| dc.description.abstract | While No Child Left Behind (NCLB) provides a mechanism for holding states,
local education agencies (LEA), and schools accountable to improve academic
achievement for all students, policy itself has done little to include students from
dropping out of school. Rather, dropout prevention/recovery schools/programs such as
alternative schools of choice are recognized and relied upon as a means to reduce the
number of students dropping out of school. These schools seek to re-engage the student
who is at-risk to dropping out of school through nontraditional means and strategies. As
more and more students become disenfranchised and drop out of school, these schools
grow in importance. To ensure that all students have equity in education, regardless of
educational setting, these schools warrant further attention and consideration. Therefore,
two questions become evident: (a) How do educators in alternative schools interpret and
implement policy such as NCLB? and (b) How do they define their role and
responsibility? This case study examined the socio-legal discourse applied when seven
administrators and 15 teachers administered policy as a response to an at-risk student
population in five demographically diverse alternative education settings in California
and Texas. A critical discourse analysis of text, interviews, and observations was used to
reveal administrator and teacher assumptions and motivations of policy and risk. The
data analysis revealed three dominant discourses of risk compliance and policy
knowledge that were notable forces in the policy implementation of NCLB at these
schools. Themes that emerged from the data included responsibility, dissociation,
success, and equity.
The findings from this study have demonstrated that a moment-by-moment
process shapes the construction of role, responsibility, success, and equity as defined by
the teachers and administrators. Furthermore, the discourse of risk and policy converged
as ideological and political conceptions that perpetuate the notion that educating
disadvantaged children as a process of demonstrating a particular level of knowledge
and/or acquitting what it means to be considered at-risk. The implication for these
educators is that the risk discourse that was engaged influenced their sense of
responsibility, practice, and thus may counter policy intent. | en |
