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

Systemic Reform - October 1996

Addressing Diverse Student Needs

A major goal of systemic reform is to improve the overall quality of schooling for all children, thereby raising the general level of achievement of all students while helping to reduce educational inequities. O'Day and Smith (1993) argue that

A well-designed systemic reform strategy could provide an opportunity for extending reforms in challenging curriculum and instruction to all schools and all segments of the student population. Without a system wide strategy, curricular reform run the risk of simply "changing the rules of the game" while excluding from play poor and minority children in schools that lack the support and wherewithal to make the necessary but difficult changes in curriculum and instruction. (p. 253)

The need for a reform effort focused on all students is compelling, nationally as well as in the states in our study. After years of improvement, the achievement of minority children relative to their majority peers has become stagnant (Mullis et al., 1994). One out of every five children under the age of six lives in poverty (NCES, 1994). Poverty, coupled with the deterioration of families and social communities in the inner city, high rates of drug use and teenage pregnancy, and the growing social and economic isolation of poor and minority students from mainstream society, have created an "imperiled generation" of children (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1988). Students come to school hungry and with limited literacy skills. Others bring the challenges of limited English proficiency or physical or mental disabilities.

The sites in our study have developed strategies at all levels of the system to address the needs of these children. These strategies include moving away from categorical program structures, targeting resources on low-performing and/or high minority schools and school districts and their staff, restructuring schools and restructuring curriculum.

Moving Away from Categorical Programs

The motto of Vermont's reform effort is "very high skills for every student: no exceptions, no excuses." In support of this vision of "no exceptions," in 1990 the Vermont legislature overhauled the way it funds and regulates services for students with special educational needs. The purpose of Act 230 is to increase the capacity of schools to develop comprehensive systems of education to help all children succeed, to the maximum extent possible, in the regular classroom. As one Vermont respondent noted, "Act 230 is an act to support instruction. It isn't a kid act. It says that teachers should be provided support to teach all children." The law requires all schools to develop instructional support systems to ensure the early identification of students at risk and to provide for the availability of services to meet their needs--without labeling or classification. The legislation allocates about 30 percent of the state's special education funds through a Mainstream Block Grant program on the basis of student enrollment, rather than on the number of students classified as needing special education services. These dollars can be used to hire core support staff who can work with all children rather than only those identified as needing special services. The Act also sets aside one percent of the state's special education budget for districts to train their administrators and regular classroom teachers in strategies for working with students with different learning styles.

Act 230 has had the intended impact of reducing the number of students classified in special education and increasing the number of students with special needs who are educated in the regular classroom. Overall, the teachers we interviewed did not see making accommodations for students with special educational needs as requiring much special effort, especially since these students might be accompanied to class by aides who would provide special assistance. It was difficult to tell just how much teachers adjusted their instruction or grading standards for special needs students. In one district (VT2), however, the curriculum specialist and special education coordinator have worked extensively with teachers at one school who are trying to incorporate ideas drawn from another mathematics curriculum they had been exploring into their new Chicago mathematics program. Vermont educators raised three issues about inclusion, however. First, respondents in both districts found the inclusion of students with emotional or behavior problems to be particularly difficult. Second, those in one of the districts were also concerned about the potential impact of budget cuts on the availability of necessary support services, such as paraprofessionals. Third, educators in that district told us they were also unclear about the type and amount of work special education students were expected to place in their portfolios.

Vermont hopes to expand the Act 230 model to programs that link education and social services. The approach here is to have community groups propose particular results, then be allowed to use funds across service areas to achieve these results. These efforts are still at an early stage of development, with interest expressed by a few communities.

Special education students in the two Michigan districts included in our study were also mainstreamed into general education classes. The districts use the same curriculum for all students, but provide extra support inside and outside the regular education classroom through special education teachers and para-professionals. The special education director in one of the districts noted that when her district switched to a whole language program, students with reading disabilities did not learn basic phonic skills and were pulled out of class for rote drill and practice. In mathematics, concrete concepts that are addressed by not practiced in the regular classroom are also addressed in a pull-out situation. In the other district, the special education director felt that classroom teachers were making some adjustments to meet the needs of students with disabilities, such as using more manipulatives to support the existing mathematics program. These administrators, like their counterparts in our Vermont districts, were concerned about having sufficient personnel resources and adequate teacher training to support special education students in the regular classroom.

Targeting Resources on Low-performing and/or High Minority Schools and School Districts and Their Staff

Both Michigan and California target some of their grant programs on schools and school districts with large concentrations of low-performing and/or high minority schools. The Michigan Statewide Systemic Initiative (MSSI) provides annual grants of up to $60,000 to eleven low-achieving, urban or extreme rural school districts to support district efforts to reform their teaching of mathematics and science and to increase the participation of underrepresented groups (racial/ethnic minorities and/or women) in mathematics and science courses. [Neither of the Michigan districts included in this study are MSSI target districts.]

To encourage low-achieving districts to participate in the California Alliance for Elementary Education, Alliance organizers, in conjunction with the SEA's Chapter 1 staff, successfully targeted for recruitment 41 of the lowest performing schools in the Chapter 1 Program Improvement program. California Subject Matter Projects (CSMPs) are also paying particular attention to involving teachers from schools serving large numbers of minority and low income students and to preparing all participating teachers to meet the needs of diverse populations. The Literature, Writing, and Mathematics Projects have all held statewide or local summer institutes in Spanish. Several have targeted programs for teachers of limited English Proficient students, including those teachers who teach such students in English. The California Math Project has established an Equity Project in eight sites to explore issues of diversity and to bring issues of equity into the forefront in mathematics education. There have also been efforts to recruit minority teachers into the CSMPs. One mathematics site interviewed for this study reported that 25 percent to 40 percent of the teachers in the institutes are targeted minorities. The numbers are higher in the summer, but tend to drop off considerably in the networks. They are thus focussing on bringing more minority teachers into the ongoing networks as working to develop the leadership of those who do participate. They have also stepped up efforts to work with the Chapter 1 schools in the surrounding districts.

At the district level, MI2 chose to place its pilot Professional Development School is the elementary school with the highest concentration of poor children. CA2 contracted with the local University of California campus to provide professional development to teachers in middle schools targeted by the district's desegregation plan. Moreover, one of the overall priorities of this district is to see improved performance among students scoring in the lowest quartile on achievement assessments. For this reason, the district is targeting their efforts (particularly in the early literacy campaign) on Chapter 1 schools, schools with low reading scores, and schools with high proportions of LEP students. They have also established their own "district-grown" school improvement program.

Restructuring Schools to Promote Equity

Districts in our study also restructured some of their schools in an effort to be more responsive to the diverse social, cultural and educational needs of children schooled in these buildings. One of the California districts "reconstituted" a few schools several years ago as part of a desegregation plan in that district. The schools were closed and reopened with new teachers and students. Students apply to attend the schools, but selection is based purely on lottery, so all achievement and economic levels are presented and racial balance is maintained. Four of the six middle schools in our study had adopted, or were in the process of adopting, a middle school philosophy and structure which places emphasis on the whole child and integrated instruction. Students are assigned to a team of four teachers (in some cases the teams also include a special education teacher) who instruct, advise and monitor the academic and non-academic behaviors of their group of students. Academic grouping strategies also reflected new approaches. For example, both elementary schools in our California sample were using multi-age classrooms (1-3, 4-6), and middle schools in CA2 and MI2 had eliminated all tracking.

Curricular Responses to Equity Concerns

We also saw many examples of restructured curriculum in our sites. As discussed in an earlier section of this chapter, one of our elementary schools has developed a project-based curriculum. Projects offerings incorporate the AAAS Project 2061 benchmarks, the NCTM standards, and the California frameworks in English language arts and social studies. Another, which has a 65 percent Hispanic enrollment, has a two-way developmental Spanish bilingual strand and an English language development strand. Teachers in the four middle schools in our study had developed some interdisciplinary projects, but they generally lasted only two to three weeks.

The two districts in Michigan have moved away from the academic tracking of students. Classes in the elementary and middle schools are heterogeneously grouped. In an effort to encourage students to take more, and higher level mathematics courses, both districts have implemented transition mathematics programs, and District MI2 has eliminated remedial mathematics classes so it can give all students some exposure to algebra. This district's goal is to have all students complete algebra by the ninth grade.

-###-

[Restructuring the Governance System]

[Summary]