Meeting High Standards: The Challenge of Ensuring That Homeless Children Are Part of the All

The Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), particularly Title I, has changed dramatically since the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The new Title I policy ambitiously states: The Congress declares it to be the policy of the United States that a high-quality education for all individuals and a fair and equal opportunity to obtain that education are a societal good, are a moral imperative, and improve the life of every individual, because the quality of our individual lives ultimately depends on the quality of the lives of others. (IASA, 1994).     

Title I: The Evolving Research Base

For the past 35 years, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has been the largest and most important federal resource for reforming high-poverty schools. Drawing on recent research, this article documents what we know about Title I's overall effectiveness and discusses how it may become a more effective intervention. The author concludes by making 3 policy recommendations for fostering better research and better programs: implement a rigorous and uniform national accountability system; support continued research and development of replicable programs and methods for improving schooling for disadvantaged children; and encourage large-scale randomized experiments of promising programs and practices.     

A Review of: “Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Anthony S. Bryk,Penny Bender Sebring,Elaine Allensworth,Stuart Luppescu,and John Q. Easton.”

This article summarizes the results of a study of state and local practices related to the implementation of Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA; 1994). In translating policy to practice, state and local practitioners articulated how they approached the provisions of IASA: the expectation that all children will meet challenging state standards, flexibility with accountability, targeting funds, family and community partnerships, and support system roles and infrastructure. This snapshot of reform in progress shows that multiple chains of events at the national and state levels influenced the implementation of the law and that more time and support are needed to produce the impact intended in the Title I reauthorization.     

The Impact of Priority School Designation Under ESEA Flexibility in New York State

Abstract

Prior to the 2012–13 school year, New York and many other states underwent changes to their accountability systems as a result of applying for and being granted waivers from the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. A key component of these new accountability systems, under what is known as ESEA Flexibility or NCLB Waivers, was the designation of the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools as priority schools with the goal of improved performance within three years of receiving their designation. The priority school policy included elements of both accountability and school turnaround to try to improve student outcomes in low performing schools. This study examines the extent to which elementary and middle priority schools in New York State improved in the three years since being designated priority schools. By the end of the 2014–15 school year—the third year of three to show improvement—I find elementary and middle priority schools did not show improvement and, in fact, performed worse than schools just above the cutoff for determining priority school eligibility.     

EVALUATING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION: OVER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME SHOULD ACHIEVEMENT BE MEASURED?

An assumption fundamental to compensatory education is that greater achievement can change the academic future of disadvantaged students, which may in turn enhance their "life chances." Therefore, one of the goals of compensatory education is to increase the achievement of disadvantaged students. To change students' futures, this increase in achievement should be evident subsequent to participation in a compensatory-education program. At a minimum, an increase in achievement should persist over the summer following a school-year program. Evaluations of compensatory education in general, however, and of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in particular, have not included measures of sustained achievement. Instead, judgments of program success have been based on students' achievement during the school year: that is, on a spring posttest score adjusted in some way for the preceding fall pretest score.     

Implementation and Outcomes of Supplemental Educational Services: The Tennessee State-Wide Evaluation Study

Supplemental Educational Services (SES), a component of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, provides free tutoring to economically disadvantaged children who are attending Title I schools in their 2nd or more years of school improvement. This research evaluated SES in Tennessee to determine the: (a) impacts on student achievement, and (b) perceptions of SES implementation and outcomes by teachers, district coordinators, principals/site coordinators, and parents. Using value-added methodology, statistical analyses of achievement data controlled for both student ability and teacher effects in 2 alternative models. Not surprisingly, parent reactions to SES were highly positive, whereas those by the 3 other stakeholder groups were more mixed. Achievement results from both analytical models yielded mostly small and nonsignificant provider effects. The implications of the findings for evaluating SES are discussed with regard to both research and policy issues. Recommendations are offered for broadening the evaluation of SES through smaller mixed-methods studies to examine implementation and educational outcomes in more highly controlled contexts.     

NCLB与美国联邦基础教育价值取向的转变——基于Title I评价的视角

美国《不让一个孩子掉队法》(NCLB)是在对1965年《初等与中等教育法》不断修正的基础上发展而来的。法案的核心部分第一编(Title Ⅰ)中规定要对Title Ⅰ的实施及效果进行评价。在四十多年的发展历程中,Title Ⅰ评价历经变化,透过这一变化可以看出美国联邦基础教育价值取向经历了从追求教育平等到关注教育质量,发展到今天的兼顾平等与效率的转变历程。     

Strengthening the Ties Between Title I and Family Literacy

When schools work together with families to support learning, children are inclined to succeed not only in school but throughout life as well. Three decades of research show that parental participation in schooling improves student learning. Title I, as amended by the Improving America's Schools Act (Public Law 103-382), reflects these research findings and emphasizes the importance of family involvement as a means to help address more completely the full range of student needs that affect their learning. Although parental involvement can take many forms, in this article I focus specifically on family literacy services. The Title I statute requires any Title I program to include "strategies to increase parental involvement, such as family literacy services." In addition, any school district with a Title I allocation above $500,000 must spend at least 1% of its allocation for district- and school-level parental involvement activities, which can include family literacy activities. Title I also recognizes that schools and patents share responsibility for the education of children. Therefore, each Title I school is to develop school-parent compacts that outline how parents, the entire school staff, and students will share responsibility for improved student achievement and the means by which schools and parents will work together to help children achieve high state standards. School-parent compacts area logical tool for addressing family literacy needs. Equally important, Title I has a history of parental involvement that literacy can help enrich further.     

An evaluation of the costs of computer-assisted instruction

The purpose of this paper is to estimate the costs and cost feasibility of utilizing computer-assisted instruction (CAI) for compensatory education. Cost data were collected from an experiment on the effectiveness of CAI that had been established in Los Angeles and sponsored by the National Institute of Education. Based upon the resource ingredients approach to measuring costs, it was found that up to three daily 10-minute sessions of drill and practice could be provided for each disadvantaged child within the 1977–1978 allocation of funds from Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. If the computer system were shared between two schools, the higher costs would permit only two daily sessions.Costs were also estimated for a more advanced CAI system, and somewhat surprisingly the costs were in the same range. This finding reflects the very heavy costs of “software” that do not seem to decline with more advanced technologies. Also, it is possible that the latter technology will be found to be more effective at the same cost level. However, because comparative effectiveness data between the CAI approach and other instructional strategies are not readily available, such cost-effectiveness comparisons will have to be deferred until some future date.     

No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?

As the most significant revision of federal education policy in decades, No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) raises the question of whether it represents a sharp departure from past policy or simply the next phase in the evolution of that policy. This article examines the implementation history of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act from the original legislation enacted in 1965 to the most recent embodiment in NCLB. It concludes that, although NCLB has expanded federal regulation, this newest version reflects an evolution of the federal role rather than a radical redefinition, with NCLB's design only possible because of profound changes in the state role over the past 20 years.     

美国《初等和中等教育法》实施之初的效果分析

在20世纪六七十年代,颁布于1965年的《初等和中等教育法》的实施效果不理想,未达到资助处境不利学生、提高教育质量和教育机会的目的。其原因主要有以下几方面:法案目标的表述语言模糊,使项目设置和资金使用混乱;TitleⅠ资金未使处境不利学生真正受益;合格的实施人员短缺;地方追求自身利益,使法案执行失真。     

Raising standards in American schools: the case of No Child Left Behind

In January 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law what is arguably the most important piece of US educational legislation for the past 35 years. For the first time, Public Law 107–110 links high stakes testing with strict accountability measures designed to ensure that, at least in schools that receive government funding, no child is left behind. The appropriately named No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) links government funding to strict improvement policies for America's public schools. Much of what is undertaken in NCLB is praiseworthy, the Act is essentially equitable for it ensures that schools pay due regard to the progress of those sections of the school population who have traditionally done less well in school, in particular, students from economically disadvantaged homes, as well as those from ethnic minority backgrounds and those who have limited proficiency to speak English. However, this seemingly salutatory aspect of the Act is also the one that has raised the most objections. This paper describes the key features of this important piece of legislation before outlining why it is that a seemingly equitable Act has produced so much consternation in US education circles. Through an exploration of school level data for the state of New Jersey, the paper considers the extent to which these concerns have been justified during the early days of No Child Left Behind.     

Evaluation of a Local Improvement-Oriented Project for Citizenship Education

Abstract

This article reports the evaluation of a four-year ESEA Title IV political/citizenship education improvement project conducted in elementary and secondary schools of a large, southern metropolitan school system. The project designed and tested an educational improvement model which conceptualized the school as a system with interrelated components which influence student learning. The model focused on classroom teachers as change agents and provided them with five types of support channeled through other parts of the system. The model was first found effective for secondary grades and later for elementary grades. Both process and product were monitored to provide research data on the model. The results, implications and limitations are discussed.     

An integrated assessment of the effects of Title I on school behavior,resources, and student achievement

We examine the effects of Title I on school behavior, resources, and academic performance using a rich set of school finance and student-level achievement data from one large urban school district using a regression discontinuity design. We find that Title I eligibility raises Federal revenues of schools by about $460 per student. This is partially offset by decreases in revenues from state categorical aid grants, so that the net increase to schools is about $360 per student. We find no impact on overall school-level test scores, but also no impact among the subgroups of students most likely to be affected by Title I. A novel finding is that schools appear to respond to the incentives embedded in the Title I allocation process by manipulating the fraction of their students signed up for free lunch to secure more Federal funds.     

Creating Good Schools for Children in Poverty Through Title I Schoolwide Programs

The Improving America' s Schools Act--the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--will make schoolwide Title I programs available, beginning with the 1996-97 school year, to schools in which at least 50% of students are from families in poverty. Through schoolwide programs, eligible schools may combine Title I funds with other federal, stare, and local resources to upgrade the quality of education for all children. The legislation explicitly encourages schools and districts to design their own ambitious curricula for all students, keeping them in Title I programs within their regular education classrooms while minimizing the time they spend in "pullout" programs. In this article, we synthesize research on schoolwides with the views of experienced practitioners in 21 highly regarded schoolwide projects under Title I's predecessor, Chapter 1, to identify the principles guiding effective schoolwides. Findings are based on in-depth interviews with teachers and principals and on evidence of success found in reviews of project materials and outcome evaluations. Although schoolwide programs are locally devised and unique, the most successful build on a framework that includes these eight features: a shared vision, time and resources for planning and program design, skillful management and a well-defined organizational structure, a clear focus on academics, continuing professional development schoolwide, a commitment to cultural inclusiveness, patent and community involvement, and an accountability orientation. The study highlights promising practices that future Title I schoolwide programs can adopt to reorganize schools, streamline management, and upgrade the curriculum for children in schools serving communities with the highest concentrations of poor families.     

The Implications of Every Child Matters and the Children Act for Schools

This article explores the implications of the publication of the Green Paper on Every Child Matters , which proposes the most radical changes in services for children and their families since the Children's Act, 1988. The Green Paper focuses upon improving every level of professional support for children perceived to be vulnerable and in need. The legislation and subsequent changes will bring about a whole new agenda and philosophy that will directly or indirectly involve every school, teacher, paraprofessional and educational support service. It will also involve changes in supporting parents and carers, and lead to earlier intervention, more accountability and integration between services as well as enhancing workforce reform. In conjunction with the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, 2003, it will provide a new impetus for tackling truancy and disruptive conduct. It is also likely to lead to a rethink about the wider role of schools and aspects of pastoral care practice. Its implementation will require a reassessment of the continuing professional training needs of all teachers and senior professionals working in schools and in related activities such as education social work. The legislation will mean that schools are likely to become all-the-year-round community centres with amended opening hours in order to meet the needs of disadvantaged youngsters and their families.     

Parent Involvement and the New Title I

The Improving America's Schools Act legislation of 1994 greatly increased the responsibility and requirements for parental involvement activities in Title I schools. Though the requirements for annual meetings and involvement of parents in planning, review, and implementation of projects remain from the old Chapter 1 wording, expansion of the parental involvement role signifies its importance. Because schools have so much to learn following the changes to Title I, the school-parent compact has often been at the center for parental involvement activities as the new legislation is implemented. Many compacts have been generic to entire districts or buildings. Some model designs have gone from general school concepts to concepts specific to each child and family. Those with some explicit points, where parents and/or guardians and school staff can demonstrate the action, seem to have the greatest effect. It is important to note that the legislation talks about shared responsibility, not just what more a parent should do. Of further interest is the denotation of the involvement of the "entire school staff" and not just the Title I staff. Though it is not a requirement, many schools have also delineated a portion of the compact for the child to develop and/or sign. Meaningful partnership between home and school can only strengthen the support for learners to achieve high state standards.     

A Market-research Approach to the Analysis of New Intake Student Support

This article explores the implications of the publication of the Green Paper on Every Child Matters, which proposes the most radical changes in services for children and their families since the Children's Act, 1988. The Green Paper focuses upon improving every level of professional support for children perceived to be vulnerable and in need. The legislation and subsequent changes will bring about a whole new agenda and philosophy that will directly or indirectly involve every school, teacher, paraprofessional and educational support service. It will also involve changes in supporting parents and carers, and lead to earlier intervention, more accountability and integration between services as well as enhancing workforce reform. In conjunction with the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, 2003, it will provide a new impetus for tackling truancy and disruptive conduct. It is also likely to lead to a rethink about the wider role of schools and aspects of pastoral care practice. Its implementation will require a reassessment of the continuing professional training needs of all teachers and senior professionals working in schools and in related activities such as education social work. The legislation will mean that schools are likely to become all-the-year-round community centres with amended opening hours in order to meet the needs of disadvantaged youngsters and their families.     

Title I Can Help Give a Voice of Hope to All Children

Speaking about Title I shortly before he died in July 1996, former Secretary of Education Ted Bell said, [It] is the heart and soul of national policy in elementary and secondary education in this nation. Right now, Title I can truly help drive reform .... But always remember, Title I was created because of poverty. It must often speak for those children who—by themselves—have no voices. (personal communication) In a similar vein, Secretary of Education Richard Riley has spoken of the "new" Title I as a vehicle to assist "the children for whom we have cast a tyranny of low expectations" (personal communication). As the "new" Title I enters its 2nd year of operation, the words of both secretaries serve as a reminder to those of us who administer Title I of the need to reach out aggressively to the "children who have no voices" and recognize that the circumstances of these children vary widely.     

Policy issues: Student Performance and Congressional Support

In the first issue of this journal, I wrote about policy issues with which all stakeholders associated with at-risk children and youth should be involved (Carroll, 1996). Continuing in the policy arena, I now speak to student results. The Title I program serves more than 5 million children with a $7 billion appropriation, and school districts need only report to the state the achievement of Title I participants who are tested as part of the annual state assessment program at three grade groupings--Grades 3 to 5, 6 to 8, and 10 to 12. Districts and states are no longer required to conduct pretest and posttest assessments that show the normal curve equivalent growth of children. Instead, adequate yearly progress toward meeting the states' definitions of advanced, proficient, and partially proficient student performance measures is the new yardstick of accountability and program success. These definitions apply no later than the year 2000-2001, when the states must have their student assessments aligned with their content and student performance standards. Even though the new Title I regulations ease up on frequency and coverage of assessment, Title I schools and programs should not. Schools must assess the performance of all their students and show results if we are to garner continued financial and program support from members of Congress and out constituencies at the state and local levels.