Short sprint or an endurance test: the perceived impact of the National Award for Special Educational Needs Coordination

This paper evaluates the perceived impact of the National Award (NA) for Special Educational Needs (SEN) Coordination in English mainstream schools. The Award was introduced in 2009 and has been mandatory for all new Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCos) since its inception. The framework used for the evaluation is based on the learning outcomes of the NA, which were formulated by the Training and Development Agency and focus on areas related to the pedagogical, managerial and leadership aspects of the SENCo role. Findings suggest that the NA has impacted most significantly on participants’ pedagogy and strategies for removing barriers to learning. Participants’ preparedness for training at post-graduate level is also investigated and consideration is given towards further training and study beyond the completion of the NA. Additionally, the paper investigates areas that are perceived as challenges (e.g. lack of time and leadership status) to the successful implementation of their coordination role and any impact the NA has had in this respect.     

Latino High School Students’ Perceptions of Caring: Keys to Success

This mixed methods investigation specifically examined Latino high school adolescents’ perceptions of teacher behaviors that demonstrate caring. A chi-square test was conducted to analyze the frequency of responses, and focus group interviews were conducted to expand on the results. The data indicated that although Latino male students were as likely to perceive the same behaviors Latina female students perceived as important or very important, a higher percentage of female students rated the same items as important. This investigation situates Latino high school adolescents’ voices as a pivotal agent to inform about the critical nature of caring for all students.     

Reporting NAEP Results Using Standards

What is the difference between NAEP anchor levels and achievement levels? How are the processes different for creating these levels? What points of controversy surround use of these levels for reporting achievement? Will having standards for NAEP promote improvement of public education?     

The “overdue kid”: A face-to-face library service encounter as ritual interaction

Using the theoretical frameworks of Erving Goffman and Michael Lipsky, an example of school library staff and student interactions is examined, using functional discourse analysis to reveal how practice is produced as a clerical control routine which upholds institutional authority over users, rather than legitimate service work. The study, which consists of a single interaction between a middle school library clerk and a young adolescent with overdue books, is an example of what Goffman calls a “remedial interchange” in which the clerk, with the use of the library's computer, identifies the student's “offense” of keeping books overdue, despite repeated notices. Upon admission of the student's virtual transgression, the clerk provides an “offering” to hold his desired books until he returns the others, thus redressing the balance of the interaction while still retaining asymmetrical institutional control over the student.     

The role of culture in program improvement

In this article, we draw on work in three Head Start programs over three years to consider how “culture” plays a role in program improvement. Through close attention to discourse we attempt to show how culture takes shape through dynamic interactions in particular contexts, constituting identities, structuring social relations, and privileging particular forms of knowledge. We argue for the importance of illuminating the forces that shape our lives and bringing our own ideologies to conscious awareness, in order to become actors in our social milieus. Articulation between general mandates and local needs and goals would then entail ongoing dialogue in a “culturally situated model of school/program effectiveness” (Fuller & Clarke, 1994, p. 121).