Gamoran, Adam. (Ed.) (2007). Standards-based reform and the poverty gap: Lessons from No Child Left Behind. Reviewed by Laura Baylot Casey & Kay Reeves, University of Memphis

Gamoran, Adam. (Ed.) (2007). Standards-based reform and the poverty gap: Lessons from No Child Left Behind. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press Pp. vii + 340         ISBN 978-0-8157-303-0 Reviewed by Laura Baylot Casey & Kay Reeves University of Memphis October 2, 2008 The book begins on a powerful note reminding the reader that for more than two decades, we, as a nation, have been plagued by social and financial inequities in education. While it is sobering and saddening, it is none- the- less the truth that poverty continues to be a dividing factor for our children in the public school sector. This notion that our educational system is at risk was put into the spotlight twenty five years ago by A Nation at Risk (1983) and is still relevant and still actively being addressed through legal reforms, mandates, and laws (specifically, IDEA Pub.L. 94-197; Pub. L. 108-446; and NCLB) (Casey, Bicard, Bicard, & Cooley-Nichols, 2008). Standards-based reform and the poverty gap: Lessons from No Child Left Behind takes a close look at the impact of NCLB by specifically dividing the principles of NCLB into the multiple facets that subsume the current educational system while focusing on the impact NCLB has had on diminishing the socioeconomic barriers that it set out to eliminate. The forthcoming paragraphs will provide a brief overview of the major topics and statistical findings outlined in each chapter of the book. Chapter two covers many elements of NCLB and is the beginning of a very thorough analysis of NCLB. The chapter begins by tackling the achievement discrepancy found among the socioeconomic brackets; specifically equal access, right to education and the over representation of low SES students labeled as learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and mentally retarded. Chapter two highlights the need to target the most disadvantaged students in an effort to meet the call for all students to have 100 percent proficiency on annual yearly progress measures by 2014 set forth by NCLB (Bush, 2001). Discussion also takes place on the need to integrate the provisions set forth by IDEA and those found in NCLB. The authors state that while there are differences, the two should and could work together to achieve some of the preliminary goals such as a free and appropriate education, high quality instruction, and ultimately a well integrated general, remedial and special education focused on the needs of all students. Chapter three delves into the affects of the accountability policies of the 1990’s with a statistical analysis of multiple components addressing the instructional quality in low-income elementary schools. The data were mixed across all measures assessed: teacher quality (SAT scores, higher terminal degrees), teacher effort ( time expenditure outside the typical school day), professional development, class size, instructional autonomy, and teacher turnover; thus, offering support to both advocates and critics of NCLB’s accountability procedures and ultimately leaving the questions raised about the inequalities in impoverished schools unanswered. In chapter four, Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold, ask a provoking question of teacher quality and children at risk in Title I schools three years after the implementation of NCLB: “Has NCLB improved teacher and teaching quality for disadvantaged students?” Their results indicated at risk students had more qualified teachers in higher income schools than at risk students in lower income (Title I) schools. The teachers in Title I schools were more likely to be new to teaching whereas the higher income schools tended to have teachers who were not only experienced but who were highly qualified in their teaching area of certification. Even after the NCLB act was implemented in Title I schools, children in high poverty schools made fewer academic gains than the at risk children in higher income schools. The focus of Chapter five is grade retention and students from a low SES home in the standards- based reform age. Hauser, Fredrick, and Andrew examined national data through descriptive statistical and multivariate regression analysis to see how standards-based has affected the progress of children. They report that initially more children were retained in kindergarten and first grade in greater numbers when the reforms were enacted in the 1990s. The group impacted the most by early grade retention has been the students from poverty. Retention results in a negative impact on these students who do not make academic gains even after being retained. As they progress through the educational system they are always older than their classmates, thus making them potential drop-outs of the academic system. The authors give several recommendations for eliminating the need for retention in the lower grades. NCLB is grounded on school accountability practices and explicit requirements for assessment in an effort to gauge adequate yearly progress and thus, chapter six tackles the role of student assessment and takes a hard look at exit exams or what the authors refer to as “student accountability” in terms of race, gender, ethnicity and poverty. The statistics presented in the chapter are mixed and actually leave us with more questions regarding the role of exit exams on school drop rates and long term outcomes for the student. The data are still powerful in that they lend themselves to more research and ultimately will guide us to the answers needed to remediate high school exit exams. In chapter seven, Farkas and Durham examine how NCLB has increased the need for outside tutoring services, software programs, and within schools tutoring services for children in Title I schools that are not meeting the AYP. The chapter sites a study that evaluated the software programs and the types of models of instruction that the tutors were using during a typical tutoring session. The authors found that the providers of the tutoring services are not uniform in their approach towards selection of services and the tutoring programs being used in Title I schools are ineffective in raising student scores. The authors end this chapter with several recommendations for improving education in low income areas such as tutoring services available during the school hours while also providing the reader with recommendations for future research in the area. Paul Hill reviews in chapter eight what the proponents and the critics say about the school choice element of the NCLB act. He focuses on children of poverty and the risks and benefits that school choice would provide. In his examination of the arguments for and against school choice, there were more negatives than benefits for school choice. The research on charter schools reflects that the reported data is often misaggregated and researchers report different findings of student achievement. Hill reports on the problems that could be inherently associated with school choice which include: children at risk often not benefiting from school choice, many children simply moving from one low performing school to another, segregation becoming more and more prevalent, children who are left behind in a low performing school risking falling farther and farther behind, parents not understanding the concept of school choice, and high performing schools not accepting children from low performing schools, as well as school funding issues. Hill states that there are problems with school choice and gives examples of how the problems can be resolved with appropriate management and implementation of the program. Children of poverty can be recipients of good programs designed for them through the NCLB act. The intricacies of NCLB continue to be a topic of contention in the political realm with resistance and support coming from both the democratic and republican parties. The author of this chapter describes NCLB as “conservative ideas – testing, accountability, and incentives- wrapped in liberal clothing- a big federal program that seeks as is primary objective, the equalization of not only educational opportunity but also of educational outcomes” (p.272). This chapter is an excellent resource with powerful statistical data that is easily read and understood and nicely put into table and charts to assist with the digestion of materials. Two of the most telling tables are the “Scale of Resistance to NCLB by State” and the table tilted: “NCLB activities in the state.” The final chapter in the book is NCLB Lessons Learned: Implications for Reauthorization. This chapter is a very good synopsis of the previous nine and ends with suggestions for the reauthorization. The author breaks down his thoughts on the reauthorization process by dividing improvements needed into three broad categories: set a good target, make accountability symmetric, and develop a fair system of accountability. Under the first category, set a good target, he discuss that it may be time to eliminate state to state variation on what constitutes student achievement and a highly qualified teacher and move to a national definition and a national standard. The second category focus for reauthorization is aligning student achievement and accountability and the need for consistency across this area. The last category focuses again on the need for defining what is a highly qualified teacher and the need to reanalyze alternate assessments and accommodations on high stakes testing. The author of this chapter ends with a poignant sentence: “Just as the law mentions research based practice 111 times, I am hopeful that revisions to the law will also be based on research” (p. 321). In conclusion, Standards-based reform and the poverty gap: Lessons from No Child Left Behind, is an excellent resource for professors, administrators, teachers, and researchers interested in the area of educational law and policies. The book is organized and designed to capture the important aspects of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001while maintaining the focus on the role NCLB has played on reducing the poverty gap. The statistical analysis in the book provided the data necessary to support the statements made and the conclusions drawn. The tables and charts in the book assist in better understanding how the statistical analyses relate to the research questions being asked. Ultimately, regardless of your stance on NCLB it is in existence and it is affecting the current state of education. The underlying premise of NCLB is to eliminate multiple achievement gaps by 2014. While this is a lofty goal, NCLB has promise if the book's aforementioned changes to policy and procedure can be implemented. References Bush, G. W. (2001). No child left behind (Report No. EA 030 882) Washington, DC: Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED447608). Casey,L.B., Bicard, D.F., Bicard, S.E. & Cooley-Nichols, S.M. (2008). Recent Innovations in General and Special Education: Works in progress to address a much needed and much delayed response to A Nation at Risk in terms of assessment and classroom management. Phi Delta Kappan, p. 593-596. About the Reviewers Laura Baylot Casey is an assistant professor in the Instruction and Curriculum department at the University of Memphis. She currently teaches in the Special Education program area. Her research interest include applied behavior analysis, curriculum based measurement, and assessment. Kay Reeves is clinical professor in the Instruction and Curriculum department at the University of Memphis. She currently teaches in the Special Education program area. Her areas of interest include advocacy and teaching methods for children with mild to moderate learning disabilities.