Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, school achievement remains segregated by both race and class. Despite an emphasis on reading achievement as required by No Child Left Behind, many students have serious literacy needs, even into the middle and upper grades. The purpose of this study was to ascertain ways in which middle school reading instruction is coordinated to improve academic outcomes for at-risk students. In-depth interviews were conducted with professionals from five urban and five suburban middle schools surrounding five components of reading programming. While both align their curriculum with state expectations, they differ in terms of program continuity and stability. Overall, systemic coherence in schools was a rarity. Implications for literacy programming and systemic reform are presented.
Artiles, A.J., & Trent, S.C. ( 1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education, 24, 410-437.
2.
Balfanz, R., Ruby, A., & MacIver, D. ( 2002). Essential components and next steps for comprehensive whole-school reform in high poverty middle schools. In S. String-field & D. Land (Eds.), Educating at-risk students: One hundred-first yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 128-147). Chicago: University of Chicago.
3.
Barth, R.S. ( 2001). The culture builder. Educational Leadership59, 6-11.
4.
Brown, K.M., Anfara, V.A., Roney, K. ( 2004). Student achievement in high performing, suburban middle schools and low performing, urban middle school: Plausible explanations for the differences. Education and Urban Society, 36, 428-456.
5.
Cuban, L. ( 1988). Why do some reforms persist?Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 329-335.
6.
Darling-Hammond, L. ( 1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Retrieved October 12, 2001, fromwww.tc.edu/nctaf/publications/index.html.
7.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. ( 2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
8.
Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., Hock, M.F., Knight, J., et al. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 96-108.
9.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. ( 2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.)., Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 645-672). London: SAGE.
10.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. ( 1994). Inclusive schools movement and radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.
11.
Fullan, M. ( 2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
12.
Fullan, M. ( 2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership , 59, 16-20.
13.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). What’s worth fighting for in your school. New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. ( 2001). The realities of translating research into classroom practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 120-130.
15.
Greene, J.F. ( 1998, Spring/Summer). Another chance: Help for older students with limited literacy. American Educator/American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved May 22, 2004, from http://www.aft.org/american_educator/spring_sum98/greene.pdf
16.
Hargreaves, A. ( 1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
Henig, J.R., Hula, R.C., Orr, M., & Pedescleaux, D.S. (1999). The color of school reform . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
Hunter Quartz, K. ( 2003). Too angry to leave: Supporting new teachers’ commitment to transform urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 99-111.
19.
Little, J.W. ( 1999). Organizing schools for teacher learning, In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 233-262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Lyon, G.R. ( 2002June 6). Learning disabilities and early intervention strategies. Testimony to the Subcommittee on Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC., , 2002.
21.
Mariage, T.V., & Garmon, A. ( 2003). A case of educational change: Improving student achievement through a school-university partnership. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 215-234.
22.
Mariage, T. & Patriarca, L. ( 2004). Meeting the challenge of adequate yearly progress: Improving student outcomes through systemic reform. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services.
23.
Mariage, T., & Patriarca, L. ( 2005). Meeting the spirit of AYP through school reform: Accountability is outcomes based, but input and process driven. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services.
24.
McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. ( 2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
25.
Morocco, C.C., Hindin, A., Mata-Aguilar, C., & Mott, E.A. ( 2002). The role of conversation in a thematic understanding of literature. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice , 17, 144-157.
26.
Nces. (2004). The nation’s report card: Reading highlights 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
27.
Patriarca, L., & Ziazi, Z.M. ( 2003, April). Sustainability and re-culturing: What is sustained and what is sustaining?Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
28.
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author
Pugach, M.C., & Warger, C.L. ( 1996). Curriculum trends, special education, and reform. New York: Columbia University Teachers College.
31.
Schmoker, M. ( 1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
32.
U. S. Department of Education (2001). IDEA '97. Washington, D. C: Author . Retrieved August 24, 2004, from the World Wide Web: athttp://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA
33.
Taylor, B., Pearson, P.D., Clark, K.F., & Walpole, S. ( 1999). Beating the odds in teaching all children to read. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, University of Michigan.
34.
Thurlow, M.L. ( 2002). Positive educational results for all students: The promise of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education , 23, 195-202.
35.
U. S. Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind. Washington, D. C: Author. Retrieved August 23 2004, from the World Wide Web:http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea.
36.
U. S. Department of Education (2004). IDEA 2004 resources. Washington, D. C: Author. Retrieved from the World Wide Web April 27, 2005 :http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html
37.
Winzer, M.A. ( 2000). The inclusion movement: Review and reflections on reform in special education. In M. A. Winzer & K. Mazurek (Eds.), Special education in the 21st century: Issues of inclusion and reform (pp. 5-26). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University.
