![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
[Cross-Site Analysis Part 2]Education Reforms and Students At Risk - October 1996
Cross-Site Analysis
The case study summaries above have described in detail each of the programs. The focus of the analysis in this section is on themes cutting across these programs. The first part of the section presents an overview of the characteristics of the programs and the context in which the programs operate. The next part explores the schools as learning communities, focusing on common characteristics and effective approaches for building such communities. The final parts analyze these programs for structural characteristics that support learning communities by making these programs work well, potentially consistently, in diverse contexts.
Although each of the programs in this study was unique, we have concluded that several characteristics which lead to the programs' success are held in common. This part reviews some of the shared characteristics of the 12 programs, in light of the research literature in those areas (see Table 1).
Education research is divided on the effectiveness of top-down versus bottom-up education reform. One branch of research suggests that reforms which stem from stakeholders, such as teachers, reflect this group's priorities and are more likely to receive widespread support and implementation.16 A contrasting branch recommends external development of education programs, under the premise that the expertise and consistency of professional program developers is difficult to continuously duplicate in an overtaxed and constantly shifting teaching population.17 Of the 12 programs included in this study, 7 were developed externally: private school curriculum, Coalition of Essential Schools, Success for All, Paideia, Core Knowledge, Child Development Project, and the Comer School Development Program. Five programs emerged from school and district staff: New Horizons, the separate school for at-risk students, the summer migrant program, Super Kids, and the charter schools. The externally developed programs were adapted to fit in the specific school contexts and to meet the needs of local teachers and students. The internally developed programs typically received strong support from district- and state-level personnel, in two cases as part of a districtwide strategy. However, none of the 12 programs was clearly top-down or bottom-up. Administrators and teachers alike showed support for the new programs.
Although all 12 programs are geared towards helping at-risk students achieve in school, each program has unique goals and strategies. Some involve whole-school restructuring. For example, the Cooperative Alternative Program creates a separate high school for students at risk of dropping out. Five programs (the private school curriculum, Success for All, Paideia, Core Knowledge, and the school community/Child Development Project) dramatically change the curriculum and instructional approaches across the entire school. Four programs (New Horizons, Coalition of Essential Schools, the summer migrant program, and the Charter Schools) provide a special program for selected students in the regular school context or outside of the regular school year. Yet even these four programs provide a full-day experience for the students involved. Research supports the concept that comprehensive and multifaceted education reform is more likely to affect students' education experience than piecemeal programs.18
Some research suggests that programs geared towards younger at-risk students are more likely to be effective than those for older students.19 However, for this study, we felt it was important to identify programs that work well for students in kindergarten through 12th grades, including returning dropouts. Seven of the study schools were elementary schools, some ending at 5th grade and some at 8th grade. Four others were high schools, serving grades 9 through 12. One school enrolled students from prekindergarten through 12th grade, although the older students tended to participate through self-study packets. The student populations of the programs studied tended to be high poverty (up to 95 percent free or reduced-price lunch recipients) and high minority (up to 100 percent African-American or 96 percent Hispanic). Most of the programs were medium-sized, involving 100 to 800 students.
Several issues emerged in relation to program staff. First, oversight of a coordinator or the special attention of the principal helped maintain program consistency. Six programs used coordinators or directors, sometimes at the district level and sometimes at the school level. The principals were involved in all of the programs -- at minimum in a supportive role. In some schools, such as the Cooperative Alternative Program, the summer migrant program, and Super Kids, the principal played a central role in implementing and maintaining the program, often in lieu of a program coordinator. Some programs ensured that critical tasks were carried out by hiring staff dedicated to these jobs. For example, two programs developed special staff positions -- the summer migrant program used recruiters to inform students about the summer programs, and New Horizons used nine work advisors to support and teach student workers. The selection of teachers also played a role in program implementation. Most of the programs recruited extensively, sometimes drawing upon pools of university interns, and often selecting teachers with experience or a proclivity to work with at-risk students. All of the programs had unusually high teacher turnover rates in the first few years of the program, although the principals uniformly explained this as a process of aggressively weeding out weak teachers or teachers who did not "buy into" the program. Most of the principals expected new teachers to demonstrate an understanding of and interest in the program as a condition of employment.
The interrelated nature of programs and school administration make it difficult to isolate program costs (see Table 2). Most principals cited teacher and coordinator salaries and benefits as the highest cost -- approximately 50 to 70 percent of expenses. Staff development and materials, supplies, and equipment also were a large proportion of expenses. Most of the programs' resources were constructed from a patchwork of district support, Title I and other federal funding, and corporate and foundation support. Several programs found significant financial and technical assistance from local universities.
Although cost issues were important, precise figures were both hard to determine and not critical. As a practical matter, if a school and district could arrange their Title I and other categorical budgets (however large) and make a limited number of other adjustments, programs typically were able to find ways to work with local realities.
The community context can support or undermine programs for at-risk students. The environment in which the schools were set ran the gamut. Eight schools were located in the inner city; of these, half were in the most depressed parts of their cities. One school was in a small town that was experiencing an economic upswing, and the two rural schools were in impoverished areas. In some cases, the atmosphere of the school reflected that of the community; in four cases, however, the school was a haven from dire community problems. Often, residents of the larger communities had low tolerance for at-risk students and were suspicious of new programs targeting this group. However, some programs, such as New Horizons, were able to overcome this initial distrust and develop strong linkages with the community.
16.Newmann, F. M. & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
17.Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., & Madden, N. A. (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Note that the advantages of this program dissemination approach are assumed in the National Diffusion Network and, in other ways, by the New American Schools Development Corporation designs (see Kearns, D. & Anderson, J. (in press). The goals and status of the New American Schools Development Corporation. In S. Stringfield, S. Ross, & L. Smith (eds.), Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools Development Corporation Designs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum).
18.Stringfield, S. et al. (in press). Urban and suburban/rural special strategies for educating disadvantaged children: Third year report. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
19.Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., & Wasik, B. (1994). Preventing early school failure: Research, policy, and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
-###-
[Study Aims and Study Questions Part 2] [Cross-Site Analysis Part 2]