Opting Out or Opting In? Test Boycott and Parental Engagement in American Public Education

This article provides a “thick” understanding of how public school parents understand their decision to opt their children out of standardized tests. In it, Amy Shuffelton draws from qualitative research interviews with Chicago parents to explore how three mothers connected opting out of standardized testing to their broader commitments to public schools. In probing the democratic potential of their logic, Shuffelton points to avenues of hope for democratic and equitable public schooling. As scholars have argued on multiple grounds, public schools have generally preserved inequitable power relations and resource allocations rather than changed them, and this happens in part because of parental resistance to reforms they believe to be detrimental to the interests of their children. Precisely because privileged parents have and implement the power to use schooling to pass advantages to their own children, however, it is important to consider when and why some of these parents instead see reason to build a public school system that shares those advantages widely. Putting these parents' explanations for opting out of testing into conversation with ideas about the democratic public in texts by John Dewey and Bonnie Honig, Shuffelton finds potential pathways, as well as hurdles, to reviving commitment to public schooling.     

Implementing a comprehensive behavioral health model for social,emotional, and behavioral development in an urban district: An applied study

Urban communities are disproportionality impacted by issues such as community violence, leaving children at higher risk of trauma, and increased adverse childhood experiences. This applied study addresses a research-to-practice gap by demonstrating the longitudinal impact of a district-initiated, school-wide multitiered systems of support approach to universal instruction, intervention, and assessment—the Comprehensive Behavioral Health Model. Results from more than 1200 students over a 3-year period indicate that this universal, integrated approach is associated with improved outcomes for students with a demonstrated level of risk, with the greatest impact on students with risk of internalizing behaviors. The findings of this applied study highlight the benefits of a systemic approach and enhance the discourse on robust universal screenings that can identify needs and assets of children within urban communities.     

Why do bad balls get wickets? The role of congruent and incongruent information in anticipation

Skilled anticipation is underpinned by the use of kinematic and contextual information. However, few researchers have examined what happens when contextual information suggests an outcome that is different from the event that follows. We aimed to bridge this gap by manipulating the relationship between contextual information and final ball location in a cricket-batting task. We predicted that when contextual information is congruent with the eventual outcome then anticipation would be facilitated. In contrast, when contextual information is incongruent, this would lead to a confirmation bias on kinematic information and result in decreased anticipation accuracy. We expected this effect to be larger in skilled performers who are more able to utilise context. Skilled and less-skilled cricket batters anticipated deliveries presented using a temporally occluded video-based task. We created conditions whereby contextual information and event outcome were either congruent or incongruent. There was a significant skill by condition interaction (p < 0.05). The skilled group anticipated significantly more accurately than the less-skilled group on the congruent trials. Both groups anticipated less accurately on incongruent trials, with the skilled participants being more negatively affected. Skilled performers prioritise contextual information and confirmation bias affects the use of kinematic information available later in the action.     

Happiness and counterfactual thinking at the 2016 Summer Olympic Games

The purpose of this study was to investigate potential differences in emotional expression and counterfactual thought between bronze and silver Olympic medallists. In Study 1, 468 photographs (156 gold medallists, 156 silver medallists, 156 bronze medallists) were obtained of Olympic medal winners standing on the podium at the 2016 Summer Olympic Games, and 20 students rated the level of expressed happiness in each photograph. The students were blind to the outcome of the event and an average score for each photograph was used in data analysis. Results showed that gold medallists displayed greater levels of happiness than silver medallists but that silver and bronze medallists showed little difference in their expressed happiness. In Study 2, 192 quotations from bronze and silver medallists were obtained from news outlets, and 20 students rated the expression of counterfactual thought in each quotation. Results showed that compared to bronze medallists, silver medallists had more counterfactual thoughts overall, more counterfactual thoughts about how things could have gone better, and more counterfactual thoughts about their opponents’ behaviour. Overall, findings indicate that counterfactual thoughts differ between bronze and silver medallists, but that differences in expressed emotion are likely to be trivial or negligible.     

Written versus oral administration of a social-emotional self-report test for children: Does method of execution make a difference?

This study examined administration method (standard written administration vs. oral administration by an examiner) as a variable in influencing children's self-report test scores. Subjects included 139 students in grades 3–6, randomly assigned to one or the other administration condition. Subjects completed the Internalizing Disorders Evaluation Scale for Children (IDESC) according to the assigned administration method. Internal consistency estimates of each group were essentially similar. Mean IDESC scores of the two groups did not differ significantly from either a statistical or practical standpoint, based on t-test and effect size calculations. Results suggest that method of administration did not affect test performance. Implications for child assessment and future research are discussed.