R ecent debates about gender and education have focused on whether males or females are more ''shortchanged'' in school. Scholars interested in gender equity have traditionally been primarily concerned about females, but others now argue that males are actually disadvantaged. Males score lower in elementary reading assessments, tend to get worse grades, and are less likely to complete high school and attend college than females (Riordan, 1999;Sommers, 2000). After reviewing the evidence about gender and educational outcomes, Riordan (1999) concluded that ''males are not flourishing in schools'' (p. 47) and called for schools to more carefully monitor the needs of males. However, a recent American Association of University Women (AAUW; 2008) report counters claims of a ''boys' crisis.'' Drawing on data from fourth grade through college, they argue that both females' and males' achievement has improved over the past few decades and that females' gains have not come at males' expense.These arguments raise the question of whether our schools are, indeed, shortchanging one gender group or another. All too often, though, this question is addressed by comparing the achievement of groups in one school subject, at a single point in time, usually some time after they entered school. However, to determine whether one group is losing ground relative to another group, we should begin measuring student achievement at the start of kindergarten and then follow the same children throughout their school careers. Additionally, given that gender patterns in math performance tend to run counter to those in reading, examinations of both subjects together provide a more complete picture of girls' and boys' learning.This study examines gender patterns in student achievement using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K). These analyses follow students from kindergarten through eighth grade, the highest grade level that will be included in this data set. The study investigates the unique achievement trends of males and females in math and reading, if and when gender gaps develop, where on the achievement distribution the gaps are most prevalent, and whether the answers to these questions depend upon the metric used to measure achievement. Additionally, teachers' own assessments of males and females are compared to the gender patterns on direct cognitive assessments. The (dis)similarity in the teacher trends and direct cognitive trends is discussed as one potential source of the gender gap, suggesting the importance of a heightened awareness of the needs of particular student groups.

This study finds that, compared with straight-identified youth, youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning (LGBTQ) are at greater risk of suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, victimization by peers, and elevated levels of unexcused absences from school. Results disaggregated by LGBTQ subgroups reveal heterogeneity within the broad LGBTQ group, with bisexual youth appearing to be particularly at risk. Also, although the risk gaps in school belongingness and unexcused absences are significant in high school, we find that these gaps are significantly greater in middle school, suggesting heightened early risk for LGBTQ-identified students. By raising awareness of educational inequities related toLGBTQ identification, this study lays the descriptive groundwork for interventions aimed at improving psychological and educational outcomes for these students.

No abstract

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Peer victimization predicts numerous health risks. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)-identified youth report greater peer victimization than do heterosexualidentified youth. No longitudinal studies have been conducted on developmental trends of peer victimization and emotional distress among LGB and heterosexual youth. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:We provide the first longitudinal evidence on developmental trends of peer victimization and emotional distress for LGB-and heterosexual-identified youth. The findings suggest peer victimization of LGB-identified youth decreases in absolute, but not necessarily relative, terms and contributes to later emotional distress disparities. abstract OBJECTIVES: This study had 2 objectives: Our first objective was to provide the first evidence of developmental trends in victimization rates for lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)-and heterosexual-identified youth, both in absolute and relative terms, and to examine differences by gender. Our second objective was to examine links between victimization, sexual identity, and later emotional distress. METHODS:Data are from a nationally representative prospective cohort study of youth in England were collected annually between 2004 and 2010. Our final analytic dataset includes 4135 participants with data at all 7 waves; 4.5% (n = 187) identified as LGB. Analyses included hierarchical linear modeling, propensity score matching, and structural equation modeling. RESULTS:LGB victimization rates decreased in absolute terms. However, trends in relative rates were more nuanced: Gay/bisexual-identified boys became more likely to be victimized compared with heterosexualidentified boys (wave 1: odds ratio [OR] = 1.78, P = .011; wave 7: OR = 3.95, P = .001), whereas relative rates among girls approached parity (wave 1: OR = 1.95, P = .001; wave 7: OR = 1.18, P = .689), suggesting different LGB-heterosexual relative victimization rate trends for boys and girls. Early victimization and emotional distress explained about 50% of later LGB-heterosexual emotional distress disparities for both boys and girls (each P , .015).CONCLUSIONS: Victimization of LGB youth decreases in absolute, but not necessarily relative, terms. The findings suggest that addressing LGB victimization during adolescence is critical to reducing LGBheterosexual emotional distress disparities but additional support may be necessary to fully eliminate these disparities. Dr Robinson conceptualized the study, designed and performed the data analysis, drafted the initial manuscript, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted; Dr Espelage conceptualized the study, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted; and Dr Rivers conceptualized the study, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.www.pediatrics.org/cgi

When English learners are "reclassified" as fluent English projicient, often their instructional setting changes, including a significant reduction in or elimination ofEnglish language development services. Depending on a child's language skills, this instructional change could hinderfuture development or provide needed opportunities for learning advanced material. By establishing assessment-based guidelinesfor reclassification, policy makers have tremendous influence on when these settings change. The author highlights this policy lever for guiding reclassification decisions and identifies a method for rigorously evaluating whether the thresholdfor transitioning between settings is appropriate. This method-binding-score regression discontinuity with an instrumental variable-was then implemented to obtain unbiased effects ofreclassification on academic outcomes for students on the cusp ofmeeting reclassificationcriteria toprovide crediblepolicy recommendationsfor maintaining or shifting assessmentbased reclassification thresholds. The method detailed here can be used by policy makers to evaluate their own assessment-based guidelines.