In 1994,the Improving America’s Schools Act changed the direction of federal Title I programs by mandating high standards for all students, including those receiving Title I services. Even after several years of the federal policy, there is little evidence about how schools with Title I schoolwide programs organize instructional resources to meet the federal accountability mandates. This article examines how the federal accountability mandates affect the design and implementation of Title I schoolwide programs in three urban districts—Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit. Using case studies developed in each district, it examines Title I schoolwide programs within the context of state and district policies adopted to meet the federal accountability mandates. The goal is to understand if standards-based reform contributes to reducing curricular and instructional fragmentation for students in schoolwide programs and whether standards-based reform creates conditions that allow teachers to work with students of different ability levels.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anagnostopoulos, D. (2000). Setting standards for whom? An institutional analysis of Chicago’s academic promotion policy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.
2.
Barfield, S. C. (1997). Summative evaluation of the two-way immersion program at [Adams], 1994-97. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
3.
Barr, R. , & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
4.
Birman, B. F. , Orland, M. E., Jung, R. K., Anson, R. J., Garcia, G. N., Moore, M. T., Funkhouser, J. E., Morrison, D. R., Turnbull, B. J., & Reisner, E. R. (1987). The current operation of the Chapter 1 program: Final report from the National Assessment of Chapter 1. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
5.
Burns, R. B. , & Mason, D. A. (1995). Organizational constraints on the formation of elementary school classes. American Journal of Education, 103, 185-212.
6.
Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees . (1997). Expecting more: Higher standards for Chicago’s students, Chicago academic standards and frameworks. Chicago: Board of Education of the City of Chicago.
7.
Cibulka, J. G. (1996). The reform and survival of American public schools: An institutional perspective. In R. L. Crowson, W. L. Boyd, & H. B. Mawhinney (Eds.), The politics of education and the new institutionalism: Reinventing the American school (pp. 7-22). Washington, DC: Falmer.
8.
Cibulka, J. G. (2000). Ideological and institutional interests surrounding shifting accountability policy settlements in Maryland. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.
9.
Cleveland City Public Schools . (1997, October 22). Accountability in the Cleveland Public Schools: Overview of the district’s accountability system, performance targets for the 1997/98 school year. Cleveland, OH: Author.
10.
Cleveland City School District . (1997, October). Building profiles: Data for 1996-97 school year, three-year baseline data, elementary schools. Cleveland, OH: Author.
11.
Finn, J. D. , & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 97-109.
12.
Firestone, W. A. , Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-113.
13.
Grissmer, D. (1999). Conclusion—class size effects: Assessing the evidence, its policy implications, and future research agenda. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 231-248.
14.
Gusky, T. R. (Ed.). (1994). High stakes performance assessment: Perspectives on Kentucky’s reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
15.
Hanushek, E. A. (1999). Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 143-163.
16.
Huebert, J. P. , & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1998). High-stakes testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17.
Illinois School Code. (1998). Chapter 105, Art. 2-3.63.
18.
Illinois State Assembly. (1995). Chicago school reform amendatory act, Pub. L. 89-0015.
19.
Jeffrey, J. R. (1978). Education for children of the poor: A study of the origins and implementation of Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
20.
Jennings, J. F. (1998). Why national standards and tests? Politics and the quest for better schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Kirst, M. , & Jung, R. (1982). The utility of a longitudinal approach in assessing implementation: A thirteen-year review of Title I, ESEA. In W. Williams, R. F. Elmore, J. S. Hall, R. Jung, M. Kirst, S. A. MacManus, B. J. Narver, R. P. Nathan, & R. K. Yin (Eds.), Studying implementation: Methodological and administrative issues (pp. 119-148). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
22.
Knapp, M. S. , Shields, P. M., & Turnbull, B. J. (1992). Academic challenge for the children of poverty. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
23.
Ladd, H. R. (Ed.). (1996). Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
24.
Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29, 4-16.
25.
Macpherson, R.J.S. (Ed.). (1998). The politics of accountability: Educative and international perspectives. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
26.
March, J. G. , & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press.
27.
Martin, R. , & McClure, P. (1969). Title I of ESEA: Is it helping poor children?Washington, DC: Washington Research Project and NAAP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
28.
McConnell, D. , & Christoff, C. (1999, March 3). School reform now needs names: Archer wants public to help choose board. Detroit Free Press, retrieved from http://www.freep.com/news/education/qskuls26.htm
29.
Millsap, M. A. , Moss, M., & Gamse, B. (1993). The Chapter 1 implementation study: Final report. Washington, DC: The U.S. Department of Education.
30.
Millsap, M. A. , Turnbull, B., Moss, M., Brigham, N., Gamse, B., & Marks, E. (1992). The Chapter 1 implementation study: Interim report. Washington, DC: The U.S. Department of Education.
31.
Mintrom, M. , & Vergari, S. (1997). Recent efforts to improve public education in the United States: Intergovernmental politics and accountability issues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
32.
Nye, B. , Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (1999). The long-term effects of small classes: A five-year follow-up of the Tennessee class size experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 127-142.
33.
Ohio General Assembly. (1997). Am. Sub. Senate Bill 55.
34.
Ohio General Assembly. (1998). Sub. H.B. No. 269.
35.
Powell, W. W. , & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
36.
Roderick, M. , Bryk, A. S., Jacob, B. A., Easton, J. Q., & Allensworth, E. (1999). Ending social promotion: Results from the first two years. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Reform.
37.
Schenck, E. A. , & Beckstrom, S. (1993). Chapter 1 schoolwide project study: Final report. Washington, DC: The U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Undersecretary.
38.
School Improvement Plan for Advancing Academic Achievement, School Year 1997-98. Chicago: Author.
39.
Scott, W. R. , & Meyer, J. W. (1994). Institutional environments and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
Smith, M. S. & O’Day, J. A. (1993). Systemic School Reform and Educational Opportunity. In Fuhrman, S. (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Revised and excerpted in Systemic reform and equal opportunity. Stanford Law and Policy Review, 4, 15-20.
41.
Spillane, J. F. , & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 1-27.
42.
Sunderman, G. L. (1995). The politics of school reform: The educational excellence movement and state policymaking. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Chicago.
43.
Sunderman, G. L. , & Nardini, G. (1999). Institutional constraints on implementing school reform: Lessons from Chicago. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada.
44.
Vinovskis, M. A. (1999). Do federal compensatory education programs really work? A brief historical analysis of Title I and Head Start. American Journal of Education, 107(3), 187-209.
45.
Wang, M. C. , Wong, K. K., & Kim, J.-R. (1999). A national study of Title I schoolwide programs: A synopsis of interim findings. Philadelphia: The Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory at Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education.
46.
Wong, K. K. , & Anagnostopoulos, D. (1998). Can integrated governance reconstruct teaching? Lesson learned from two low-performing Chicago high schools. Educational Policy, 12(1/2), 31-47.
47.
Wong, K. K. , Dreeben, R., Lynn, L. E., Jr., & Sunderman, G. L. (1997). Integrated governance as a reform strategy in the Chicago public schools. Chicago: The Department of Education & Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, The University of Chicago.
48.
Wong, K. K. , Hedges, L. V., Borman, G. D. & D’Agostino, J. V. (1996). Final report prospects: Special analyses. Paper prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Undersecretary.
49.
Wong, K. K. , & Meyer, S. J. (1998). Title I schoolwide programs: A synthesis of findings from recent evaluations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 115-136.
50.
Wong, K. K. , & Sunderman, G. L. (2000). Implementing districtwide reform in schools with Title I schoolwide programs: The first two years of “Children Achieving” in Philadelphia. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk.
51.
Wong, K. K. , Sunderman, G. L., & Lee, J. (1997). Redesigning the federal compensatory education program: Lessons from the implementation of Title I schoolwide projects. In M. C. Wang & K. K. Wong (Eds.), Implementing school reform: Practice and policy imperatives (pp. 59-97). Philadelphia: Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education.
52.
Wong, K. K. , & Wang, M. C. (Eds.). (1994). Rethinking policy for at-risk students. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
53.
Yancey, W. L. , Freely, J., & Breeding, C. (1999). Inequality and achievement: The effects of racial and economic segregation in urban schools. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada.
54.
Yancey, W. L. , & Thadani, R. (1997a). Identifying exceptional schools: Chicago, Illinois. Philadelphia: Laboratory for Student Success, Center for Research on Human Development and Education, Temple University.
55.
Yancey, W. L. , & Thadani, R. (1997b). Identifying exceptional schools in Cleveland. Philadelphia: Laboratory for Student Success, Center for Research on Human Development and Education, Temple University.
56.
Yu, C. M. , & Taylor, W. L. (Eds.). (1999). Title I in midstream: The fight to improve schools for poor kids. Washington, DC: Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights.
