Search

Education reform in the United States has unwisely focused attention on standards and accountability to the state as determined by standardized testing (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Mehta, 2013). Stemming from the emphasis on standards-based accountability are the ideas of rapid school "turnaround" and the state's role in this process (Peck & Reitzug, 2014; VanGronigen & Meyers, 2019). The current study employed critical policy discourse analysis to examine the media's portrayal of the 2019 determination to continue or terminate state control of the Little Rock School District. The analysis highlights two argumentative frames--one that emphasized neoliberal values in support of continued state control of the district and another that focused on systemic racism as the basis for advocating for local control of the district. These frames, along with their implications for future actions within the educational policy making process, guide the discussion. Our findings suggest sustained community and media participation is needed to bring attention to education policy issues while underscoring the importance of taking a critical stance to assess media coverage.

This article highlights how future English teachers both construct and reconstruct what English is and what they think it could be., As secondary English language arts (ELA) teachers and teacher educators, we often struggle with the question What is English?--in part due to the tensions in our discipline's complex world. Our [...]

Framed by Bakhtinian theories of authoritative discourse and heteroglossia, this study examines perceptions of a Science-of-Reading-based state reading initiative five years into implementation. Using interview transcripts, researchers engaged in polyphonic analysis to bring the voices of teachers, reading interventionists, parents, administrators, and state department of education officials into created dialogue. Findings from this qualitative study suggest there were contrasting perspectives about reading and the SRI, that many participants felt the initiative narrowed reading instruction and constrained teachers' agency, and that, overall, there have been limited opportunities for dialogue about the initiative. Findings demonstrate that a narrow view of reading research may silence and delegitimize some stakeholder voices. This state's goal of sharpening the focus of reading instruction led to instruction that was perceived by some stakeholders as narrow, boring, and meaningless, unlikely to create the statewide culture of reading that was targeted. Implications for this and future state reading initiatives point to the value of dialogue among varied stakeholders, which might allow for the idiosyncrasies of the teaching and learning of reading and writing to be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]