Search

This report presents the State Compensatory Education (SCE) report for the 201-2019 school year. Per Section 29.081 of the Texas Education Code (TEC §29.081), the SCE program is designed to reduce dropout rates and increase academic performance of students identified as being at-risk of dropping out of school. SCE operates as a funding source to supplement instructional services and offer academic support to students who meet the SCE at-risk criteria established by the state. Funds allocated under SCE law are to be channeled toward programs and services that eliminate disparities in performance on assessment instruments administered under TEC Chapter 39, Subchapter B. For this year's evaluation of SCE, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) served as the state assessment measures for grades 3 through 8 and the STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) served as the state assessment measures for students taking specific high school courses for the 2018-2019 school year. The completion status of the class of 2018 was also assessed.

The State Compensatory Education (SCE) program is designed to reduce dropout rates and increase academic performance of students identified as being at-risk of dropping out of school. SCE operates as a funding source to supplement instructional services and offer academic support to students who meet the SCE at-risk criteria established by the state. For this year's evaluation of SCE, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) served as the state assessment measures for grades 3 through 8 and the STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) served as the state assessment measures for grades 9 through 11 for the 2015-2016 school year. The completion status of the class of 2015 was also assessed. Because the district no longer administers a norm-referenced test, such as the Stanford or Iowa (for English speakers) or Aprenda or Logramos (for Spanish speakers) given in prior years, there was no assessment measure for grades 1 and 2. The purpose of this report is to describe and evaluate the SCE-funded programs in HISD as required by law. The district must evaluate and document the effectiveness of instructional programs in reducing any disparities in performance on the STAAR and STAAR EOC, as well as disparities in the rates of high school completion, between students at-risk of dropping out of school and all other district students. This evaluation compares at-risk students' performance on the STAAR and STAAR EOC with the performance of their notat-risk counterparts. As required by the TEA (2010), differences in passing rates between at-risk and notat-risk students are reported for the past three years when data are available so that movement in reducing the disparity in passing rates can be ascertained. In compliance with guidelines specified by the TEA (2010), high school completion rates are reported for at-risk and not-at-risk students attending HISD.

The State Compensatory Education (SCE) program is designed to reduce dropout rates and increase academic performance of students identified as being at-risk of dropping out of school. SCE operates as a funding source to supplement instructional services and offer academic support to students who meet the SCE at-risk criteria established by the state. For this year's evaluation of SCE, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and Logramos Third Edition (formerly Stanford Tenth Edition and Aprenda Third Edition) served as the assessment measures for grades 1 and 2, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) served as the state assessment measures for grades 3 through 8, STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) served as the state assessment measures for grades 9 through 11 for the 2014-2015 school year. The purpose of this report is to describe and evaluate the SCE-funded programs in HISD as required by law. The district must evaluate and document the effectiveness of instructional programs in reducing any disparities in performance on the ITBS, Logramos, STAAR, and STAAR EOC and disparities in the rates of high school completion between students at-risk of dropping out of school and all other district students. This evaluation compares at-risk students' performance on the ITBS, Logramos, STAAR, and STAAR EOC with the performance of their not-at-risk counterparts. As required by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) (2004), differences in passing rates between at-risk and not-at-risk students are reported for the past three years when data are available so that movement in reducing the disparity in passing rates can be ascertained. In compliance with guidelines specified by the TEA (2010), high school completion rates are reported for at-risk and not-at-risk students attending HISD.

The State Compensatory Education (SCE) program is designed to reduce dropout rates and increase academic performance of students identified as being at-risk of dropping out of school. SCE operates as a funding source to supplement instructional services and offer academic support to students who meet the SCE at-risk criteria established by the state. For this year's evaluation of SCE, the Stanford 10 and Aprenda 3 served as the assessment measures for grades 1 and 2, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) served as the state assessment measures for grades 3 through 8, STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) served as the state assessment measures for grades 9 through 11 for the 2013-2014 school year. The purpose of this report is to describe and evaluate the SCE funded programs in HISD as required by law. The district must evaluate and document the effectiveness of instructional programs in reducing any disparities in performance on the Stanford, Aprenda, STAAR, and STAAR EOC and disparities in the rates of high school completion between students at-risk of dropping out of school and all other district students. This evaluation compares at-risk students' performance on the Stanford, Aprenda, STAAR, and STAAR EOC with the performance of their not at-risk counterparts. As required by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) (2004), differences in passing rates between at-risk and not at-risk students are reported for the past three years when data are available so that movement in reducing the disparity in passing rates can be ascertained. In compliance with guidelines specified by the TEA (2004), high school completion rates are reported for at-risk and not at-risk students attending HISD.

Each year, Austin Independent School District Department of Research and Evaluation (DRE) staff develop a plan of work to describe the scope of work for the coming year. The plans that make up this document identify programs to be evaluated and services to be provided by DRE staff and provide the blueprints for evaluation that staff will follow throughout the year.

This technical brief responds to an Arizona Department of Education request to study academic performance in schools receiving funding through the federal Title I compensatory education program, the section of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 governing resources for schools and districts serving disadvantaged populations. The brief describes for 2005/06-2008/09 the numbers and distribution of Arizona public schools and students across school levels (elementary, middle, high) for three school types: Title I Schools in Improvement (participating in the school improvement program, a public program to improve the academic performance of students in schools not meeting adequate yearly progress for at least two consecutive years); Title I Schools Not in Improvement; and non-Title I schools. It reports how Schools in Improvement are distributed across school improvement statuses, compares trends in reading and math proficiency for students attending each school type, and examines patterns of movement in and out of school improvement among Title I schools. Appended are: (1) Study methods; (2) Detailed school- and student-level data; (3) School-level reading and math proficiency trends, 2005/06-2008/09; and (4) Movement in and out of Title I and the school improvement program among all Arizona schools receiving Title I funding any year over 2005/06-2008/09. (Contains 2 boxes, 12 tables, 9 figures, and 5 notes.)

Expanded learning opportunities (ELOs) support state education goals by providing safe, structured learning environments for students outside the regular school day. ELOs include after-school and summer learning programs, as well as before-school, evening, and weekend programs. Although research demonstrates that high-quality expanded learning opportunities can improve a variety of student outcomes, these programs are frequently disconnected from larger, state-level school reform efforts. To address this problem, in 2007, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) launched "Supporting Student Success: The Promise of Expanded Learning Opportunities" (S3), with support from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. Competitive grants of $50,000 were awarded to leadership teams in six states: Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Rhode Island. These states were charged with bringing together high-level policymakers and stakeholders to foster the integration of expanded learning opportunities into their state education reform agendas. To date, the six states have successfully applied the grant funds to pursue strategic reforms in state-level ELO policy. Many of the S3 states faced a number of challenges in launching this difficult work, including state budget crises and shortages of funds for ELOs; changes in state leadership and personnel; and the need to navigate complex governance structures that made systemic reform difficult. Nevertheless, the six states accomplished a number of policy changes during the two-year grant period: (1) Colorado secured ELO representation on the state P-20 Council and launched a county-level initiative that served as a statewide model; (2) Iowa created its Afterschool Executive Council, which raised awareness of ELOs through a publication that offered state policy recommendations and identified gaps in ELO access, funding, and quality; (3) Massachusetts generated additional funding for the state's major after-school grants program and secured positions for ELO representatives on key state commissions and subcommittees for education reform; (4) New Hampshire piloted a program allowing high school students to earn credit for participation in ELOs, which resulted in a reduced dropout rate among participating students; (5) Ohio collected data on ELO funding and sustainability challenges that ultimately increased support for ELOs within the state; and (6) Rhode Island secured ELO representation on a gubernatorial task force and launched a pilot extended-school-day program. For policymakers seeking to better integrate ELOs into state education reform agendas, this report provides an overview of the lessons learned from the S3 project. It describes the major policy strategies and processes by which the six states were able to improve education outcomes through the S3 grant. (Contains 7 notes.)

This report summarizes federal Title I services provided to eligible students at participating private school programs and facilities for delinquent or neglected students within the Austin Independent School District attendance area in 2009-2010.

State Compensatory Education (SCE) is a supplemental program designed to eliminate disparities in (a) student performance on assessment instruments administered under chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code (1995, amended 2007), and (b) the rates of high school completion between students who are at risk of dropping out of school, as defined by Texas Education Code 29.081 (1995, amended 2007), and all other students. This report examines the results for the State Compensatory Education program for at risk students in AISD for the 2008-2009 school year.

State Compensatory Education (SCE) is a supplemental program designed to eliminate disparities in (a) student performance on assessment instruments administered under Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code (1995, amended 2007), and (b) the rates of high school completion between students who are at risk of dropping out of school, as defined by Texas Education Code 29.081 (1995, amended 2007), and all other students. This report examines the results for the State Compensatory Education program for at-risk students in Austin Independent School District for the 2006-2007 school year.

State Compensatory Education (SCE) is a supplemental program in Texas designed to eliminate disparities in (a) student performance on assessment instruments administered under chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code (1995), and (b) the rates of high school completion between students who are at risk of dropping out of school, as defined by Texas Education Code 29.081 (1995), and all other students. This report examines the results for the State Compensatory Education program for at-risk students in AISD for the 2005-2006 school year.

Title I is a compensatory education program supported by funds from the U.S. Department of Education through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This report summarizes Title I program evaluation results on students and staff in facilities for neglected or delinquent youth during school year 2001-2002.

In response to concerns that Title I, the largest source of federal funding for education, was not significantly improving the educational achievement of at-risk students, Congress, in 1994, mandated major changes, including changes to the ways in which states measure student performance. This report provides a snapshot of how close states had come to meeting the 1994 requirements when the new requirements of the 2001 legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act, was signed into law. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has collaborated with other agencies in reviewing how states implement these measures and use the data to assess schools' progress in raising student achievement. This report contains GAO findings on the status of states' compliance with key 1994 Title I requirements, factors that have helped or hindered states in meeting requirements, and the actions states are taking to ensure that Title I assessments are scored accurately. Interviews with officials of the U.S. Department of Education and state Title I directors and other sources of data show that as of March 2002, there were 17 states in compliance with 1994 Title I requirements, and 35 states and instrumentalities were not. Most of the states reported taking some action to ensure that Title I assessments were scored accurately, that any exemptions were justified, and that students with disabilities were receiving appropriate accommodations. Many states are still developing the procedures necessary to monitor such assessments. One appendix describes the scope and methodology of the study, and the other contains comments by the U.S. Department of Education to this report. (SLD)

This report summarizes evaluation results from AISD's federally-funded Title I program activities during 2000-2001.

Title I is a compensatory education program supported by funds from the U.S. Department of Education. The purpose of Title I is to provide opportunities for children to acquire the knowledge and skills described in the state content standards and to meet the state performance standards for all students. In 2000-2001, the Title I, Part A program provided $11,433,288 (90% of total district allocation) directly to 56 Austin Independent School District, Texas, campuses that had 56% or more students from low-income families, 14 eligible private schools, and 3 eligible facilities for neglected youth, serving a total of 36,325 students, including 35,641 public school students (98%), 437 private school students (1%), and 247 neglected youth (1%). Other title I, Part A funds were used at the district level to provide overall program coordination and support. In addition to schoolwide programs, other Title I components include programs for migrant students and parent involvement programs. Academic achievement data show that progress has been made in closing the achievement gap for students at Title I campuses, but the gap remains, and overall Texas Assessment of Academic Skills passing rates for students at Title I schools remain below the overall district and state passing rates. The report contains recommendations for improved use of funds and improved student achievement. Three appendixes contain student achievement data, Texas Education Agency accountability ratings for Title I campuses, and information about private schools receiving Title I funds. (Contains 7 tables, 11 figures, and 13 references.) (SLD)

In 2000, an Idea Brief asserted that the best way to improve education would be to give every schoolchild the opportunity to attend a middle class public school (economic school integration). This brief reviews recent research and policy developments regarding economic school integration, noting that school segregation based on socioeconomic status is increasing. Many communities are turning to economic integration as a way to preserve successful racial integration programs without running afoul of constitutional prohibitions against race in student assignment. Economic integration generally produces considerable racial integration as a byproduct. This brief presents a sample of communities that are using socioeconomic integration. The number of students attending public schools with economic integration plans has jumped from 20,000 in 1999 to more than 400,000 in 2002. Early results suggest that economic school integration can be very successful. Research shows that test scores are rising and dropout rates are declining, despite a relatively high poverty rate in the districts. Some studies indicate that low-income students will do better in majority middle-class schools than they will in high-poverty schools. This is mainly due to the influence of peers, more active and influential parents, and the best qualified teachers. (Contains 33 endnotes.) (SM)

The U.S. Congress bolstered the increase in expulsions by passing into law the federal Gun Free School Act of 1994. All states receiving federal funds were to pass laws requiring schools to expel students who brought firearms to school or to school activities. There is evidence that schools are safer, but expulsion rates continue to climb. With this publication, Wisconsin joins the national challenge to reverse the upward trend in school expulsions by encouraging all Wisconsin schools and communities to provide educational services for expelled students. The report identifies key issues in balancing school safety and educational opportunities, reports on a sample of national, state, and local strategies to address the challenge, and acknowledges selected Wisconsin school districts, cooperative educational service agencies, and community based organizations for doing more than current state law requires. Possible next steps are described. Vignettes of several districts' policies and practices for post-expulsion services are detailed. (Contains 32 endnotes, 23 Web resources, and 5 figures.) (JDM)

This report provides a comprehensive summary of the most recent data available from the National Assessment of Title I on the implementation of the Title I program and the academic performance of children in high poverty schools. Seven sections focus on: (1) "Policy Context for Title I" (provisions of the current Title I law and new initiatives for at-risk children); (2) "Profile of Title I Participants and Resources" (who receives Title I services and funds, what the Title I dollar buys, and targeting of Title I funds); (3) "Progress in Student Performance in High-Poverty Schools" (student performance on state and national assessments); (4) "Implementation of Standards, Assessments, and Accountability Systems" (e.g., development of state content and performance standards and of state assessment systems, and the impact of standards-based reform on teacher practices and student performance); (5) "Strategies for Improving Teaching and Learning" (e.g., comprehensive, research-based school reform, early childhood education, and extended learning time); (6) "Special Title I Services" (Title I services for students attending private schools, Migrant Education Program, and programs for students who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk of dropping out); and (7) "Progress and Challenges." (Contains 121 endnotes.) (SM)

The Austin Independent School District, Texas (AISD) receives federal funds through the U. S. Department of Education's Title IV Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) grant program. The purpose of the Title IV SDFSC grant is to supplement local schools' efforts to eliminate violence and the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs among students. With 1999-2000 Title IV SDFSC expenditures of more than $13 million, AISD used a multifaceted approach to the prevention and reduction of student substance use and violence. The approach included prevention and intervention efforts at each campus, and all campuses received Title IV funds based on a per pupil allocation. Programs and services were provided through campus-level activities, district-level student programs, curriculum and staff development, and support staff and services. The yearlong evaluation identified several key factors that have been instrumental in the progress AISD has made toward grant goals. These key factors include: staff teamwork; AISD partnership with community organizations; and the variety of programs directed at students. Recommendations are made for the improvement of services provided under this grant. Nine appendixes contain supplemental information about the grant, program implementation, and the evaluation process. (Contains 6 tables, 17 figures, and 48 references.) (SLD)

Title I is a compensatory education program supported by funds from the U.S. Department of Education. The purpose of Title I is to enable schools to provide opportunities for children to acquire the knowledge and skills described in the state content standards and to meet the state performance standards for all students. In 1999-2000, Title I provided funding to 50 schools in the Austin Independent School District (44 elementary school campuses, 5 middle schools, and 1 high school) with 60% or more students from low-income families. The 1999-2000 budget allocation for AISD under Title I, Part A funding was $13,049,773, which included some roll-forward funds from the previous year. A total of 32,497 students were served through various Title I programs. These AISD programs were funded through Title I: (1) schoolwide programs for schools where 50% of students were low-income; (2) prekindergarten; (3) the Summer Opportunity To Accelerate Reading (S.O.A.R.) program to improve literacy and reading for at-risk students; (4) year-round schools; (5) Title I summer programs for enrichment and remediation; (6) parent and community involvement; and (7) Title I migrant programs for at-risk migrant students. Activities are outlined and funding is described for each of these programs. Appendixes contain charts of participating schools, community involvement, and in-cash and other contributions for Title I schools. (Contains 9 tables and 13 references.) (SLD)

In this comprehensive report, four distinct processes for reforming nine low-performing Title I schools in challenging high-poverty contexts are examined. These processes include: (1) a fundamentally grassroots, site-based model of reform; (2) locally mandated school reconstitution; (3) implementation of a proven national reform model, Success for All/Roots & Wings; and (4) implementation of locally administered reform package of Direct Instruction and Core Knowledge. Qualitative case studies of implementation and teaching and learning are presented along with quantitative outcomes in the areas of student achievement and classroom instruction. Findings show that at least one school engaged in each of the four processes showed improvement in several areas, while the others remained stagnant or declined. The potential strengths and weaknesses of each of these popular methods for reforming high poverty schools are discussed. An appendix contains the classroom observation form used in the case studies. (Contains 13 tables and 27 references.) (Author/SLD)

To inform reauthorizations of Title I, the federal government's largest program for elementary and secondary education, the Congress has required the Department of Education to conduct national assessments of Title I. Two of these studies have gathered Title I data over several years: the Prospects study, completed in 1997; and the ongoing Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance (LESCP), which is due to be completed in 2001. Congress asked the General Accounting Office to compare these two studies and analyze their strengths and weaknesses. Documents produced in each study and interviews with project staff and other experts were used to compare the two studies. There was a consensus that the purpose of the Prospects study was to assess the effectiveness of Title I, but there was less agreement about the precise purpose of the LESCP. This lack of agreement about purpose made it hard to predict the degree to which the LESCP report will meet the needs of Congress, other policymakers, and educators. The two studies used similar processes for contracting out data collection and analysis, obtaining comments from review panels, and issuing results. For both studies, major design features influenced the study's ability to address its overall design. The large sample for the Prospects study supported fairly strong conclusions about the effectiveness of Title I. The depth of focus provided by the longitudinal design of the LESCP is likely to be a key strength, but the study uses a smaller, nonrepresentative sample, a design limitation that may limit the usefulness of results. Both studies have provided valuable information, but no single study can fulfill the diverse information needs of the Congress, the Department of Education, all of the states, and educators. One appendix contains a chart comparing the two studies, and the other contains comments from the Department of Education. (SLD)

This longitudinal case study investigated issues that influence successful talent development in the arts and examined the effects of long-term artistic involvement on the lives of 23 artistically talented young people (ages 10-26) in New York City, all of whom had participated in a dance or music program in their elementary years. Most students were economically disadvantaged and from minority or culturally different backgrounds. Interviews were conducted with the students, their families, arts instructors, school teachers, and others. Four factors emerged as the primary obstacles to talent development: family circumstances, lack of affordable or appropriate instructional opportunities, peer resentment and social stigma, and the conflict between personal dreams and practical realities. The study also identified four factors key to student success in overcoming these obstacles: family support, instructional opportunities, community and school support, and innate personal qualities and psychological competencies. Evaluation of student accomplishments and observable behaviors concluded that 21 of the 23 students had achieved successful outcomes. Results have implications for development of interventions and programs to help young people with talent and drive but few opportunities. (Contains 92 references.) (DB)

This paper describes the approach to consolidating multiple measures of student achievement used by the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) in the 1997-1998 reporting cycle. Beginning in 1996-1997, all California schools that served Title I students or were involved in the state's Coordinated Compliance Review process were required to submit a Student Achievement Report based on multiple measures of student achievement. The LBUSD was relatively well situated to deal with the challenges of this requirement because it had already implemented a district-wide testing program that used performance assessments at multiple grade levels. It was necessary to consider the challenges involved in using component weighting models for combining multiple measures. Problems in combining these measures lead the school district to implement a compensatory standards-based approach. Decision rules for this approach are described, and an example is provided of the decision matrix used to determine student proficiency. The final approach used by the LBUSD did not give the district any unfair advantage over other school districts, while at the same time the LBUSD was able to maintain an internal standard of performance that perhaps was higher than that set by the state. (SLD)

Efforts to promote greater educational opportunity (compensatory spending, racial desegregation of schools, higher standards, reduced class size, and private school vouchers) have fallen short. Research indicates that middle-class schools generally work well, and any given child will do better in a middle-class than a low-income school. This paper suggests that no school should have more than 50 percent low-income students. Currently, about 25 percent of public schools have majority low-income students. Among the strategies recommended for economic school integration to work is creating an explicit policy that all schools are to have a majority of students who are not impoverished. The paper asserts that the best way to promote economic school integration is the "controlled public school choice" system of student assignment, in which parents are polled about the types of specialty schools that interest them and all schools become magnets with different pedagogies and themes attracting different families. The economic integration approach relies much less on expenditure of funds than leading spending approaches, such as Title I and class size reduction, but the benefits are likely to be greater. (SM)

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1994 includes explicit requirements to ensure that students served by its Title I are given the same opportunity to achieve high standards and are held to the same high expectations as all students in each state. By the spring of 2000, states should be prepared to submit evidence that final assessment systems are in place. To determine whether states have met Title I requirements, the U.S. Department of Education will use a peer review process involving experts in the fields of standards and assessments. This document is intended both to inform states about useful evidence and to guide teams of peer reviewers. The document consists of three main sections: (1) "General Characteristics of the Assessment System"; (2) "The Core of the Assessment System"; and (3) "Reporting and Using Assessment Results in Accountability." Subsections deal with specific aspects of these broad areas, such as "meeting standards of technical quality." Most subsections include discussions of the requirements and their intent and purpose and questions peer reviewers should ask. Four appendixes clarify a requirement related to students of limited English proficiency, discuss assessment information flow, and present a summary of types and sources of evidence for the reviews. (SLD)

Title IV Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities is a compensatory education program supported by funds from the U.S. Department of Education through the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994. The purpose of Title IV is to enable schools to supplement local efforts to eliminate violence and the use of drugs, tobacco, and alcohol among students. During 1998-99, Title IV provided funding to the Austin Independent School District (AISD), Texas, to support a variety of district-level and campus-level prevention education efforts. Services were provided through the following components: (1) campus-based prevention initiatives; (2) district-level student programs; (3) curriculum and staff development; and (4) support staff and services. Evaluation data came from student surveys, a survey responded to by a random sample of teachers , and district incident data about discipline, violence, and drug-related offenses. Recommendations based on evaluation findings call for more student education on the prevalence and dangers of drugs and increased conflict resolution training for students. More professional development is recommended, and suggestions are made for continued curriculum integration efforts. Six appendixes contain supplemental information about Title IV and its implementation in the AISD. (Contains 33 tables, 32 figures, and 24 references.) (SLD)

In 1998-99, Title I provided funding to 50 schools in the Austin Independent School District (AISD), Texas (43 elementary, 5 middle, and 2 high schools) with 60% or more students from low-income families. This report contains several analyses of the impact of Title I funds on student achievement. Students at non-Title I schools and at district schools as a whole outperform students at Title I schools, but when the passing rates for disaggregated groups are examined, the scores for economically disadvantaged, Hispanic, and African American students in Title I elementary schools approach the scores for students in those groups in non-Title I schools. Nine of the AISD Title I schools were rated "Low Performing" by the Texas Education Agency in the 1998-99 school year (six for academics and three secondary schools for dropout rates). Students in Title I schoolwide programs in the AISD were performing at a lower level than students in schoolwide programs throughout Texas. Specific information is given about Title I program areas for: (1) prekindergarten; (2) the Summer Opportunity To Accelerate Reading (S.O.A.R.) program; (3) year-round schools; (4) parent and community involvement; and (5) Title I migrant funds. Recommendations are made for improving student achievement under Title I. These recommendations center on improved accountability and record keeping and better strategic use of funds. Eight appendixes contain supplemental materials about Title I programs in the AISD. (Contains 204 figures and 13 references.) (SLD)

This interim report provides findings on Title I services and policies and on instructional practices and their impact on student performance over the first 2 years of the Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance (LESCP). The LESCP is being conducted in 71 elementary schools in 7 states and 18 school districts that moved early to implement standards, align assessments, and adopt other elements of reform policy. The study has already identified some teacher variables associated with different rates of growth in student performance in reading and mathematics in high-poverty Title I schools. The study has also identified variation across policy environments in teachers' views and the professional development they have experienced. In the future, the study will focus on other relationships among: (1) interventions intended to influence classroom practice; (2) actual practices reported by teachers; and (3) results for students. Results to date confirm that there are no simple answers, but this research will continue to consider Title I impact on educational reform and academic achievement. Two appendixes contain additional information on study methodology and a discussion of the relationship between student test score gains and teacher responses to survey items. (Contains 83 tables and 10 references.) (SLD)

This paper presents data from the first year of a study that seeks to reveal the effective practices and structures that address the match between the philosophy of Title I and beliefs and practices at the school site. A national study has been designed to investigate the compliance and effectiveness of urban schoolwide Title I programs. As part of this study, the SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE) selected the Empowerment Zone within the Atlanta (Georgia) city limit that includes the Atlanta public school system. One high-performing school and one school with scores lower than expected were studied through surveys of parents, teachers, principals, and students and interviews with principals and teachers, supplemented by classroom observations. Parent surveys revealed that legislative expectations, such as high standards, were being implemented at the more effective school. Teachers and principals also thought that Title I was bringing new opportunities to the school. At this school, teachers consistently identified the school's vision for learning in terms of high standards for students. Parents and teachers at the less effective school were much less certain of the role of Title I in fulfilling its legislative expectations, and much less sure of the school's mission. Implications for improved schoolwide practices derived from this study center on leadership by principals, who must have knowledge of the possibilities of educational improvement under Title I. (SLD)

This paper examines results from the Prospects study--a research agenda that explored the federal Title I program's impact on the academic and socio-emotional development of disadvantaged children. The document focuses on the program's strengths and limitations, offering a brief review of educational research and highlighting what may or may not work to alter the largely disappointing results found in Prospects. The paper outlines the history of the Title I program and discusses how a lack of resources and instructional requirements and other problems hindered the program's effectiveness. The paper looks at early evidence on the impact of Title I and then turns to the Prospects study, which was to be a national longitudinal assessment of Title I. The Prospects study found that Title I assistance was usually insufficient to close the gap in academic achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged students. The paper examines what makes a program effective, concentrating on instructional practice, class size, tracking, tutoring, and other strategies. The paper details the argument for improving entire schools, rather than a subset of the school, and concludes that Title I cannot by itself compensate for the substantial educational deprivations associated with child poverty. (Contains approximately 220 references.) (RJM)

This paper examines how the federal accountability mandates affect the design and implementation of schoolwide programs under Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act. It considers the policies adopted by states and districts to meet the accountability mandates, and it examines, at the school level, how the implementation of an accountability framework affects the development of curriculum and instructional processes that allow teachers to work with students at different ability levels. The paper uses data from case studies of Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan, and three districts (Cleveland, Chicago, and Detroit, respectively) to examine these questions. The first section outlines the theoretical perspective of the research. The second describes the research design, and the third presents the findings. At state, district, and school levels there was a reliance on structural (organizational) changes of outcome controls to create pressure and place constraints on schools. These states and school districts incorporated the federal expectations into their accountability systems by adopting performance and content standards, core curriculum frameworks, and assessment systems. Schools were most likely to rely on organizational changes to accommodate the accountability mandates. Schools in Detroit were less likely to make the organizational changes that were observed in Chicago or Cleveland. The focus on standards-based reform has led to a more integrated approach to curriculum and assessment in Ohio and Illinois, but many questions remain about the implementation and effectiveness of standards-based reform. An appendix contains tables of study results for each school district. (Contains 12 tables and 23 references.) (SLD)