![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Eight years ago, officials in Polk County, Florida, wanted to close Snively Elementary School--considered by some to be one of the most troubled schools in the area. Of its 500 students in prekindergarten through sixth grade, 95 percent live in poverty. But the community fought to save its school, and Snively got a second chance--and a Chapter 1 schoolwide program. Under the leadership of a new principal, staff and teachers met for six months to revamp the curriculum and assessments. Teachers visited their students' homes to enlist parents' support, the school year was expanded through July, and class size was reduced in all grades. Today, Snively takes an interdisciplinary approach to thematic instruction, offers four early intervention programs for preschoolers, and operates a family resource center. Teachers meet monthly to collaborate on planning. And last year, parents volunteered more than 5,000 times for the program--earning coupons they could redeem for gifts or household items at the school-run center. "Chapter 1--schoolwide--can make a difference where no other program can," says the principal. "It is important to make a commitment to change and not be afraid to take the necessary risks."
|
Many of the schools we highlight in this guide were not just the highest-poverty schools within districts, they were also the least effective before they organized under the schoolwide banner. They changed because the principals and staff were committed to overhauling programs they knew were not working for their students. Schoolwide planning especially expanded the core of academic subjects that students studied, and it improved instruction. Teaching teams had both the flexibility to restructure their compensatory programs and the resources to achieve their goals, especially for students at risk. They often supplemented traditional curricula with curricula developed locally by teachers on the basis of recommendations from national professional discipline organizations, such as the national council of teachers of mathematics, English, and science. New instructional techniques prevailed: cooperative learning in reading and math, multicultural and interdisciplinary studies, and projects that emphasize higher-order critical thinking skills. Flexible grouping or block scheduling with individual tutoring in the classroom often replaced pullout programs; in at least one school we studied, an extended school day allowed students additional time to learn in their native language or work in a computer laboratory. Whether the school adapted a research-based model such as Success for All (Slavin, Karweit, & Madden, 1989), convened support systems similar to James Comer's mental health teams (Comer, 1980), or used the site-based management strategies of Accelerated Schools (Levin, 1988), the curriculum was the school's own, and it usually was interdisciplinary.
The schools profiled in this guide were selected because they showed evidence of success--whether quantifiable or anecdotal--and were identified by local, regional, or national education experts as particularly innovative or successful projects. Most schools had operated as schoolwide projects for at least two years; however, one--Glassbrook Elementary School in Hayward, California-- was selected although it had been in official schoolwide status for only one year because it had in fact adopted an unofficial schoolwide approach several years earlier, and thus had a wealth of experience to offer. Sanchez Elementary School in Austin, Texas, in contrast, was profiled because the flexibility of the project allows a temporary separation and rapid reintegration of Chapter 1 students, although it provides separate classes with bilingual teachers for its many students with limited English proficiency.
Most schoolwide programs began by reducing the student-teacher ratio, but lowering student-teacher ratios is just the beginning of adjusting teaching to learners. With fewer students in classes, teachers offered students a wider array of learning activities in social studies, sciences, and the arts, as well as in the basic and advanced skills of reading and mathematics, and they individualized instruction. Whenever possible, teachers incorporated technology into their instruction, using it to help children connect learning to their own cultural and community experiences.
Project implementers talk about the schoolwide option as a vehicle for change. "The schoolwide has allowed us to do amazing things," explained the teacher facilitator at New Stanley Elementary School in Kansas City, Kansas. By giving the staff the autonomy to restructure how it organizes services, "it allowed us to do the collaboration we envisioned and to support flexible instructional grouping." Released from the limiting structures of pre-packaged models, educators expanded the activities, materials, and processes they used to benefit all children. From the perspective of the principal at Richmond Elementary (Salem, Oregon), the schoolwide project framework meant that "Chapter 1 is the driving force for all improvement in our building.... It became the hub of the school for all programs."
In the section that follows, we summarize the experiences described by the schoolwide practitioners and profile examples of key elements that contributed to the projects' success. Chapter 5
profiles the history, context, and activities of 12 schoolwide projects, reflecting the range of program options that have shown evidence of success. Appendix A provides contact information on selected schoolwide projects. Appendix B contains samples of planning materials that successful schoolwide projects have used. Appendix C is a bibliography of resources for planning and implementing schoolwide projects, organized by the promising practices described below.
-###-
[Key Features of Successful Schoolwide Projects]