The implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002 and subsequent sanctions for lower performing school systems has resulted in a number of both positive and negative consequences. One negative effect of NCLB is that teachers report a great deal of anxiety with regard to state-mandated assessments. The authors propose that one cause for the…

While research has shown that social workers can have positive impacts on students' school adjustment, evaluations of overall practice models continue to be limited. This article evaluates a model of community-school social work practice by examining its effect on problem behaviors and concerns identified by teachers and parents at referral. As…

This paper focuses on transition programs for youth to postsecondary education, broadly considered. It addresses the following questions: (1) What models or programs of transition exist? (2) On what basis can we say one transition program is more effective than another? In other words, how is successful transition defined? (3) How are…

In the No Child Left Behind Act and the What Works Clearinghouse, the federal government has attempted to establish guidelines for the type of education research that U.S. schools should consider in selecting instructional programs and resources. The government's clear preference for the medical model--a powerful research design in such fields as…

A description of the background, objectives, design, and intended products of the Vocational Education Equity Study, a federal effort, conducted by the American Institutes for Research, intended to assess sex discrimination and sex stereotyping in vocational education at all educational levels. (SJL)

Time series analysis is applied to an assessment of the temporary and permanent impact of the 1975 Australian Family Law Act and its effect on number of divorces. The application and construct validity of the model is examined. (Author/PN)

Seven considerations in designing the Title I Evaluation and Reporting System are reviewed: satisfying state, local, and federal needs; summative evaluation; differences in Title I subprograms; local use of different achievement tests; comparative analysis data; use of approved evaluation designs; and use of a common reporting metric. (MH)