invited.indd Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal ©2012, Volume 6, Issue 3 32 Conclusion and Recommendations Sonia Nieto University of Massachusetts—Amherst Melissa Rivera Hunter College - City University of New York Sandra Quiñones University of Rochester Jason Irizarry University of Connecticut As we have seen throughout this paper, the education of Latino/a students is in crisis. At the same time, based on our review of promising practices and creative projects, we also believe that this is a time of great opportunity. There are a number of areas that are especially crucial in improving the education of Latinos/as. Based on our critical synthesis of the literature, in what follows, we briefl y address what we see as positive future directions in four broad areas: teacher preparation for diversity, services for ELL and immigrant students, family outreach and community engagement, and school, state, and federal policies and practices. Teacher Preparation For Diversity Because of the important role that teachers play in creating culturally responsive environments and learning experiences for students, it is imperative that teacher education and in-service professional development programs develop a vision for improving the preparation of all teachers, and especially those working with students of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, including Latinos/as. The lack of knowledge and readiness to work with such students is at the heart of the problem. For example, a survey of more than 5,000 teachers concerning their preparedness to teach found that fewer than 34 percent had participated in professional development programs focused on teaching students of diverse cultural backgrounds. Even worse, only 26 percent had any training at all in working with students who are learning English (Parsad, Lewis, & Farris, 2001). Clearly, teachers who do not know their students or the issues they are facing will fi nd it more diffi cult to connect with them, and to teach them well. Successful programs at schools and universities ensure that issues of cultural and linguistic diversity are central to teacher learning. Creating appropriate programs entails overhauling the curriculum and fi eld placements in teacher preparation and the nature of in-service education. For example, rather than passive professional development where teachers simply listen to outside experts, it makes more sense to create a climate in which teachers are active co-constructors of their learning. Also, programs in which school districts partner with universities to offer graduate degrees, and where courses are offered onsite at schools, are another model that has been successful. As we have seen in this paper, culturally responsive pedagogy, an anti-racist climate in schools, research in “funds of knowledge” literature and approaches, and both PAR and YPAR have proven to be helpful in familiarizing teachers with appropriate strategies in teaching Latino/a students and in helping to change institutional structures in schools. Another way in which teacher preparation programs can improve is by focusing on teaching as a vocation based on relationships. Relationships among students and teachers are central to students’ feelings of acceptance and competence. Yet in too many cases, students feel unwelcome and alienated in their schools even to the point that they are reluctant to ask for help from the people who are there to help them. For example, in a recent study, the authors quote a student, Sophia, who said “I wouldn’t ask for help because I didn’t know anyone in the class…and I thought the teacher wouldn’t help me so I just didn’t ask” (Hondo, Gardiner, & Sapien, 2005, p. 112). If students do not even dare ask for help, how can teachers help them learn? Sophia’s words demonstrate Conclusion and Recommendations Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal ©2012, Volume 6, Issue 3 33 dramatically the need for teacher preparation to focus on promoting relationships as a key element of teaching. Schools of education and in-service professional development also need to approach teaching as an intellectual endeavor in which teachers view their role in multidimensional ways: as curriculum developers, as researchers of their own practice, and as learners of their students’ lives. In this way, teachers also learn to advocate for their students. All of these issues can be included in a quality teacher education program where teachers develop identities as intellectuals and leaders rather than as technicians and test-givers. Support for English Learner and Immigrant Students Given the growing number of immigrant and English learners in U. S. schools – the vast majority of whom are Latinos/as – it is imperative that schools offer appropriate support for these students. Unfortunately, in too many cases, newly arrived immigrants and English learners are simply warehoused in special programs (“newcomer” programs or immersion English classes) until they learn suffi cient English to be placed in mainstream or general education classes. In the meantime, they lose valuable learning time in other content. In other cases, they are allowed to “sink or swim” by placing them in regular classrooms in hopes that they will soon catch up with their peers. Neither of these is a viable option. Appropriate programs for immigrant and English learners include English as a Second Language (ESL) and bilingual programs, intensive counseling, and in-school and after-school support services. Bilingual education, as we have seen earlier in this paper, has been successful in both teaching English and content in the native language. The controversies surrounding bilingual education, however, have meant that many bilingual programs have been curtailed, with at least three states (California, Arizona, and Massachusetts) having eliminated them entirely. Yet, according to Patricia Gándara and Frances Contreras (2009), A case in point is Massachusetts, where bilingual education was eliminated in 2002 as the result of Question 2, a voter initiative. The following year, students who had previously been in bilingual classrooms were placed in structured English immersion (SEI) classrooms, the thinking being that they would learn suffi cient English to be removed to general education classes within a year. A recent comprehensive study of the effect of Question 2 in Boston, however, found mostly negative results of the change. For example, in the years following this policy change, grade retention among English learner high school students in Massachusetts increased from 17.2 to 26.4 percent yearly; in fact, students of limited English profi ciency went from being the group with the lowest dropout rate to that with the highest dropout rate in the city. The study also found that achievement gains were “equivocal at best” (Tung et al., 2009, p. 11). That is, although there were some gains, English learners did not improve in their pass scores in the MCAS, the state’s mandated high-stakes test, compared with the steady score increases among English profi cient students. Two-way immersion programs in which Latino/a immigrant and ELL students learn in both English and Spanish alongside their English-speaking peers have proven to be a popular alternative supported by both Latino/a families and English-speaking families. In addition, these programs have resulted in high levels of achievement for both English speakers and Spanish speakers. For example, in a longitudinal study by Elizabeth Howard, Donna Christian, and Fred Genesee on two-way immersion Spanish/English programs (2004), the researchers found impressive levels of performance in reading, writing, and oral language in both English and Spanish. Both native English speakers and native Spanish speakers had very high levels of English fl uency, and while native English speakers scored lower on reading Spanish than native Spanish speakers, their oral Spanish profi ciency was quite high. In cases where bilingual education is not an option, ELL and immigrant students should be offered ESL instruction by qualifi ed teachers who have received specialized training in the fi eld. What is clear is that English Many of the problems of cultural mismatch, lack of understanding of students’ social and educational circumstances, and inability to communicate with students and parents who do not have a good command of English could be ameliorated if the schools had more well-trained bilingual and bicultural teachers. (p. 107) Conclusion and Recommendations Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal ©2012, Volume 6, Issue 3 34 learners and immigrant students can no longer be ignored or denied the quality education they deserve. Family Outreach and Community Engagement Since the NLERAP project began, a central principle underlying our work has been that community engagement and family outreach are necessary for the improvement of the education of Latinos/as. In fact, as we have seen throughout this paper, when families and communities are signifi cantly involved in the education of the youth, great strides can be made. This has certainly been the case where PAR and YPAR approaches are used, but even in more traditional programs, family and community engagement are key factors in improving the education of students. Finding ways to foster communication between the school and Latino/a families is not only an important step in promoting involvement, but is also a proven strategy in raising student achievement. Traditional family outreach strategies that work with middle-class families will not always work for families living in poverty, families where English is not the primary language, families that feel uncomfortable in the school setting, or families where the parents have not had the privilege of a higher education. Expecting families to help children with homework, while a laudable goal, may not be possible in families where the parents themselves have not had access to a quality education. Another popular approach, “parent education” workshops, can be condescending because they fail to take into account the expertise and experiences that families already have. Having meetings at times when families cannot attend, or in venues that may be diffi cult to get to, are also not good approaches. Teachers and administrators need to think more critically and creatively about what it means to involve families in the education of their children. This means taking into account the talents and skills that families possess, and fi nding more respectful ways to encourage them to become active in their children’s schooling. It also means welcoming other community members and resources into the school, whether individuals, or community organizations. These approaches tend to be much more helpful and successful than assuming that families are not interested in, or committed to, the education of their children. School, State, and Federal Policies and Practices Policies and practices at the school, state, and federal levels also need to be addressed if the education of Latino/a students is to be improved. Although limited space does not permit us to address adequately all the policies and practices at each of these levels, in what follows, we focus on several crucial areas. At the school level, the nature of the curriculum, the pedagogy used by teachers, and the counseling services offered to students have a tremendous impact on the experiences and life chances of Latino/a students. Throughout this paper, we have seen that the curriculum offered in many schools has little to do with the realities of Latino/a students’ lives and experiences. Yet time and again, when the curriculum does include these concerns, students have been both more engaged and more academically successful in school. We are not suggesting that the curriculum should focus only on students’ experiences but rather that it must begin with and honor these experiences. At the same time that they build on the knowledge and experiences in their lives and communities, Latino/a students should also be exposed to a wide-ranging curriculum that is expansive and inclusive of the nation and world. Another vexing and continuing problem is that the traditional curriculum to which Latino/a students are exposed does little to prepare them for postsecondary education. Too often, students reach their fi nal years of high school without having taken some of the courses required to apply to college. By then, it is too late for some. The implications for counseling services are clear. In fact, in all the successful programs we have reviewed, comprehensive counseling services were a key element in developing a sense of belonging in students, as well as in raising their achievement and preparing them for postsecondary education. Policies at the state and federal levels also need to be reviewed critically. We have certainly seen the results of the contentious debate over bilingual education in several states where it has been eliminated, but even in cases where bilingual education is available, the quality of the programs leaves much to be desired. Simply offering bilingual programs is not enough; also needed are teachers who have been appropriately prepared in Conclusion and Recommendations Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal ©2012, Volume 6, Issue 3 35 content and pedagogy, adequate resources to run programs well, and administrative and community support to keep them viable. Testing policies also need revising. Since the early 1980s, the nation has been gripped in the throes of a standardization movement that has done little to improve the education of students but much to improve the bottom line for test publishing companies. In the process, Latino/a student dropout rates have continued to grow, while their college-going rate lags far behind that of other groups. State and federal laws that mandate rigid testing policies need to be overhauled to take into account the unique needs of Latino/a students, and especially students with limited English profi ciency. In addition, because the pedagogy in many schools has been severely restricted as a result of rigid testing policies – particularly in schools in poverty-stricken communities – Latino/a students have been especially hard-hit by these policies. The elimination of the arts, physical education and recess, and in some cases even social studies and science, have left Latino/a students with an even more inferior education than before the obsession with standardized testing began. Final Thoughts Given the plight faced by Latinos/as not only in our public schools but also in housing, employment, health care, foster care, and other institutions, it is fair to say that schools alone cannot tackle such massive problems because poverty is often at the center of these problems. It is clear, then, that education cannot be separated from the consequences of poverty, and although this paper focuses on education, some caveats are in order. Poverty is not simply an individual problem. Instead, poverty is created within a particular sociopolitical context characterized by complex structural problems and inequalities. As a result, confronting poverty is a community and national responsibility. While schools have historically been expected to bear full responsibility for educating children who live in poverty, this expectation is both unrealistic and myopic. Schools can, of course, do a great deal, but they cannot do it all. In a recent and comprehensive analysis of factors related to poverty that must be addressed if schools are to provide students living in poverty with a quality education, David Berliner (2009) described six out-of-school factors that greatly affect health and learning opportunities of children: (1) low birth weight; (2) inadequate health care; (3) food insecurity; (4) environmental pollutants; (5) family relations and stress; and (6) neighborhood characteristics. Until we take seriously the responsibility to improve these conditions, schooling in and of itself cannot solve achievement problems and inequities. Larger institutional issues shape children’s educational experience, and although solving particular crises in the lives of individual children is an important step in improving educational outcomes for those children, it is not enough to turn the situation around for the vast majority. For example, preschool education is not universally accessible to all families. As a result, young Latinos/as as a group attend preschool at much lower rates than any other group of children in the nation, thus placing them behind their peers even before they begin formal schooling. According to the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA 2008), Latino/a children are less likely than their African American and White peers to participate in early childhood education programs. In 2005, 59% of White children participated in center-based preschool education programs, while only 43% of Hispanic children participated. Clearly, universal preschool is one concrete action that cities, states, and the federal government can take to help level the playing fi eld. Another concrete issue affecting many Latino/a families is homelessness. The stigma associated with foster care, migratory lifestyles, and homelessness infl uences student disengagement, alienation and non-participation (Keogh, Halpenny, & Gilligan, 2006). One young woman, formerly in foster care, recounted her experiences with homelessness as she attempted college. She described her inability to complete assignments or take an exam and the embarrassment she felt in having to explain her situation to the professor. She stated “…school was so connected to housing, it wasn’t funny… I went to the University not looking for sympathy but for them to understand.” She further explained, “…okay, now you’re going to fail me because now you dropped me a whole letter grade because I didn’t turn in one assignment or I didn’t take one test… understanding that there’s circumstances beyond our control, and I wasn’t looking for sympathy but at the same time, I didn’t want to tell all my personal business… I’m embarrassed by this” (Perez & Romo, 2009b). While it is true that larger structural problems such as lack of access to preschool and the growing Conclusion and Recommendations Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal ©2012, Volume 6, Issue 3 36 problem of homelessness greatly infl uence student learning, it is also true that schools – and the policymakers, administrators, and teachers who determine what happens in schools – can do a great deal to become places where Latino/a students want to go, where they feel included, and where they can learn successfully. Thus, in spite of the massive structural problems in our society, if we were to address in a consistent and meaningful way such issues as teacher preparation, bilingual and other services for students learning English, and other school, state, and federal policies and practices such as an enriched and multicultural curriculum, culturally responsive pedagogy, consistent counseling, fair and fl exible testing policies, and respectful family outreach and involvement, schools would inevitably become spaces of hope and learning. Although we have focused on students in this essay, our concern here is also the communities from which they come, for this is the crucible of human development that will ultimately sustain the progressive social change we desire. The socioeconomic and cultural development of our communities in our view is ultimately the road to achieving sustainable and ever greater individual academic achievement. School transformation is a critical component of community development. With community development as the long-term goal, reciprocal support between schools and communities is a benefi cial result. Although we have emphasized the community- to school direction in this essay because our focus has been an educational one, we also need to explore the interconnectedness of the school and community for mutual support. In addition, if neighborhoods, communities, and ethnic/racial groups are understood as sociocultural products of history, they should not be ignored but rather engaged by schools. Approaches to educational improvement that espouse market-based reforms ignore this reality because a one-dimensional conceptualization of education results in marginalizing a potentially – and in our view, in the long run, an essentially powerful – alliance. As Latinos/as we also aspire and claim the rights to the benefi ts and joys of sociocultural continuity and our identities as life-sustaining and enriching. The right to self-determination is not just enhanced, but is based upon, a community’s ownership of history and consequently the future, something that democratic societies should encourage and protect. It is clear that if we do not heed the imperative to connect schools and communities in their mutual improvement, we risk failure even with the most well-meaning of intentions and actions. The education of Latino/a students is at a crucial juncture, not only for Latino/a students for also for our nation as a whole. As we have seen in this paper, the Latino/a community is growing at an unprecedented rate; at the same time, the academic progress of Latinos/as is either at a standstill or regressing. This is bad news not only for Latinos/as but also for the future of our society as a whole. In this paper, we have attempted to demonstrate that there are major institutional and structural barriers that present obstacles beyond the control of students and their families. There are also glimmers of hope and these are evident through the creative programs and approaches we have reviewed, through school environments that nurture students both academically and emotionally, and through the committed and caring educators who make a difference in their students’ lives. These glimmers of hope reinforce our conviction that teachers and administrators, Latino/a and other researchers and policymakers, as well as the general public must work collectively to create policies, practices, programs, and school structures that will remove barriers and build upon foundations that promote educational success. Along with policies and practices – and equally crucial – are the personal and collective values and sensibilities among educators and others that insist on educational justice for all students, including Latinos/as. Conclusion and Recommendations Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal ©2012, Volume 6, Issue 3 37 References Abedi, J., & Gándara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement, Issues and Practice, 25(4), 36-46. Addy, S., & Wight, V. R. (2012). Basic facts about low-income children, 2010. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty. Antrop-González, R. (2003). This school is my sanctuary: The Dr. Pedro Albizu Campos alternative high school. Journal of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies, 15, 232–255. Antrop-González, R. (in press). Toward a conceptualization of the third space in the school choice debate: Can there be a radical politics in school choice? In T.C. Pedroni (Ed.) Educational markets and the dispossessed: How Educational markets appeal to the educationally marginalized. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Antrop-González, R., & De Jesús, A. (2006). Towards a theory of critical care in urban small school reform: Examining structures and pedagogies of caring in two Latino community-based schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19(4), 409-433. Antrop-González, R., Velez, W., & Garrett, T. (2005). ¿Dónde están los estudiantes puertorriqueñas/os exitosos? Where are the academically successful Puerto Rican high school students? Journal of Latinos and Education, 4(2), 77-94. Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto Schooling: A Political Economy of Urban Education Reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Ashiabi, G. (2005). Household food insecurity and children’s school engagement. Journal of Children and Poverty 11, 3-17. Au, K., & Kawakami, A. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In E. Hollins, J. King, & W. Hayman (Eds.) Teaching diverse populations: Formulating knowledge base (pp. 5-23). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2012). The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). Washington, DC. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch Austin Independent School District. Austin ISD Data (2007- 2008). Our Students. Austin, TX: Department of Campus and District Accountability. Retrieved from http://www.austinisd.org/inside/factsfi gures/ Baker, C. (1993). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Barth, P. (2000). Honor in the boxcar: Equalizing teacher quality. Thinking K-16, 4(1), 1-27. Berliner, D. C. (2009, March). Poverty and potential: Out-of-school factors and school success. Boulder, CO: Education and the Public Interest Center. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241- 258). New York, NY: Greenwood. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to refl exive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bucchioni, E. (1982). The daily round of life in the school. In F. Cordasco, & E. Bucchioni (Eds.), The Puerto Rican community and its children on the mainland (3rd Rev. ed. pp. 201-238). Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press. Cammarota, J. (2007). A Social Justice Approach to Achievement: Guiding Latina/o Students Toward Educational Attainment with a Challenging, Socially Relevant Curriculum. Equity and Excellence in Education, 40(1), 87-96. Cammarota, J. (2008). Sueños Americanos: Barrio youth negotiate social and cultural identities. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (Eds.) (2008). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. New York, NY: Routledge. Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Cazden, C. (2002). A descriptive study of six high school Puente classrooms. Educational Policy 16(4), 496-521. Church, W. T. II (2006). From start to fi nish: The duration of Hispanic children in out-of home placements. Children and Youth Services Review 28, 1007-1023 Civil Rights Project. (2005, May 25). Confronting the graduation rate crisis in California. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120. Cockcroft, J. D. (1995). Latinos in the struggle of equal education. New York, NY: Franklin Watts. Conchas, G. Q. (2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability in Latino school engagement. Harvard Educational Review, 71 (3), 475-504. Conchas, G. (2006). The color of success: Race and high achieving urban youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Conchas, G., & Rodríguez, L. F. (2008). Small schools and urban youth: Using the power of school culture to engage students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Conger, D., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2008). Foster care and school mobility. Journal of Negro Education 72 (1), 97-103. Cooper, C. R. (2002). Five bridges along students’ pathways to college: A development blueprint of families, teachers, counselors, mentors and peers in the Puente Project. Educational Policy 16(4), 607-622. Cordasco, F. (1998). America and the quest for equal educational opportunity: The schools and the children of the poor. Selected Documents in Social Policy (reprinted from the British Journal of Educational Studies, 21, February, 1973, 50-63). New York, N.Y.: Edna Vaughn Publishing Group. Cortina, R. (2003). Transnational factors and school success of Mexican immigrants. In R. Cortina, & M. Gendreau (Eds.). Immigrants and schooling: Mexicans in New York. New York, NY: The Center for Migration Studies. Conclusion and Recommendations Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal ©2012, Volume 6, Issue 3 38 Crawford, J. (2004). No Child Left Behind: Misguided approach to school accountability for English language learners. Silver Springs, MD:National Association for Bilingual Education. Retrieved from http://www.nabe.org/documents/policy_legislation/NABE_on_ NCLB.pdf Cummins, J. (1981). Age on Arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 132- 149. Cunningham, C. (2003). Trends and issues in social and economic context. Washington, DC: Offi ce of Educational Research and Improvement. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A Review of State policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004a). From “separate but equal” to “No Child Left Behind”: The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In D. Meier, A. Kohn., L. Darling-Hammond, T.R. Sizer, & G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004b). Teacher inequality and the right to learn: Access to qualifi ed teachers in California’s public schools. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1936-1966. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Evaluating “No Child Left Behind.” The Nation, 284(20), 11-18. De Cohen, C.C., & Deterding, N. (2005). Who’s left behind? Immigrant children in high and low LEP schools. Washington, DC: Program for Evaluation and Equity Research, Urban Institute. De Jesús, A., & Vásquez, D. (2005). Exploring the educational pipeline and profi le for Latino students in New York State. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños, 2 (2), 1-14. Delgado-Gaitán, C. (1991). Involving Parents in Schools: A Process of Empowerment. American Journal of Education, 100(1), 20-46. Delpit, L. D. (1988). The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298. Department of Education. (2002, January 8). Paige Joins President Bush for Signing of Historic No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/01/01082002.html Department of Education. (2004, July 1). Four Pillars of NCLB. Overview. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www. ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html Department of Education. (2011). Winning the future: Improving education for the Latino community. White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics. Washington, DC: Author. Drakeford, W. (2004). Racial disproportionality in school disciplinary practices. Denver, CO: National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCREST). Duncan-Andrade, J.M.R. (2007). Urban youth and the counter-narration of inequality. Transforming Anthropology, 15(1), 26-37. Education Trust. (2008). Their fair share: How Texas-sized gaps in teacher quality shortchange low-income minority youth. Washington, DC: The Eli and Edythe Board Foundation. Fantuzzo, J., & Perlman, S. (2007). The unique impact of out-of-home placement and the mediating effects of child maltreatment and homelessness on early school success. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 941-960. Fine, M. (1993). [Ap]parent involvement: Refl ections on parents, power, and urban public schools. Teachers College Record, 94(4), 682-729. Fine, M. (2008). An epilogue, of sorts. In J. Cammarota, & M. Fine (Eds.). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 213-240). New York: Routledge Fine, M., Jaffe-Walter, R., Pedraza, P., Futch, V., & Stoudt, B. (2007). Swimming: On oxygen, resistance, and possibility for immigrant youth under siege. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 38(1), 76–96. Fletcher, T. V., & Navarrete, L. A. (2003). Learning disabilities or difference: A critical look at issues associated with the misidentifi cation and placement of Hispanic students in special education programs. Rural Special Education Quarterly. 22(4), 37- 46. Flores, B. M. (2005). The intellectual presence of the defi cit view of Spanish-speaking children in the educational literature during the 20th century. In P. Pedraza and M. Rivera (Eds.) Latino education: An agenda for community action research (pp. 75-98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Fry, R. (2008, June 26). The role of schools in the English Language Learner achievement gap. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Gándara, P. (1982). Passing through the eye of the needle: High-achieving Chicanas. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,4(2), 167- 179. Gándara, P. (1995). Over the ivy walls: The educational mobility of low-income Chicanos. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R., (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/264/390 García, E. (2008). Stemming the tide: The Texas dropout conundrum and the pursuit of policy. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin). García, E., & Valenzuela, A. (2007, 13 February). Extracurricular clubs and curbing Texas’ dropout problem: Research evidence in support of HB 3418 and SB1515. Policy Memorandum. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Texas Center for Educational Policy. Conclusion and Recommendations Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal ©2012, Volume 6, Issue 3 39 García, E. E. (2001). Hispanic education in the United States: Raíces y alas. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld. Garica, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2006). Preventing disproportionate representation: Culturally and linguistically responsive pre-referral interventions. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 64-68. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gibson, M. A. (1988). Accommodation without assimilation: Sikh immigrants in an American high school. New York, NY: Cornell University Press. Ginwright, S. (2008). Collective radical imagination: Youth participatory action research and the art of emancipatory knowledge. In J. Cammarota, & M. Fine (Eds.). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 13-22). New York, NY: Routledge. Ginwright, S., & Cammarota, J. (2007). Youth activism in the urban community: Learning critical civic praxis within community organizations. Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(6), 693-710. Ginwright, S., Cammarota, J., & Noguera, P. A. (2005). Youth, social justice, and communities: Toward a theory of urban youth policy. Social Justice, 32(3), 24-40. González, N. (1995). The funds of knowledge for teaching project. Practicing Anthropology, 17(3), 3-6. González, N. (2008). What is Culture? In A. Rosebery, & B. Warren (Eds.), Teaching science to English language learners (pp. 89-98): National Science Teachers Association Press. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Theorizing practices. In N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gottlob, B. J. (2007, February). The high cost of failing to reform public education in Texas. Indianapolis, IN: Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, National Center for Policy Analysis, Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options. Retrieved from http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/downloadFile.do?id=107 Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25. Hampton, E. (2004). Standardized or sterilized? Divergent perspectives on the effects of high-stakes testing in West Texas. In A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How Texas style accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 179-200). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters…a lot. Education Trust 3(2), 3-14. Heck, R. (2007). Examining the relationship between teacher quality as an organizational property of schools and students’ achievement and growth rates. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(4), 399-432. Hondo, C., Gardiner, M. E., & Sapien, Y. (2005). Latino dropouts in rural America: Realities and possibilities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Howard, E. R., Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2004). The development of bilingualism and biliteracy from grade 3 to 5: A summary of fi ndings from the CAL/CREDE study of two-way immersion education. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Institute for Language and Education Policy. (2008, December 15). Dear President-Elect Obama: Visions for K-12 education. Portland, OR: Author. Retrieved from http://www.elladvocates.org Irizarry, J.G. (2007). Ethnic and urban intersections in the classroom: Latino students, hybrid identities, and culturally responsive pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives, 9(3), 1-7. Irizarry, J.G. (2011). The Latinization of U.S. schools: Successful teaching and learning in shifting cultural contexts. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishing. Irizarry, J.G., & Antrop-González, R. (2007). RicanStructing the discourse and promoting school success: Extending a theory of CRP to DiaspoRicans. Centro Journal of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies, 20(2), 36-59. Irizarry, J.G., & Nieto, S. (2010). Latino/a theoretical contributions to educational praxis: Abriendo caminos, construyendo puentes. In E. G. Murillo, Jr., S. Villenas, Galván, Muñoz, Martínez, & Machado-Casas (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Research, theory, and practice (pp.108-124). New York, NY: Routledge. Jacob, E., & Jordan, C. (1987). Moving to dialogue. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18(1), 259-261. Jullianelle, P., & Foscarinis, M. (2003). Responding to school mobility of children and youth experiencing homelessness: The McKinney-Vento Act and beyond. The Journal of Negro Education 72(1), 39-140. Keogh, A. F., Halpenny, A. M., & Gilligan, R. (2006). Educational issues for children and young people in families living in emergency accommodation - An Irish perspective. Children and Society, 20(5), 360-375. KewalRamani, A. K., Gilberston, L., Fox, M. A., & Provasnik, S. (2007, September). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research and National Center for Education Statistics. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Lankford, H. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62. Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73–85. Liou, D. D. (2008). Beyond politics of school size: An essay review. Education Review: A Journal of Book Reviews, 11(5), 1-20. MacDonald, V.M., & Monkman, K. (2005). Setting the context: Historical perspectives on Latino/a/a education. In P. Pedraza & M. Conclusion and Recommendations Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal ©2012, Volume 6, Issue 3 40 Rivera (Eds.), Latino education: An agenda for community action research (pp. 47-73). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Margolis, R. J. (1968). The Losers: A report on Puerto Ricans and the public schools. New York, NY: ASPIRA. Martínez, M. D. (2003). Missing in action: Reconstructing hope and possibility among Latino students placed at risk. Journal of Latino and Education, 2(1), 13-21. Marx, S. (2003). Entanglements of altruism, Whiteness, and defi cit thinking: White preservice teachers working with urban students. Educators for Urban Minorities, 2(2), 41-56. McCarty, T. L., & Watahomigie, L. J. (1998). Indigenous community-based language education in the USA. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 11(3), 309-324. McNeil, L. (2000a). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routledge. McNeil, L. (2000b). Sameness, bureaucracy, and the myth of educational equity: The TAAS system of testing in Texas public school. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(4), 508-523. McNeil, L., & Valenzuela, A. (2001). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In G. Orfi eld & M. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education (pp. 127-150). New York, NY: Century Foundation Press McQuillan, P. J. (1998). Educational opportunity in an urban high school: A cultural analysis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Medina, C., & Luna, G. (2004). Learning at the margins. Rural Special Education Quarterly. 23(4), 10-16. Mehan, H., Hubbard, L., & Villanueva, I. (1994). Forming academic identities: Accommodation without assimilation among involuntary minorities. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 25(2), 91-117. Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success. The consequences of untracking low-achieving students. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University. Menchaca, V. D. (2001). Providing a culturally relevant curriculum for Hispanic children. Multicultural Education, 8(3), 18-20. Moll, L. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31 (2), 132-141. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge (pp. 71-87). Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum. Moll, L., & González, N. (1997). Teachers as social scientists: Learning about culture from household research. In P.M. hall (Ed). Race, ethnicity, and multiculturalism: Policy and practice (pp. 89-114). New York, NY: Garland. Moll, L. C., González, N., Amanti, C., & Neff, D. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: A qualitative approach to connect households and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132-141. Morrell, E. (2008). Critical literacy and urban youth: Pedagogies of access, dissent, and liberation. New York, NY: Routledge. Murdock, S. H. (2006, June). Texas: A changing landscape. Presentation at the University of Texas at San Antonio Superintendents Conference, San Antonio, TX. Murdock, S. H., White, S., Hoque, N., Pecotte, B., You, X., & Balkan, J. (1997). The Texas challenge: Population change and the future of Texas. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press. National Center for Children in Poverty. (2008, October). Who are America’s poor children? The offi cial story. New York, NY: Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, (2010). Number and percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds who were high school status dropouts, by nativity and race/ethnicity with Hispanic and Asian subgroups: 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/tables/table_18_1b.asp National Hispanic Leadership Agenda. (2008). 2008 National Hispanic policy agenda. Washington, DC: Author. National Latino/a Education Research Agenda Project. (2003). Education research framework and agenda. New York, NY: Research Foundation, City University of New York. Negrón de Montilla, A. (1975). Americanization in Puerto Rico and the public school system, 1900-1930. Rio Piedras, PR: Editorial Universitaria. Nieto, S. (1998). Fact and fi ction: Stories of Puerto Ricans in U.S. schools. Harvard Educational Review, 68(2), 133-163. Nieto, S. (Ed.) (2000a). Puerto Rican students in U.S. schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Nieto, S. (2000b). Puerto Rican students in U.S. schools: A brief history. In S. Nieto (Ed.), Puerto Rican students in U.S. schools (pp. 5-37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Nieto, S. (2003). Identity, personhood, and Puerto Rican students: Challenging paradigms of assimilation and authenticity. Scholar- Practitioner Quarterly, 1(1), 41-62. Nieto, S. (2005). Schools for a new majority: The role of teacher education in hard times. The New Educator, 1(1), 27-43. Nieto, S. (2007). Latino/as and the elusive quest for equal education. In J. Flores & R. Renato (Eds.). A companion to Latino/a studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Nieto, S., & Rolón, C. (1997). Preparation and professional development of teachers: A perspective from two Latinas. In J. Irvine (Ed.), Critical knowledge for diverse teachers and learners (pp. 89–124). New York, NY: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). Conclusion and Recommendations Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal ©2012, Volume 6, Issue 3 41 Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Noguera, P. (2007). “¿Y qué pasará con jóvenes como Miguel Fernández?” Education, immigration, and the future of Latinas/os in the United States. In J. Flores & R. Renato (Eds.). A companion to Latino/a Studies. Boston, MA: Blackwell. Núñez, R. (2001). Family homelessness in New York City: A case study. Political Science Quarterly, 116(3). 367-379 Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Orfi eld, G. (2004) (Ed.) Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduate rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Orfi eld, G. (2004). Losing our future: Minority students left out. In G. Orfi eld (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate problem (pp. 1-11). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Orfi eld, G., Losen, D. Wald, J., & Swanson, C. (2004, February 25). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project and the Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/ publications/410936.html Parsad, B., Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (2001). Teacher preparation and professional development: 2000 (NCES 2001-088). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Pedraza, P., & Rivera, M. (Eds.) (2005). Latino/a education: An agenda for community action research (pp. 459-466). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pérez, B., Choong-Guen, C., & Skiba, R. J. (2008). Latino students and disproportionality in special education. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Education Policy Brief, 6(2), 1-8. Pérez, B.F., & Romo, H (2009a) School mobility and educational experiences of youth in foster care placements. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Southwest Sociological Association, Denver, CO. Pérez, B.F. & Romo, H. (2009b) “Where am I going to go?”: The impact of housing on foster care alumni. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Southwest Sociological Association, Denver, CO. Pew Hispanic Center. (2006a). Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States. Washington, DC: Author. Pew Hispanic Center. (2006b). Poverty by age, race, and ethnicity: 2006. Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States. Washington, DC: Author. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24. Portes, A., Fernandez-Kelly, P., & Haller, W. (2008). The adaptation of the immigrant second generation in America: Theoretical overview and recent evidence (Working Paper #08-02). Princeton, NJ: Center for Migration and Development. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1996). Immigrant America (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Quiroz, P.A. (2001). The silencing of Latino/a student “voice”: Puerto Rican and Mexican narratives in eighth grade and high school. Anthropology and Education, Quarterly, 32(2), 326-349. Ramírez, A.Y. (2005) Esperanza’s lessons: Learning about education through the eyes of the innocent. Multicultural Education, 13(2), 47-51. Reyes, A. H. (2003). Does money make a difference for Hispanic students in urban schools? Education and Urban Society, 35(4), 363- 379. Rivera, M., Medellín-Paz, C., Pedraza, P. with El Puente Academy for Peace and Justice. (2010). Imagination for the imagined nation: A creative justice approach to human development. Final report. New York, NY: Ford Foundation. Romero, A., Cammarota, J., Dominguez, K., Valdéz, L., Ramírez, G., & Hernández, L. (2008). “The Opportunity if not the right to see”: The social justice education project. In J. Cammarota & M. Fine (Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 131-154). New York, NY: Routledge. Rodríguez, R. L (2007). Leaving most Latino children behind: No Child Left Behind legislation, testing, and the misuse of data under George Bush administration. DataCrítica: International Journal of Critical Statistics, 1(1), 3-7. Romo, H. D., & Falbo, T. (1996). Latino high school graduation: Defying the odds. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Romo, H., Aguilar, E., Hansen, M. L., Hurley, A., Ordner, J. P., & Pleasant. A. E. (2008). United Way of Texas and Bexar county parent- school-community partnership fi nal report and evaluation. San Antonio, TX: University of Texas at San Antonio Bank of America Child and Adolescent Policy Research Institute. Rosebery, A., & Warren, B. (2008). Teaching science to English language learners: Building on students’ strengths. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association. Ruiz, N. T., Vargas, E., & Beltrán, A. (2002). Becoming a reader and writer in a bilingual special education classroom. Language Arts, 79(4), 297-308. Ruiz de Velaso, J., & Fix, M. (2001). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/pdfs/overlooked.pdf Rumbaut, R.G. (1995). The new Californians: Comparative research fi ndings on the educational progress of immigrant children. In R.G. Rumbaut & W.A. Cornelius (Eds.), California’s immigrant children: Theory, research and implications for educational policy (pp. 17-69). San Diego, CA: University of California Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. Rumberger, R. (2003). The causes and consequences of student mobility. The Journal of Negro Education, 72(1), 6-21 Rumberger, R. W., & Thomas, S. L. (2000). The distribution of dropout and turnover rates among urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73(1), 39-68. Saenz, V.B., Yamamura, E., Cabrera, N., Lopez, P., Martinez, M., Aguilar, A., Najera, T., Munoz, I., & Richardson, C. (2008). Understanding the perception of college readiness in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Edinberg, TX: Texas Valley Communities Conclusion and Recommendations Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal ©2012, Volume 6, Issue 3 42 Foundation. Sánchez, G. I. (1940). Forgotten people. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Sanders, W.I., & Rivers, J.C. (1996) Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. Scharrer, G. (2007, January 29). Dropout rate a crisis for state, experts say: Some estimates show half of all students in urban high schools quit. The Houston Chronicle, p. A1. Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40. Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support networks of US-Mexican Youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the social reproduction of inequality: The formation of informational networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology of Education, 68, 116–135. Stovall, D. (2006). From hunger strike to high school: Youth development, social justice and school formation. In S. Ginwright, S., P. Noguera, & J. Cammarota, (Eds.), Beyond resistance: Youth activism and community change (pp. 97-110). New York, NY: Routledge. Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Suárez-Orozco, C., Suárez-Orozco, M. M., & Todorova, I. (2007). Learning a new land: Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997, December). School effectiveness for language minority students. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education Resources Collection Series, No. 9. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Tienda, M., & Mitchell, F. (Eds.). (2006). Multiple origins, uncertain destinies: Hispanics and the American future. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Titus, D. (2007). Strategies and resources for enhancing the achievement of mobile students. NASSP Bulletin, 91(1), 81-97. Torre, M. E., & Ayala, J. (2009). Envisioning participatory action research entremundos, Feminism & Psychology, 19(3), 387-393. Torre, M. E., & Fine, M. (2008). Participatory action research in the contact zone. In J. Cammarota & M. Fine (Eds.). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 23-44). New York, NY: Routledge. Trueba, H.T. (1991). From failure to success: The role of culture and cultural confl ict in the academic achievement of chicano students. In R.R. Valencia (Ed.) Chicano School failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990s (pp. 151-163). London, UK: Falmer Press. Trueba, H. (1998). The education of Mexican immigrant children. In M. Suárez-Orozco (Ed.), Crossings: Mexican immigration in interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 253– 275). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tung, R., Uriarte, M., Diez, V., Lavan, N., Agusti, N., Karp, F., & Meschede, T. (2009). English learners in Boston: Enrollment, engagement, and academic outcomes, AY 2003-AY 2006. Final report. Boston, MA: Gastón Institute U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). The Hispanic population reports: Census 2000 brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Population estimates and projections. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). The Hispanic Population: 2012. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/ cen2012/briefs/c212br-04.pdf U.S. General Accounting Offi ce. (1994). Limited English profi ciency: A growing and costly educational challenge facing many school districts (No. HEHS – 94-38). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Offi ce. Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Valencia, R. R. (Ed.) (1997). The evolution of defi cit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Valencia, R. R. (2002). (Ed.). Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer. Valencia, R. R., Menchaca, M., & Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, desegregation, and integration of Chicano students: Old and new realities. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., pp. 70-113). New York, NY: Routledge. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Valenzuela, A. (Ed.) (2005). Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Valenzuela, A., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Familism and social capital in the academic achievement of Mexican-origin and Anglo high school adolescents. Social Science Quarterly, 75(1), 18-36. Vásquez, O.A. (2003). La clase mágica: Imagining optimal possibilities in a bilingual community of learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vásquez, O. A. (2006). A pedagogy of the future. Inaugural issue of Pedagogies: An International Journal, 1(1), 43-48. Vásquez Heilig, J., & López, P.D. (2008, March). Understanding the impact of Texas-style testing and accountability policy on low-income rural immigrant students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Vélez-Ibañez, C. G., & Greenberg, J. B. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican households. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23(4), 313-335. Viadero, D. (2005, May 8). Latino research group sets ambitious agenda. Education Week, 24(26), 10. Retrived from http://www. edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/03/09/26latino.h24.html Conclusion and Recommendations Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal ©2012, Volume 6, Issue 3 43 Villegas, A., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Wald, J., & Daniel, L. (2005). Confronting the graduation rate crisis in the south. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-dropouts/dropouts-in-the-south- confronting-the-graduation-rate-crisis/crp_confronting-dropouts-south-2005.pdf Wortham, S., Murillo, E., & Hamann, E. (2002). Education in the new Latino diaspora: Policy and the politics of identity. Westport, CT: Ablex. Wortham, S., & Contreras, M. (2002). Struggling toward culturally relevant pedagogy in the Latino/a diaspora. Journal of Latinos in Education, 1(2), 133-144. Yosso, T. (2006). Critical race counterstories: Along the Chicana/Chicano educational pipeline. New York, NY: Routledge. Conclusion and Recommendations