Search

The Yale-New Haven Teachers' Institute was founded in 1978 on the belief that "university and school teachers across the country have a strong, mutual interest in the improvement of teaching and learning in the schools." The core goal of the model is to establish a sustainable partnership between districts and universities in order to provide teachers with a rigorous program of professional development seminars heavily influenced by needs that teachers themselves define. This report by Policy Studies Associates, Inc., commissioned by the Wallace Foundation, discusses the lessons from a recent demonstration project funded by Wallace in four districts--Albuquerque, Houston, Pittsburgh and Santa Ana, CA--to determine the feasibility of implementing this innovative model of teacher development in urban districts larger than New Haven. This report begins with a review of the principles that define the institute model and that guided implementation in the four sites. Next, it looks at the seminar experience, focusing specifically on collegiality in the preparation and use of curriculum units. The third section concentrates on the preparation and use of curriculum units, and the fourth examines leadership in the institutes, with particular attention to leadership by teachers. The fifth section explores the organization and governance of the institutes, with particular attention to the various institutional partnerships that support them and the challenges of sustaining these partnerships. This section also summarizes the role of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute as leader, monitor, and partner in the demonstration project. The sixth section looks at resource issues. The report closes with a discussion of the impact of the teachers institutes, lessons learned from the national demonstration project, and the challenges of sustaining teachers institutes in the future. Appendix 1 presents the 16 principles of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model. Appendix 2 provides an overview of the approach to the evaluation. (Contains 5 exhibits and 8 footnotes.) [Writing assistance for this report was provided by Katrina G. Laguarda. This report was prepared by Policy Studies Associates, Inc. and commissioned by The Wallace Foundation.]

Professional development is the cornerstone of school transformation. The first part of this two-part paper describes the professional development experiences of several hundred teachers and administrators in schools implementing New American Schools (NAS) designs and discusses the links between these professional development experiences and key elements of district policy. The second part of the paper draws on the lessons from these experiences to provide a step-by-step guide for districts' use in creating a professional development infrastructure to support whole-school transformation. Early findings from the evaluation of implementation of the NAS designs indicate that the designs pose seven challenges to teachers. To be successful in implementing the designs teachers need to learn how to become facilitators; to develop student potential; to allocate resources to support instruction; to straddle the boundaries between school, home, and community; to develop curriculum; to work in teams; and to participate actively in school governance. (Contains 2 references.) (DFR)

This report analyzes the contributions that the 10 Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science Education Consortia have made to U.S. efforts to reform mathematics and science education. The United States Congress authorized the Regional Consortia Program in 1990 under the Excellence in Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education Program. In reauthorizing the Regional Consortia Program, Congress reaffirmed the purpose of the Consortia supported by the program as being to disseminate exemplary mathematics and science education instructional materials and assist school staff in the implementation of teaching methods and assessment tools. The data presented in this report were collected largely in the spring of 1996 through surveys, interviews, site visits, and review of a variety of documents. Another more limited round of data collection was completed in spring 1997. This included telephone interviews and document review. Chapters include: (1) "Introduction"; (2) "Evolution of the Regional Consortia Program and the Challenge of Working with Intensive Sites"; (3) "Professional Development"; (4) "Teams and Networks: Consortia Links To the Field"; (5) "Promising Practices"; (6) "The Use of Technology by the Consortia"; (7) "Networking and Coordination"; and (8) "Conclusions". Appendices contain the survey procedures, instruments, and program indicators. (ASK)

This report provides a description of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Regional Consortiums Program's early operations as a first step in a study that will later offer more evaluative judgments. In this first round of evaluation, the report seeks to describe the federal formulation of the program's purpose, early organization of the Consortia, and work of the Consortia. The principal categories of activities observed in the program are: professional development, support for state teams and regional networks, task-specific assistance, dissemination, purchasing materials and equipment, and networking among the Regional Consortia. In its early stages, the Regional Consortiums Program has sought to build a broad base of participation in planning and carrying out tasks intended to support reform. Accordingly, there has been more emphasis on regional and intergovernmental process than on mathematics and science context although content has not been absent from the program. It is not yet clear whether an emphasis on process will continue to be characteristic of this program or whether it represents a stage that the Consortia will outgrow. (MKR)

The Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Regional Consortiums Program has provided approximately $15 million per year since 1992 to 10 regional organizations. The Consortia are carrying out a statutory charge to assist in the improvement of local instruction in mathematics and science. This report provides a description of the Regional Consortia's early operations as a first step in a study that will later offer more evaluative judgments. This first part of the evaluation sought to describe the federal formulation of the program's purpose, the early organization of the Consortia, and the work of the Consortia. The principal categories of activities of the Regional Consortia include professional development, support for state teams and regional networks, task-specific assistance, dissemination, purchasing materials and equipment, and networking among the Regional Consortia. This document presents the history of the Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science Education Consortiums Program, organizing the Regional Consortia, activities and services of the Regional Consortia, and concluding observations. (ASK)

This report describes the implementation of Section 1017 of Chapter 1 contained in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Section 1017 requires school districts to serve eligible students enrolled in private schools. Private schools affiliated with religious groups make up the bulk of all Chapter 1-eligible students. The report begins by reviewing the political and judicial history of the requirement that Chapter 1 serve religious-school students. Subsequent chapters cover the trends in the levels of private-school student participation in Chapter 1, the characteristics of Chapter 1 services for religious-school participants, special issues in the administration of Chapter 1 services to religious-school students, and the options for improving Chapter 1 services to religious-school participants. Twenty-one exhibits illustrate the discussion. Appendix A describes research on Chapter 1 services to religious-school students sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. Appendix B describes the major data sources used to generate estimates of private school student participation in Chapter 1. (Contains 53 references.) (GLR)

This report summarizes findings from surveys of Title I district administrators and private school representatives regarding the provision of Title I services to eligible students attending private schools. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA), provides school districts with funds for supplementary instruction and support to educationally disadvantaged students. A provision of the ESEA directs school districts to provide Title I services to eligible students residing in participating public school district attendance areas but attending private schools. The mandate also requires that these services be equitable to services provided the public school peers of these private school students. The survey, which targeted 200 school districts known to provide Title I services to private school students, eventually had a response rate of 85% among Title I administrators and 80% among the representatives of private schools. Districts serving the largest number of private school students reported that they have provided Title I services to fewer private school students in the 2 years immediately following the IASA than in the years preceding its enactment. Just over half of the responding school districts did not collect information on the family income of students in all private schools. While there were generally positive assessments of the working relationships between Title I administrators and staffs and private school administrators, comparisons of their reports made it clear that there were significant differences in their reports about who is involved in consultation and the topics that are discussed. Large numbers of private school representatives were not knowledgeable about many aspects of Title I services to private school students, with gaps in information particularly large in issues related to program funding and student results. Few districts offer Title I services other than supplementary instruction to private school students, even though other types of services, such as counseling, health services, and homework assistance, are allowable. The percentage of school districts applying for capital funds under the ESEA has remained unchanged except among the largest districts, where the percentage has increased. Four appendixes contain school district and private school questionnaires, consultation exhibits, and standard error exhibits. (Contains 78 exhibits and 1 reference.) (SLD)

Current federally supported technical assistance priorities and operations are not well aligned with the school-improvement process. This article discusses technical assistance centers' organization, funding, and size; the topics they address; the recipients, gatekeepers, and trainers they work with; convening services provided; coordination efforts; and Department of Education management practices. (10 references) (MLH)