![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
[Implications for Policy and Practice]Education Reforms and Students At Risk - October 1996
A variety of resources, mixed and matched in different ways, are necessary to implement the sorts of reforms for students at risk that we have reviewed and studied. These resources include monetary resources, but they are by no means restricted to dollars invested by school districts, communities, and private sources. While monetary resources surely affected the amounts of other resources that were available in our sites, people/personnel resources, material resources, and political resources played important roles in their own right.
Inside Dollars
At all the sites we studied, dollars routinely budgeted at the local level for school programs were directed in support of the particular reform activity; i. e., the reform was regarded as the school program. At School A, where the program had been created by the superintendents of several school districts, these participating districts each found the monies from within local budgets to establish and support the alternative school for high-risk teenagers. At no site was the funding left up to outside sources entirely, indicating that local, within-system support for these programs was evident at some level (i. e., at the school or district).
To varying degrees, all the sites also made use of funds from external sources, from foundation grants and special state funds to federal grants and community (cash) contributions. The categorical nature of many public and private funding streams typically necessitated a creative, patchwork approach to building project budgets, which might have led to the pronounced fragmenting of programs in some cases were it not for the full-time commitments of budget developers and program planners. Title I and state compensatory education funds typically undergirded the elementary programs we visited, particularly those programs that had been allowed to become Title I schoolwide projects.
In some cases, external funds provided important "add-ons" to ongoing efforts. In the case of one school that had affiliated itself with a national reform program, for example, that program (by its and the school's admission) had been adopted in large part because it carried with it the funds for staff retreats; the site already was far advanced in applying the particular reform-oriented methods espoused by the national program. At other sites, however, external monies had been critical to the initiation of the reforms and were critical to their sustainability. Perhaps the most extreme case was School B that in seeking to implement a private school curriculum was supported to a large extent by a local foundation. In this case, general oversight authority as well as considerable influence over the day-to-day direction of the program came with these external funds. In addition, the foundation had its own agenda insofar as what the reform activities were to accomplish (see the later section on political resources).
Believing Principal
Many of the sites we visited had principal-advocates, who, if they had not created the particular reform programs, were actively championing the reforms in their current positions. At other sites, however, the principals were distracted in their active support roles by other concerns or by the fact that they had only recently been appointed to their positions. In virtually every one of the sites, however, the building principal charged with general oversight of the school was a believer; that is, he or she was willing to lend some support (or to take credit in some measure for the program's successes) because he or she believed it had improved the teaching-learning situation in some way. In the case of new principals, this belief may have come from the fact that the principal had formerly been a staff member participating in the reform at the school. In at least one or two cases, however, new principals were believers as a result of what they found upon arrival -- considerable teacher investment and commitment and the notoriety the program was receiving from local and national entities.
Each site we visited that evidenced success with students benefited directly and importantly by staff persons trained in the particular school-program approach. In most cases, these teachers, counselors, or coordinators had received special training at the site or off-site while employed by the school and had, in turn, helped develop other staff at the site (including new hires). In cases where the reform program had an established base, however, new hires were often recruited from among those already trained in the program. National networks of reform-trained teacher candidates were available in some cases, while in other cases schools had made efforts to hire staff from schools where the reform was already ongoing. At School B, the site implementing the private school curriculum, for example, new hires that had attended the private school themselves as students were especially sought after. In every case where the particular reform program was evident on the campus (i. e., there was no mistaking that the school program had been modified from the typical), teachers were not only enthusiastic program participants they were also trained in the necessary objectives and classroom strategies.
Of the sites we visited, only selected ones had paid aides in the classrooms. Where classroom aides were effective adjuncts to the instructional program, they, like teachers, had received training in the particular program being implemented. In one case, the aides may have also provided an informal "relief" from the program; with the aides on the playground, for example, students could talk with one another and with the aides "the way we talk," rather than have to follow the strict grammatical rules and speaking styles incorporated into the program.
Parent/grandparent/other adult relative volunteers in classrooms typically provided a source of support for teachers' efforts by demonstrating to students their own personal investments in the instructional process? they came to the classrooms and either carried out tasks prescribed by the teachers or sat quietly and observed the instructional process, apparently ready to lend a hand if needed. The presence of these adult volunteers increased the stakes for students in being able to follow along with the instructional activities.
Community Volunteers (including worksite mentors)
Community volunteers, e. g., YMCA staff on loan to provide connection to community programs, and worksite mentors were critical resources at the few sites that used them. These individuals helped to supplement the instructional program in distinctive ways, by bringing to the students their special insights, talents, and personal networks.
At more than a few of our sites, one characteristic of the teachers' days was time to plan together and to set shared goals for activities they might well teach together. In some cases, schedules had been rearranged to free up time for joint planning periods; in other cases, teachers and other involved staff volunteered an extra hour before or after school. Teachers' decisions to invest off-hours in shared planning tasks typically were motivated by their excitement about the instructional program (and its projected or already-realized gains for students), their commitment to improving the school experiences for their students generally, or both of these factors.
For those school-based reforms that were implementing an established reform practice (e. g., Success for All, Coalition of Essential Schools, Core Knowledge), having experienced advisors available for periodic consultation was helpful. Organized "refresher" seminars or informal conversations often were needed to help in solving problems or to bolster spirits at the school sites.
Affiliation with colleges or universities, whether formal or informal, provided selected schools with a pipeline of new, talented teachers who in many cases were well-versed in particular reform practices. For schools implementing national reform models, professional networks to colleges and universities featuring these models were also important. One of our sites that had built its own program for students at risk developed a working relationship with a state university such that student-teachers from the university were regularly assigned to the school. After providing an orientation, the principal and the other faculty at the school observed these student-teachers and made special efforts to hire the individuals who they felt came to understand and accept their schoolwide objectives and to share their commitment to an instructional approach that featured teaming relationships among staff members. At another of our sites, prospective teachers were invited to volunteer at the school or to supervise lunchtime activities there for pay to see whether they would be interested in joining the staff when a position became available. This sort of proactive orientation toward the recruitment of new staff characterized many of our most effective sites.
Reform-Related Instructional Materials
Whether the sites we studied were implementing national reform models or local approaches, the schools had the required instructional materials. Depending on the reform, this included books, supplementary reading materials, special lined paper, group project ideas, tests, manipulables, and so on.
(Other) Instructional Materials
Most of our schools had the typical array of instructional materials to be found in schools generally, from manipulables and textbooks to reasonably extensive libraries of reading materials, construction paper, and audio-visual tools. In fact, the presence or absence of many of these resources did not, in our view, provide a reliable indication of the extent of student learning. At one or two schools, for example, the many rows of new reading materials were impressive but so new as to suggest they had never been used with students. In contrast, at another site the principal and the teachers collected various mechanical and electrical equipment items on weekends from a plant closure in the area so that students could use these in vocational courses (and they were being used daily in classes). To be sure, we sat in classrooms that were very much under-equipped (e. g., chemistry classes without equipment), but in some of the classrooms with the requisite textbooks and materials, we found teachers misusing the resources at hand (e. g., having students copy pages from the textbook).
Computers and Other Instruction-Related Equipment
Computers were not much in evidence in most of the schools we visited, although in one or two cases they were playing an increasingly prominent role. Typically, at both the elementary and secondary levels, computers were reserved for special classes and featured drill-and-practice softwares or were featured in efforts to teach work-related skills (e. g., word processing).
Facilities at most of the schools we visited were typical for the regions in which they were located. In many cases, the buildings were old, and the surrounding play and recreation areas were in poor condition. At a number of these sites, however, the efforts of the staff to revitalize the instructional program had included doing a considerable amount of work to create attractive and comfortable surroundings for students. Thus, while the school building might be old, artwork was featured along all the corridors and changed periodically, and the exposed floors and walls literally shined. A garden project at one site was aimed at transforming a nearby hill that overlooked the school, and the work outside was coordinated with studies of biology in the classroom.
University Affiliation
In addition to the supplies of prospective new teachers noted above, affiliation with a college or university afforded some of our sites with additional monetary resources and considerable credibility. In no small way, for example, university affiliation helped at one of our sites to lure community volunteers to the program. This sort of affiliation also helped fund-raising efforts; in some cases, university monetary contributions served as matching funds for other grants, and the affiliation itself was used to demonstrate the sort of vertical integration of educational systems that is often sought after by special federal and state programs.
Among our sites, several had some affiliation with companies or firms in the local area. These linkages brought volunteers to the campus, dollars to fund purchase of supplies and equipment, and places for students to learn job-related skills while receiving a minimum wage. One of our sites had entered into a partnership with a local foundation, which also provided dollars for staff and supplies, but brought with it as well considerable day-to-day oversight of the school by foundation representatives (as noted above). Each of these types of affiliations may have added to the credibility of the school-based programs; however, it was even more apparent that these affiliations provided the schools with a degree of insulation from district-level policies, procedures, and requirements. In short, relationships with employers and with local private funding agencies committed to particular reforms seemed to provide a buffer for schools from the effects of district political or budget-related mandates.
-###-
[Assessment of the Outcomes of Reform] [Implications for Policy and Practice]