ERIC ED430074: Implementation of Title I Schoolwide Projects and Their Impact on Schools. Spotlight on Student Success, No. 318.

5 Pages·1998·0.13 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
UD 032 925
ED 430 074
Kim, Jeong-Ran
AUTHOR
and Their
Implementation of Title I Schoolwide Projects
TITLE
Student Success, No. 318.
Impact on Schools. Spotlight on
Philadelphia, PA.
Mid-Atlantic Lab. for Student Success,
INSTITUTION
Improvement (ED),
Office of Educational Research and
SPONS AGENCY
Washington, DC.
1998-00-00
PUB DATE
4p.
NOTE
Cecil B. Moore Avenue,
Laboratory for Student Success, 1301
AVAILABLE FROM
(Toll-Free);
Philadelphia, PA 19122-6091; Tel: [phone]
e-mail: [email protected]
Descriptive (141)
Reports
PUB TYPE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Education; Databases;
Academic Achievement; *Compensatory
DESCRIPTORS
Secondary
*Educationally Disadvantaged; Elementary
Speaking; Program
Education; Federal Aid; Limited English
*School Effectiveness;
Effectiveness; Program Evaluation;
Standards; Teaching Methods; *Urban Schools
Title I; Improving
*Elementary Secondary Education Act
IDENTIFIERS
Americas Schools Act 1994 Title I
ABSTRACT
findings from an interim
This report provides a synopsis of
conducted
of Title I schoolwide programs
report of an ongoing national study
in conjunction with other Regional
by the Laboratory for Student Success
to develop a national
Educational Laboratories. The study is designed
requirements, and outcomes of
database on program features, implementation
provide assistance to local schools
Title I schoolwide projects in order to
Initial findings from this study indicate
with their own schoolwide projects.
implementing the Title I schoolwide
that more effective schools are
than less effective schools.
legislative expectations more faithfully
agreed that their schools were
Teachers from more effective schools
and implementing instructional
emphasizing high standards for all students
Parent responses were not as
practices to promote academic achievement.
other than English or are
favorable, with parents who speak a language
in most areas. Classroom
bilingual tending to rate the schools lower
predominantly meet in large groups and
observations indicate that students
instructional
working on-task. The difference in
are usually independently
less effective schools is not
interaction time for more effective and
(SLD)
figure and three references.)
statistically significant. (Contains one
********************************************************************************
best that can be made
*
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the
*
*
from the original document.
*
********************************************************************************
Implementation of Title I Schoolwide Projects and Their Impact on Schools.
h
.1-
by
c,
Jeong-Ran Kim
o
en
.1-
A
i4
Spotlight on Student Success
Number 318
Laboratory for Student Success,
Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory
EDUCATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
Improvement
Office of Educational Research and
INFORMATION
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
CENTER (ERIC)
reproduced as
0 This document has been
organization
received from the person or
originating it.
)(Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
in this
Points of view or opinions stated
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
No. 318
for Student Success
A digest of research from the Laboratory
Projects
Implementation of Title I Schoolwide
and Their Impact on Schools
by
Jeong-Ran Kim
of what works, the first design consid-
establishing, and maintaining effective
INTRODUCTION
eration is how to identify a comparable
Title I schoolwide practices to signifi-
This Spotlight provides a synopsis
pool of "more effective" and "less
cantly improve the capacity of schools
of findings from an interim report of an
effective" Title I schoolwide program
to ensure students' learning success.
ongoing national study of Title I
schools. Using a statistical model,
schoolwide programs. The study was
school demographic and student
THE STUDY
initiated by the Laboratory for Student
achievement data were used to identify
Rationale and Context. A key pro-
Success (LSS) in collaboration with four
Final
a pool of potential study sites.
vision of the 1994 Improving America's
other Regional Educational Laborato-
selection was made with input from
Schools Act mandates that rigorous
ries: the Appalachia Educational
district officials and staff willingness
national standards be applied to all
Laboratory, the North Central Regional
to participate in the study.
students, including those receiving the
Educational Laboratory, the Northwest
A multilevel and multidimensional
Title I services. A second provision
Regional Educational Laboratory, and
framework based on a research synthe-
requires the expansion of Title I
the Southeastern Regional Vision for
sis on what helps students learn (Wang
schoolwide programs to encourage
Education.
et al., 1993) was developed to guide the
high-poverty schools to allocate Title I
The study is designed to develop a
study's data collection and analysis
resources with fewer restrictions in the
national database on program features,
tasks. Data collected included a survey
service of student success. Taken
implementation requirements, and out-
questionnaire and in-depth interviews
together, these legislative changes
comes of Title I schoolwide projects;
to obtain implementation information
have created both opportunities and
and to provide assistance to local
from principals and teachers; classroom
challanges for high-poverty schools,
schools to develop, demonstrate, and
observation of teachers and students
including how to best use the flexibility
maintain a high deigee of implementa-
to reduce fragmentation in the
to obtain information on program imple-
tion of schoolwide projects that are
mentation at the classroom level; focus
delivery of education and related ser-
effective in achieving student success
group interviews with parents to assess
vices, and implementing policy reforms
in a variety of school settings across
the level of parents' understanding of
that support effective implementation of
different geographic regions.
schoolwide goals and their involvement
schoolwide programs. This study was
Among the major expected out-
in improving student achievement; and
initiated to examine and develop a
comes of this study is national data for:
analysis of archival data from schools
systematic knowledge base on how to
identifying state and local practices that
to examine patterns of student achieve-
organize and sustain schoolwide
are consistent with Title I legislative
ment and factors that impact on their
programs that significantly improve the
requirements; describing local practices
achievement.
school's capacity to provide schooling
that bring about a more coherent
Initial Findings. This Spotlight
success for children and youth from
educational program for students
focuses on findings addressing the
economically and educationally disad-
served by Title I schoolwide project
question of how more effective and less
vantaged circumstances.
schools; and, perhaps most importantly,
effective schools differ in the level of
Study design. Because the primary
contributing to the much-needed pro-
implementation of the following legisla-
interest of the study is documentation
cedural knowledge base for designing,
Success (LSS), the
Spotlight on Student Success is an occasional series of articles highlighting findings from the Laboratory for Student
Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory, that have significant implications for improving the academic success of students in the
Success, 1301 Cecil
mid-Atlantic region. For information about the LSS and other LSS publications, contact the Laboratory for Student
visit our World Wide
B. Moore Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19122-6091; telephone: [phone]; e-mail: [email protected]. Also
Web site at http://www.temple.edu/LSS.
3
terms of school setting and on-task
tive expectation categories: (a) student
parent work together to increase stu-
performance goals; (b) content, perfor-
behavior. Students from more effective
dent performance. These teachers were
mance, and assessment standards;
and less effective schools worked in a
more likely to agree: their relationships
(c) enriched curriculum and instruc-
large group setting over 60% of the time
with students are very positive and en-
tional strategies, including professional
during observation. However, students
couraging; school problems are not se-
development; (d) flexibility and
from less effective schools were signifi-
rious; they emphasize ongoing student
accountability; and (e) parent involve-
cantly more likely to work in a large
evaluation; and students are serious
ment.
about their schoolwork.
group setting, while students from more
Analyses
School Characteristics.
effective schools spent significantly
Parent responses, however, do not
of variance (ANOVA) of the teachers'
more time working in a small group
replicate these findings, with parents
who speak a language other than
years of teaching experiences, gradu-
setting. Students were predominantly
ate level courses taken, and highest
on-task (over 80% of the time during
English or who are bilingual tending to
rate most of the scales lower than
education degree earned showed no
observation), and students from more
significant differences in teacher char-
English-speaking parents.
effective schools spent statistically sig-
acteristics between more effective
Classroom observations indicate
nificantly more time doing their on-task
schools and less effective schools.
that students predominantly meet in
work. In terms of teacher observation,
Teachers
Teacher Perceptions.
teachers from more effective schools
large groups, and are usually indepen-
dently working on-task. Although
spent significantly less time at their
rated all the implementation component
and school climate scales above the
desks.
teachers from more effective schools
spend more time on instructional
mean, with teachers from more effective
schools consistently rating scales
CONCLUSIONS
interaction, the difference is not statis-
higher. More effective schools show a
Initial fmdings from this study indi-
tically significant.
cate that more effective schools are
statistically significantly higher level of
*
implementation of legislative expecta-
implementing the Title I schoolwide leg-
tions on eight categories: student per-
islative expectations more faithfully than
REFERENCES
formance goals, standards/assessment,
less effective schools. Teachers from
Wang, M.C., Haertel, G.D., & Walberg,
evaluation, enriched curriculum, stu-
more effective schools agreed more
H.J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for
dent-centered instruction, cooperative
highly that: their school emphasizes
school learning.
Review of Educational
learning instruction, resources, and
high academic standards for all children;
63(3), 249-294.
Research,
parent involvement (see Figure 1).
assessment is aligned with state
Wong, K., & Meyer, S. (1998). Title I
Teachers from more effective schools
content and performance standards;
schoolwide programs: A synthesis of findings
rated significantly higher on four of six
students are exposed to challenging
from recent evaluations.
Educational Evalu-
school climate/governance scales:
subject matter; teachers use instruc-
ation & Policy Analyses, 10(2),
115-136.
teacher/student relationships, colleague
tional time and resources effectively,
Wang, M.C., & Wong, K. (1997).
Implement-
relationships, low school problems, and
with instructions tailored to individual
ing school reform: Practice and policy
student attitude.
student needs; resource allocation is
imperatives. Philadelphia: Temple University
Types of
Parent Perceptions.
flexible and adequate to meet the school
Center for Research in Human Development
schools did not significantly affect
and students needs; and school and
and Education.
parents' perception of schools,
although parents from more effective
Figure 1: Level of Implementation of Legislative Expectations Between More
Effective and Less Effective Schools Based on Teacher Survey
schools rated all of the scalesexcept
of school
parents'
perception
EJ
Student performance goals
resourcesslightly higher than those
Mom
Standards/Assessment
from less effective schools. Parents who
effective
were bilingual (19.9%) or only spoke a
schools
Evaluation
foreign language at home (8.5%) con-
11111
Enriched cuniculum
Less
sistently rated lower on most of the
effective
Studs/it-cent:wad Instruction
scales than those who spoke English
schools
only at home (69.6%), with three
CooporatIve learning Instructlo
scalesstudent performance goals,
Professional development
principal leadership, and school prob-
Resources
lemsachieving statistical significance.
p < .05
Accountability
Among
Classroom Observation.
p < .01
students in the study, there were
Parent involvement
< .00
statistically significant differences in
4.25
3.75
3.25
3.5
3
Spotlight on Student Success
Page 2
Copyright 0
1998 Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education
BEST
COPY
AVAUSLE
4
®
ERIC
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
REPRODUCTION BASIS
u
Release
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction
all
(Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing
from its source organization and, therefore,
or classes of documents
does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to
23
reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may
form
be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release
(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").
EFF-089 (9/97)