Data collection took place in visits to five state departments of education and nine districts within those five states -- Arizona, California, Kentucky, Maryland, and New York. Selection of the states was based on information about the history of state reform and its integration with Chapter 1; these are states where reforms had been implemented for three or more years. After states were selected, the State Chapter 1 directors then identified two or three districts that were active partners in developing the reform agenda and in coordinating district and state reform. This sampling procedure yielded a group of sites with the following characteristics:
Key Influences on State and Local Chapter 1 Policy Development
The 1988 Hawkins-Stafford Amendments to ESEA began to shift the program away from remediation and minimum competencies and some states and districts incorporated features of systemic reform into their educational agendas. The amendments stressed that Chapter 1 programs were to bring students to grade-level proficiency in both "basic" and "more advanced" skills and encouraged districts to use "schoolwide projects," which combine Chapter 1 with local and other external funds to enhance student services. They also advocate "frequent and regular coordination" between Chapter 1 and regular education staff. The evaluation and monitoring requirements in Hawkins-Stafford give local coordinators the leverage to insist that schools continually examine their approaches and alter unsuccessful ones.
The newly enacted Title I promotes an expanded emphasis on schoolwide programs and links assessment and accountability requirements based on challenging standards to those established by states and districts. Mission statements express high expectations from all students; revised curriculums reflect evolving national professional standards, e.g., the NCTM standards; and new assessments and accountability procedures provide clearer indication of what children know and are able to do.
Cross-Cutting Themes in State and District Reform Implementation
The states have standards in different disciplines and at different grades or development levels, and the linkages among states' standards are unclear. The implementation of standards and new assessments has turned out to be a slow and often unstable process, lasting for several years and undergoing political challenges along the way. Procedures for levying sanctions on schools with poor performance, after an adequate period of supportive assistance, are not yet in place and remain a focal point for debate.
Curriculum frameworks and curriculum are uneven. The states have disseminated documents that outline achievement expectations, but these vary in depth, breadth, and the amount of information they provide about curriculum and pedagogy. Traditional practices prevail in many Chapter 1 programs; if teachers are going to teach to new expectations under Title I, they will need more support through training and appropriate resources.
Chapter 1 is a valuable resource for capacity building in several states and districts. State Chapter 1 directors encourage districts to use Chapter 1 to stimulate innovation, and some Chapter 1 schools routinely experiment with innovations and readily adopt research-based pilot programs. Because technical assistance and staff development are often pieced together from several sources, many schools are experiencing a surge in programmatic initiatives.
Local leadership depends on effective management and community involvement. Such strategies include widespread ownership of change, clear goals and feedback cycles, a long time horizon, stable organizational structures at all levels, and flexibility in adapting reforms to local contexts.
Implications for Title I Policy Development
In these sites, the cumulative effects of many years of innovation in Chapter 1 were evident in the classrooms. Reformers who advocate a clean break with yesterday's ideas are depriving teachers and administrators of the opportunity to build on their professional accomplishments.
It is clear from the assessment practices and capabilities that exist in these sites that new performance-based or standards-based assessments need to be complemented by some traditional assessments for student selection and program planning. There is a great need for funding to support the development of new instruments and to bolster local capacity in using them.
Teachers also need substantively sound resource materials to support new curriculums and teaching practices if they are to capitalize on the broader range of assessment results available for Title I students.
-###-
Return to Elementary and Secondary Education Page
mail to esed@ed.gov
Last update September 1996 (swz).