying "The content of professional development…makes a difference to teachers' practice, and that practice makes a difference to student achievement."
Unfortunately, according to Lucas, (1996, p. 219) "What the public appears to want more than anything else from higher education of all types and at all levels is, simply, direct job training." Lucas (p. 221) explains, "Part…of the movement for greater accountability in higher education is the demand for renewed attention to matters of pedagogy." He adds, "More attention should be paid to teaching per se…. [and] efforts should be made to improve the quality of learning." Travers and Rebore, (2000, p. 14) say, "many educators by modern standards think of a profession in terms of a core criteria….[that includes] a lifelong career commitment, social service, intellectual techniques, code of ethics, [and] independent judgment relative to professional performance." Some may notice that quality teaching, subject knowledge, and student achievement are not on that list. A possible reason for that absence is something not new to the teaching profession.
Keim (1989) says, "A major obstacle to committing to instructional development is the high degree of satisfaction most faculty members have with their teaching performance. Browne and Keeley (In Browne, 1999) present evidence that "on self-appraisal surveys 90 percent of faculty members described their teaching performance as either above average or superior." Others (Browne and Keeley 1988; Milton, Pollio and Elson, 1986; in Browne, 1999) claim that "college faculty habitually overestimate their instructional performance is unfortunately extensive." Given the apparently inflated opinions of themselves and their knowledge, how many will pursue the quality of professional development shown to make a measurable difference in teaching and learning? Lucas (1996, p. 224) acknowledges that
"The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NACTE) functions as a type of imprimatur, supplying its own detailed and extensive list of requirements to which individual programs must conform…. ….evaluates a teacher's content knowledge and skills in the classroom….serves as a symbol of teaching excellence.
Education is failing too many. Teachers are not teaching. Students are not learning and the President of the United States offers as a direction to improving the situation, the following advice: "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." (GWB, Townsend, TN, Feb. 21, 2001 in Weisberg, 2003). One cannot argue with the intent of that, or of the intent of his NCLB Act and legislation. However, research certainly has established that results-oriented education, with testing as the preferred indicator of "learning," at every level from PreK through early undergraduate studies, fails to meet its mission of educating students. As higher education fails to make the changes needed to "trickle down" through better trained and professionally developed teachers, with testing as the preferred indicator of learning at every level, there seems little reason to expect results-oriented education to lead to the making of higher quality teachers at any level.
Those convinced that the education of tomorrow must not be the education of today-- or yesterday--agree that any significant change must come from the vertex of institutions of higher education. According to Schuster (1997) having an administration "dedicated to improving the teaching skills of its faculty can provide faculty with not only the empowerment but also the resources necessary to effect change in their pedagogical methods." Browne (1999) suggests, "Only when a university's upper administration devotes itself to improving its faculty's teaching with both its rhetoric and its budget will the faculty truly be motivated to better their teaching." Never the less, administrations of higher education cannot be held accountable for all the failings of today's teachers, or expected to make all the difference for tomorrow. As Browne (1999) suggests, teachers at all levels must "wish to improve, they must constantly question their understanding and mastery of both society and education as well as commit themselves to perpetual instructional development."

No Child Left Behind: Paradigm or Paradox?
You've got to measure
In order to begin to effect change that's just more—
When there's more than talk, there's just actual—
A paradigm shift--
~George W. Bush~
Washington, D.C.
July 1, 2003

Vinovskis (2000, pp. 374-375) maintains, "The education and socialization of children involve highly sensitive decisions not only about how students should be educated, but also about what they should be taught." Again, the element not mentioned is the differences among the recipients of that teaching. One child is not another. Teachers educated to professional levels not now reached by the majority, will be able to take what they have learned about using the curriculum to address minority and low-income children exhibiting the same or similar symptoms of their problems, to the needs of maltreated children regardless of income or minority status.
Barone (2002) explains "numerous studies (e.g. Moll & Gonzalea, 1997; Nieto, 1999; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988) have demonstrated that in spite of being considered at risk, children from low-income and minority backgrounds can and do succeed in school." Evidence to date, Barone adds, indicates maltreated children also "can and do succeed in school when intervention is initiated early and in effective ways."
Moreover, according to Barone (2002), the studies on low-income and minority children consistently show, "it is crucial that teachers support children's out of school cultures by inviting these rich backgrounds into their classrooms." Maltreated children also have an out of school culture that binds them as a sub-group of students as much as do any other group of children labeled as low-income, minority, disabled, learning impaired, or whatever. This culture needs to be treated with respect and brought into the classroom, too.
Barone adds that teachers also need to "value the strengths of students, rather than focus on potential difficulties identified by demographers or researchers, in order for students to succeed." Research indicates that maltreated children have strengths and abilities not common to non-maltreated children. Bear and Barone (In Barone, 2002) explain "the most appropriate instruction for children" is based on assessing "the knowledge that children bring to the classroom," then developing "instruction based on the student's strengths." Everyone benefits from diversity.
Before No Child Left Behind becomes more than empty rhetoric institutions of higher education that take upon themselves the responsibility for educating teachers must make changes. They must no longer "vocationalize" by filling squares once thought sufficient for teacher education, but rather must gather the stuff of stars to create teachers that can catch the falling stars of tomorrow. Then it can be said of institutions of higher education who teach teachers…Today is not yesterday and tomorrow is not today.


References
Barone, D. (2002). Literacy teaching and learning in two kindergarten classrooms in a school labeled at-risk. The Elementary School Journal, 102.5, 415-438. Chicago: University of Chicago. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Browne, M. N. (1999, June). Teaching how to teach critical thinking. College Student Journal. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from Findarticles.
Bush, G. W. (2002, September 9). Remarks on implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Weekly compilation of presidential documents. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Carnegie Foundation. (January 23, 2003). Make liberal education a national priority from kindergarten through graduate school, urge national leaders. [Press Release]. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from http://www.caregiefoundation.org/newsroom/press-releases/03.01.2.htm
Corwin. (2003). The No Child Left Behind Act: Where are we now? Where are we going? Presentation by Associate Deputy Under Secretary Corwin at the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Annual Conference. U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 22, 2003 from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OII/pr/20030308.html
Dillon, S. (2003, May 23). States cut test standards to avoid sanctions. The New York Times. Retrieved May 27, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/education/22EDUC.html
Gullatt, D. E. & Stockton, C. E. (2000). Involving educators in the identification and reporting of suspected child abuse. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 84.619, NASSP Bulletin; Reston. 79-89. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Gullatt, D. E. & Stockton, C. E. (2000). Recognizing and reporting suspected child abuse. American Secondary Education, 29.1, 19-. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu. Herbert, B. (2003, June 10). Breaking away. The New York Times. Retrieved July 10, 2003, from http://nytimes.com'2003'07/10/opinion/10Herb.html
Hill, P. T. (2000) The federal role in education. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000, (pp. 11-58). Brookings.
Hodgkinson, K. & Baginsky, M. (2000). Child protection training in school-based initial teacher training: A survey of school-centered initial teacher training courses and their trainees. Educational Studies, 26.3. 269-279. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Kesner, J. E. & Robinson, M. (2002). Teachers and mandated reporters of child maltreatment: Comparison with legal, medical, and social services reporters. Children & Schools, 24.4, 222- . Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Kolodny, A. (1998). Failing the future: A dean looks at higher education. Durham, NC: Duke.
Koppich, J. (2000). The federal role in teacher professional development. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000, (pp. 265-306). Brookings.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31.6.
Lucas, C.J. (1996). Crisis in the academy: Rethinking higher education in America. New York: St. Martin's.
Miner, B. (2001). Bush's Plan is shallow and ignores critical details. RethinkingSchools: An Urban Education Resource. Retrieved June 29, 2003 from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/bush.shtml
Parsons, A. (2003). The importance of professional development. Childhood Education, 79.3, 160N-. Retrieved May 2, 2003 from XanEdu Research.
Romeo, F. F. (2000). Child abuse and report cards. Education, 120.3. 438-441. Retrieved from
May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Schemo, D. J. (2003, July 11). Questions on data cloud luster of Houston schools. The New York Times. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/national/11HOUS.html
School Wise Press. (2002). Passive opposition to 'No Child Left Behind' as negotiations begin. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://www.schoolwisepress.com/smart/news/rotation-news/nclb.html
Schulman, L. S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34.6. 36-44. Reprinted by Carnegie Foundation eLibrary. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/docs/printable/making_differences.htm
Schwartz, R. B. & Robinson, M. A. (2000). Goals 2000 and the standards movement. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000, (pp. 173-214). Brookings.
Sechrist, W. (2000). Health educators and child maltreatment: A curious silence. The Journal of School Health, 70.6. 241-243. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Staudt, M. M. (2001). Psychopathology, peer relations, and school functioning of maltreated children: A literature review. Children & Schools, 23.2, 85-98. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Why Testing Can't Fail. (2003, June 30). The New York Times. Retrieved July 1, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/opinion/30MON.html
Tomlinson, C. A. (2002). Proficiency is not enough. In National Association for Gifted Children, Education Week Commentary, reprinted from Education Week, 22.10. 36, 38. 36. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from http://www.nagc.org/Policy/tomlinsonarticlenov62002.htm
Travers, P. D. & Rebore, R. W. (2000). Foundations of Education: Becoming a Teacher. Fourth ed. Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
U. S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration on Children and Families. (2003). Child maltreatment 2001. Washington D. C.: Government Printing Office. (Publication also available on line, from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb ).
Vinovskis, M. A. (2000). The federal role in educational research and development. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000, (pp. 173-214). Brookings.
Weisberg, J. (2003). The complete Bushisms: Updated frequently. Slate. Retrieved June 13, 2003, from http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/
White House. (2001). President Bush signs landmark education reforms into law: Bipartisan effort reaps historic freedom and flexibility for America's schools.
Retrieved December 27, 2002 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/education
Winerip, M. (2003, June ). Going for depth instead of prep. The New York Times. Retrieved June 13, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com'2003'06/11/education/11EDUC.html
Winter, G. (2003, July 10). California postpones exit exam. The New York Times. Retrieved July 10, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/national/10EDUC.html