The U.S. federal government has been interested in improving the performance of students who come from low-income homes since the time of Lyndon Johnson's “Great Society” initiatives in the 1960s. The current administration strongly supports the belief that good schools can be created and has funded the Comprehensive School Reform Program (CSR) to support these beliefs. This article briefly reviews literature related to school reform throughout this period, describes our research plan to study CSR elementary schools in the state of Arizona, and introduces the articles included in this special issue.
Focus of Study
The basic intent of this study was to inform working theories of learning, motivation, and social/emotional development in school contexts in Grades 3–5. We hoped that an emphasis on theory, contextual enactment, and participant mediation would yield a richer picture of classroom practices and motivational dynamics that might underlie student achievement and CSR effectiveness. This study focused in particular on participant perspectives (principals and students) and classroom practices associated with CSR programs in elementary schools in the state of Arizona.
Research Design
The research program includes interview (with principals), observation (of classroom practices), and survey measures and an adaptation of Thematic Apperception Test procedures (with students).
Conclusions/Recommendations
School reform initiatives can profit from more research on participant perceptions, actual classroom practices, and student mediation of those practices. These understandings can better link program design and student achievement to enhance the effectiveness of comprehensive school reform initiatives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AverchH., CarrollS., DonaldsonT., KieslingH., and PincusJ. (1974). How effective is schooling? A critical review of research. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
2.
BiddleB. (1997). Foolishness, dangerous nonsense, and real correlates of state differences in achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 8—13.
3.
BloomH. (2002, May). Longitudinal analysis of the accelerated model. Paper presented at the Network of Researchers meeting, Washington, DC.
4.
BrookoverW., BeadieC., FloodP., SchweitzerJ., and WisenbakerJ. (1979). School social systems and student achievement: Schools can make a difference. New York: Praeger.
5.
BormanG. D., and D'AgostinoJ. V. (1996). Title I and student achievement: A meta analysis of federal evaluation results. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 309—326.
6.
BormanG., HewesG., OvermanL., and BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 107—125.
7.
BormanG. D., StringfieldS C., and SlavinR. E. (Eds.). (2001). Title I: Compensatory education at the crossroads. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
CohenM. (1983). Instructional, management, and social conditions in effective schools. In WebbA., and WebbL. (Eds.), School finance and school improvement: Linkages in the 1980s (pp. 17—50). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
9.
ColemanJ., CampbellE., HobsonC., McPartlandJ., MeadeA., and WeinfeldF.. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
10.
D'AgostinoJ. V., BormanG. D., HedgesL. V., and WongK. K. (1998). Longitudinal achievement and Chapter 1 coordination in high-poverty schools: A multi-level analysis of the Prospects data. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3, 401—420.
11.
Federal Interagency Forum on Child & Family Statistics. (1999). America's children: Key national indicators of well-being (NCES 1999-019). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
12.
GoodT. L., BiddleB., and BrophyJ. E. (1975). Teachers make a difference. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
13.
GoodT., and BrophyJ. (1986). School effects. In and and WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 570—604). New York: Macmillan.
14.
GoodT. L., BurrossH. L., and McCaslin (2005). Comprehensive school reform: A longitudinal study of school improvement in one state. Teachers College Record, 107, 2205—2226.
15.
HanushekE. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 141—164.
16.
JencksC., SmithM., AclandH., and BaneM. J. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
17.
JensenA. R. (1973). Educability and Group Differences. New York: Harper and Row.
18.
KlausP. E. (1973). Yesterday's children: A longitudinal study of children from kindergarten into the adult years. New York: Wiley.
19.
KlitgaardR., and HallG. (1974). Are there unusually effective schools?Journal of Human Resources, 74, 90—106.
20.
LaddH., and HansenJ. (Eds.). (1999). Making money matter: Financing America's schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
McCaslinM., BurrossH. L., and GoodT. L. (2005). Change and continuity in student achievement from Grades 3 to 5: A policy dilemma. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(1), 1—18.
22.
McCaslinM., and DiMarino-LinnenE. (2000). Motivation and learning in school: Societal contexts, psychological constructs, and educational practices. In and and GoodT. (Ed.), Schooling in America: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow; 100th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 84—151). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
McCaslinM., and GoodT. (1996a). Listening in classrooms. New York: Harper Collins Press.
24.
McCaslinM., and GoodT. (1996b). The informal curriculum. In BerlinerD., and CalfeeR. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 622—673). New York: Macmillan.
25.
McCormack-LarkinM., and KritekW. J. (1983). Milwaukee's Project RISE. Educational Leadership, 40(3), 16—21.
26.
National School Boards Association. (1999, November 29). Ten critical threats to America's children: Warning signs for the next millennium. A report to the nation presented by the National League of Cities, National School Boards Association, Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital, Youth Crime Watch of America. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.nsba.org/bookreports/ten_threats.pdf
27.
PogrowS. (1999). Overcoming the cognitive wall: Accelerating the learning of Title I students after the third grade. In OrfieldG., and DebrayE. (Eds.), Hard work for good schools: Facts not fads in Title I reform. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (mimeo). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED447247)
28.
RosenholtzS. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.
29.
RossS. M., AlbergM., and NunneryJ. (1998). Selection and evaluation of locally developed versus externally developed schoolwide projects. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis.
30.
RowanB., BossertS., and DwyerD. (1983). Research on effective schools: A cautionary note. Educational Researcher, 12(4), 24—31.
31.
RutterM., MaughanB., MortimoreP., OustonJ., and SmithA. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
SlavinR. (1999). How Title I can become the engine of reform in America's schools. In OrfieldG., and DebrayE. (Eds.), Hard work for good schools: Facts not fads in Title I reform (pp. 86—101). The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (mimeo). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED447247)
33.
StiefelL., RubensteinR., and BerneR. (1998). Intra-district equity in four large cities: Data, methods, and results. Education Finance, 23, 447—467.
34.
StringfieldS., MillsapM. A., HermanR., YoderN., BrighamN., and NesselrodtP.. (with Gamse, B., Puma, M., Rosenblum, S., Beaumont, J., Randall, B., & Smith, L.). (1997). Urban and suburban/rural special strategies for educating disadvantaged children. Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
35.
TeddlieC., and StringfieldS. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects. New York: Teachers College Press.
36.
WeberG. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
37.
WongK. K., and MeyerS. J. (1998). Title I schoolwide programs: A synthesis of findings from recent evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 115—136.
