No description available.

Description of students as at-risk became a trend in educational policy and programming in the late 1980s. The term at risk was originally part of the specialized discourse of medicine and psychology, and related subfields of education such as special education and educational psychology. Due to the influence of national reform reports, the term at risk became more common in the discourse of policymakers and practitioners. It was used as a descriptor of students, often low-income and/or minority students, likely to fail or drop out of school. This study employed methods from sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and policy analysis to trace the uses and meanings of at risk through national reports, state education policies in Arizona, and district policies in a medium-sized Arizona school district with both rural and suburban schools. Analysis of reports and recorded interviews with state policymakers, district administrators, principals, and teachers identified differences in the meanings of at risk at different levels of the educational system. Groups at each level had particular interests in students, as reflected in their definitions of the problems of at-risk students and their policy recommendations. The most common consequences for students of being labelled at-risk were to be removed from the mainstream for special treatment, despite arguments of some researchers and theorists that educators need to rethink such approaches.

The purpose of this study was to compare the activities of four policy actors in Arizona with common recommendations of eight task force studies on K-12 public education in an effort to determine changes in policy priorities for education in Arizona from 1981 through 1984. The policy actors investigated were the Arizona State Board of Education, the Arizona Legislature, Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt, and the lobby efforts of the Arizona Education Association. Activities of these four policy actors were compared with common recommendations from The Paideia Proposal--An Educational Manifesto, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, Making the Grade, Action for Excellence--A Comprehensive Plan to Improve Our Nation's Schools, A Place Called School-Prospects for the Future (national reports), Education in Arizona: Popular Concerns Unpopular Choices, A Statewide Report Concerning Public Education, and A Call to Excellence--A Plan for the Renewal of Arizona Public Schools (state reports). A comparative documentary analysis was made of the quantitative and qualitative data gathered. It was found that 17 recommendations were common (consensus of four or more) among the five national and three state reports under consideration: (1) establishing a K-12 core curriculum; (2) upgrading textbooks; (3) increasing the amount of homework required; (4) lengthening the number of days in the school year; (5) providing extra programs for slow learners and gifted students; (6) lengthening the school day; (7) establishing codes of student conduct; (8) improving the use of school time; (9) increasing preschool and kindergarten programs; (10) removing tasks from teachers; (11) improving student attendance; (12) improving teacher preparation programs; (13) increasing teachers' salaries; (14) providing 11-12 month teacher contracts; (15) rewarding superior teachers; (16) evaluating teachers; and (17) defining the principal's role as instructional leader. Using the 17 common recommendations for education policy as a screening device, it was determined that the majority of new education policy in Arizona emanated from the State Legislature from 1981 through 1984. The Arizona State Board of Education seemed second in the amount of influence generated. Governor Bruce Babbitt and the Arizona Education Association played lesser roles as far as successful completion of their respective recommended policies were concerned.

No description available.

The Arizona Student Assessment Program (ASAP) is a major piece of legislation for Arizona, reducing norm-referenced standardized testing, providing performance-based assessments matching curriculum, requiring district articulation with state curriculum frameworks and assessments, collecting contextual information from districts, and producing complete profiles of schools, districts and the state. In its first year of implementation, the ASAP is appropriately examined through policy analysis rather than through an evaluation study. Six criteria for educational policy analysis developed by Mitchell (1986) were validated and used as interview questions with seven interviewees knowledgeable about the ASAP. Results of the interviews suggest the degree to which the ASAP is good educational policy and likely to make a difference in Arizona. Interviewees indicated that the ASAP is democratic, providing for both the needs of legitimate stakeholders and the general public interest. It recognizes and supports the organizational integrity of schools only if schools have begun to make some reform efforts of their own in the direction of the ASAP. The ASAP provides adequate means-end linkage for the first two years of implementation, including through school, district, and state profiles, but may need to provide additional help to districts during the first two years; furthermore, relief incentives may be needed, rather than sanctions or disincentives, to encourage continued implementation. The ASAP may not be integrated into overall state educational policy, primarily because there has been no unifying state policy until the ASAP. The ASAP may emerge as a force to reorient current and unify future policy. The ASAP will be expensive, but the interviewees felt the short and long-term benefits justify cost. The ASAP was the most politically feasible policy available to bring about the changes needed, but perhaps not the most palatable, especially to districts that have made no reform efforts of their own. Policy analysis using different criteria and evaluation studies are recommended.

No description available.