A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Prospects: Chapter 1 Service Delivery, is a supplementary report to Prospects: The Congressionally Mandated Study of Educational Opportunity and Growth. It examines how Chapter 1 (now Title I) services differ among schools of varying poverty levels, and how they differ by the type of service delivery model used. The focus of the report is on instructional practices and features of classroom organization including staffing, resources and materials, instructional time, grouping practices, and coordination issues. The Chapter 1 Service Delivery report uses baseline (1991) and first year follow-up (1992) data collected by the Prospects study when the majority of students were in first, fourth, and eighth grade classrooms.

Selected Study Findings

Chapter 1 Program Operation: Selection and Staffing Issues

• Almost all Chapter 1 students were in schools that used standardized testing to select students for program services. Although many students were also in districts that used teacher judgement, only a few were in districts that reported teacher judgement as the most important criterion for student selection. Additionally, high-poverty schools were least likely to rely heavily on teacher recommendations in selecting Chapter 1 participants.

• Most Chapter 1 dollars supported staff salaries. Districts reported that between 70 and 80 percent of Chapter 1 dollars were allocated to teacher, administrator, aide, clerical, and other personnel salaries in the school.

• Low-poverty schools spent a greater proportion of their funds on teacher salaries than did high-poverty schools (55 vs. 43 percent).

• High-poverty schools had a lower overall student to adult ratio than low-poverty schools. However, these favorable ratios were due primarily to the greater proportion of classroom aides and other non-teaching personnel. Indeed, the student to teacher ratio were higher in high-poverty schools.

Arrangement of Chapter 1 Services

• Pullout programs remained the predominant instructional delivery model for Chapter 1 programs. In-class models were the second most frequently used service delivery format.

• High-poverty schools were far more likely to use more than one service delivery model than were low-poverty schools.

• Most students who participated in Chapter 1 received services in reading (96 percent of first graders, 83 percent of fourth graders, and 81 percent of eighth graders).

• Participation in both Chapter 1 reading and math programs was related to school poverty. In the first grade, a greater percentage of students in high-poverty schools participated in both reading and math than did participants in low poverty schools (39 percent vs. 29 percent). This pattern was true as well for grades 4 and 8.

• Most students received Chapter 1 services 5 days per week, particularly those in high-poverty schools (80 percent vs. 47 percent receive reading instruction daily). Also, students receiving instruction through in-class arrangements received about 5 minutes more per day of Chapter 1 instruction than did students in pull-out programs.

• In elementary grades, the Chapter 1 math and the regular teacher were likely to use the same materials at the same level. However, the Chapter 1 reading teachers reported more often that they utilized different materials, but at the same instructional level.

Curriculum and Instruction in Regular Classrooms

• High-poverty schools scheduled more overall time for reading and math instruction than low-poverty schools.

• High-poverty schools were more likely to use strategies to increase learning time (such as before/after school programs) than were low-poverty schools.

• Teachers in high-poverty schools tended to rely more upon a traditional approach to reading instruction. This approach consisted of a greater emphasis on reading readiness and decoding, grouping students by ability, and using basal series/textbooks.

• Most students, including those in high-poverty schools, were in classrooms where computers were used at least some of the time.

Coordination of Services

• There was little formal coordination between regular instruction and Chapter 1 programs with communication between regular and Chapter 1 teachers most frequently occurring through informal discussions.

• Districts reported that state Chapter 1 coordinators were influential in decisions made by district coordinators, especially in high-poverty schools.

• At the district level, there was a modest degree of resource sharing between Chapter 1 and other compensatory education programs, with the greater sharing being in district staffing. This reflected the fact that district staff coordinated both Chapter 1 and other supplementary efforts.

Copies of this report are available by writing to the Planning and Evaluation Service, Office of the Undersecretary, 600 Independence Avenue S.W., Room 4143, Washington DC 20202 or calling (202) 401-0590.

-###-

Return to Elementary and Secondary Education Page

mail to esed@ed.gov

Last update September 1996 (swz).