![]()
|
School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence Editor: Alex Molnar W. Steven Barnett, Gerald W. Bracey, Robert M.
Carini Douglas Downey, Jeremy D. Finn, Craig Howley Gene V Glass, Haggai Kupermintz, Catherine Lugg, Ulrich C. Reitzug, Barak Rosenshine Education
Policy Research Unit (EPRU) Education Policy Studies Laboratory College of Education Division of Educational Leadership and Policy
Studies Box 872411 Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-2411 January
2002
EPSL-0201-101-EPRU |
Introduction and Executive
Summary
Arizona
State University
For nearly two decades numerous prominent critics have
pronounced American public education broken.
The debate over the state of the nation’s public schools has been joined
by business leaders, teachers’ unions, and think tanks from all points on the
political spectrum. The chorus of criticism has produced a curious disconnect
between Americans’ perception of their local schools and their assessment of
the nation’s schools as a whole. Of more than 1,100 respondents to a new Phi
Delta Kappa/Gallup poll, for instance, just over half told surveyors that they would give the nation’s schools a grade
of ‘C’, even though an identical number – 51% – gave their own local schools
A’s and B’s.[1]
The contention that the public education system has failed
in turn has prompted a wide variety of reform proposals. Some, such as
educational vouchers, would radically reorganize the system’s governance.
Others, such as universal early childhood education, may demand equal or even
greater changes in the educational system’s design and structure, while
retaining the central feature of the system that has served public education
for more than a century: the common school. Still other reform proposals are
far more measured in their scope. Amid the welter of ideas put forth it is
often far from clear how to best improve what is not working well without
subverting the many successes of American public education.
In the last decade especially, reforms have tended to be
justified as necessary to improve the academic achievement of children living
in poverty. Moreover, the widespread and intense scrutiny of public school
performance has increased the pressure on legislatures to act quickly, even as
it has made it more important than ever for them to carefully weigh the
benefits and costs of competing reform proposals. Unfortunately, the research
evidence available to policy makers is often non-existent, incomplete, or
appears to be contradictory. School reform is, therefore, frequently debated in
an environment that is long on emotion and short on hard data. Furthermore, the
data supporting proposals to reform public education varies enormously in its
quality. It ranges from carefully conducted and rigorously reviewed research to
ideologically oriented commentary. Often there are few indicators for policy
makers to distinguish one from the other.
In order to clarify what we know about effective public
schools, the Education Policy Studies Laboratory (EPSL) at Arizona State
University invited a group of distinguished education scholars to review the
research on a series of education reform topics.
The following literature reviews are the result. Some
reviews focus on specific proposals that are proffered for making public
schools more effective. Others examine core components or practices in our
public schools in order to evaluate the impact of those components and
practices on student achievement. In each case, the reviewers examined the
research on the topic at hand with a particular eye toward its findings with
regard to student achievement, especially that of children living in poverty.
Institutions,
People, and Money
These 13 reviews can be grouped into three broad clusters.
The first group examines schools as institutions and their structures. It
includes reports on the efficacy of early education programs; the movements to
reduce class size and to create smaller schools; alternatives in structuring
the school day and year; variations in how students may be grouped; and the
role that schools have played in the past and might play in the future in their
larger communities and in involving parents in their children’s education.
The second group of reviews focuses on the teachers who
deliver public education. Reports examine research on teacher characteristics
and instructional behaviors; the role
of teacher unions as obstacles or assets to educational improvement; proposals
to quantify the value that teachers add to the educational process and thereby
assess teacher performance; and on the effectiveness of current approaches to
professional development of teachers, and how those approaches might be
improved.
The final review is a comprehensive look at various
proposals to supplant all or part of the traditional public education system
with institutions from outside that system. Those include vouchers that
citizens might use to gain entry to private schools instead of their local
public schools; charter schools, which present themselves as alternatives to
public schools that have been released from some of the requirements and
regulations under which public schools operate; and proposals to contract the management of public schools out to private,
for-profit companies.
The
Varying Quality of Research
It should be no surprise to the informed reader that, from
one topic to the next, the quality of available research varies greatly. Some
topics, such as class-size reduction, have been the subject of rigorous and
well-controlled experiments that have undergone the intense scrutiny of peer
review and stood up to the test. Other topics, such as private school vouchers,
have produced much in the way of strong opinions but very little well-founded
research to support the conclusions drawn by their staunchest advocates.
Notwithstanding such limitations, each review represents the
best information available to us on the topic at hand. Each presents evidence
for the effectiveness – or the ineffectiveness – of certain reform proposals.
Several include calls for additional research where our knowledge is too scanty
to draw well-reasoned conclusions. And where the reviewers are able to uncover
reforms that do work, they have presented evidence as well for how we can make
each reform as effective as possible.
Many of these reviews point to reforms that can be achieved
with only modest investments, or indeed simply a reallocation of additional
resources. Others offer a warning worth heeding about proposals that seem
certain to waste funds. For the most promising reforms, however, a common theme
emerges: Money does matter. The reforms that offer the greatest promise,
reforms supported by solid scientific research, cannot be advanced merely by
working smarter. They require a deeper investment than we are currently making
in the nation’s school systems.
Spending:
Essential, but Not Sufficient
Yet, as one review after another suggests, simply spending
more money is not sufficient, and is no guarantee of success. Rather, any
enrichment of resources must be husbanded carefully and spent thoughtfully,
with due consideration given to what works and what doesn’t in the pursuit of
each reform strategy.
There is good news, here, however: the research evidence
strongly identifies those investments that promise the highest return. There is more good news as well. Support for
committing additional resources, when that commitment is made thoughtfully and
with a sound basis in action, may run deeper than many might assume. Fully 65
percent of Americans polled for the Washington Post and ABC News in the
spring of 2000 advocated increased federal spending on schools.[2]
Two-thirds of those responding to a 1998 Gallup Poll for Phi Delta Kappa said
they would be willing to pay more in taxes to improve the quality of the
nation’s inner-city schools.[3] The most recent Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa poll
shows support for reforming the existing public education system increasing and
interest in radical reforms such as vouchers fading. Seventy-one percent of respondents, for example, said they
favored public school reforms over measures, such as private school vouchers,
that would seek to supplant the public schools.[4]
Taken together, the chapters that follow constitute a
comprehensive resource guide on the state of education reform and research into
reform. Among the many reforms examined are those that have demonstrated their
effectiveness beyond all reasonable doubt. Others, although they may have won
widespread attention and praise, have already demonstrated through research to
be at best far more limited than their promoters have warranted, or at worst
completely ineffectual. Still others have not lived up to claims made on their
behalf, and require much more research before they can be considered worthy of
endorsement.
These reports,
then, offer to policy-makers and citizens a road map for making public schools
more effective, and to scholars an agenda for further research. It is our hope
that they will sort out for all of us a clearer understanding of what works,
and what we still need to know.
1.
Early Childhood Education
Executive
Summary
Summary of Research Findings
Pre-kindergarten
education for disadvantaged children can greatly increase their cognitive
abilities, leading to long-term increases in achievement and school success.
Although general cognitive abilities as measured by IQ may only temporarily
increase, persistent increases can be produced in the specific abilities
measured by standardized achievement tests in reading and math. In addition, programs can have positive
effects on children’s long-term social and emotional development, reducing
crime and delinquency. To reap all of
their potential benefits, pre-kindergarten programs for disadvantaged children
must be intensive, high in quality, and emphasize both cognitive and social
development.
Recommendations
·
Class sizes and child-teacher ratios must be kept low.
·
Teachers must be highly qualified, with at least a
bachelor’s degree and with specialized training in early education, and must be
paid well.
·
Curricula must be intellectually rich and sufficiently broad
to address children’s developmental needs in all domains.
·
Programs must have an infrastructure adequate to support
best practices, professional development, and ongoing evaluation and
accountability.
·
Programs must engage in an active partnership with parents
and accommodate their needs, including their needs for child care.
·
Programs should start no later than age three.
·
Resources should be focused primarily on disadvantaged
children.
·
The existing array of public school, Head Start, and private
programs all can be used, but both standards and resources must be
substantially increased to produce the desired results.
1: Early
Childhood Education
Rutgers
University Center for Early Education
A number of long-term social and
economic trends have contributed to increasing interest in the education of
children under five over the past several decades.[5] Before 1960, the education of young children
was regarded as primarily a matter of parenting in the home. Since that time the percentage of young
children cared for by someone other than a parent has risen steadily. Today, most young children in the United
States spend much of their day away from their parents, and most attend a
center-based program prior to kindergarten.
Attendance at a center-based program is becoming the norm at ages three
and four. In 1999, center-based program
participation was 70% at age four and 45% at age three.[6]
The center-based programs attended
by children at ages three and four go by a variety of names – child care,
preschool, day care, nursery school.
They provide different numbers of hours, from a couple of hours one or
two days per week to 10 hours per day 250 days per year. They also operate under a variety of
auspices – churches, independent non-profits, for-profits, public schools, Head
Start. Parents regard virtually all of
these programs as educational regardless of the nomenclature used to describe
the program, the hours of operation, or the auspices under which they operate.[7]
Participation rates increase with income and parental education, despite
greater government support for programs targeting children in low-income
families. Children under three are much
less likely to attend center-based programs, and parents seem to view infant
and toddler care as of less educational consequence.[8]
As non-parental education of young
children becomes the norm, the extent to which such programs affect children’s
learning and development has become a vital question for families and
governments. Inequalities in early care and education may be responsible for
much of the inequality in later educational outcomes in the United States.[9] Moreover, there are concerns that parents
may be unaware of the potential for their decisions about early care and
education to have either adverse or positive impacts on their children’s
development. Some have raised hopes
that public support for early education might provide a means for improving the
productivity of our educational system and reducing educational and social
inequalities.[10]
This report seeks to clarify the
potential benefits and possible adverse effects of early care and education,
with particular emphasis on the effects for children disadvantaged by social
and economic circumstances. In
addition, it seeks to summarize what is known about the extent to which
variations in child characteristics, program characteristics, and the social
environment alter the magnitude of the educational benefits from early
education. Key issues in the review are the nature and duration of program
effects. Often there is no dispute
about whether programs have immediate or short-term effects on children, but
there are disputes about the meaning or importance of the observed effects and
whether they persist or result in other long-term effects that are more
consequential.[11]
Early
Childhood Education Research
Short-term
Studies
A great deal of research has been
conducted on the immediate and short-term effects of early education and child
care. Much of this research is found in
two largely separate but related sets of literature: one on child care and the
other on educational interventions.
Traditionally, these two bodies of research have focused on different
questions and had different theoretical and methodological orientations. In recent years, there has been some
convergence, but differences remain.
Early
Intervention Program Studies
In many cases, but not all, the
educational interventions have been half-day or school-day programs that
operate over a school year. Some have been
home-based programs seeking to improve parent-child interactions in ways that
are hypothesized to contribute to improvements in child development. A few home-based programs have provided
educational services directly to the child.
Some programs have delivered both center-based and home-based services
and some have worked fairly extensively with both parents and children. Virtually all center-based programs have
made efforts to involve parents in some way.
These programs typically target children who are expected to have
greater difficulty with school and high rates of grade repetition, special
education, and other problems.
Children have been identified for
intervention based on social and economic factors that are taken as indicators
of risk of school failure, or based on individual assessments of developmental
delay or disability. Poverty is the
most frequently used criterion for disadvantage or risk, but other factors that
might be employed include low levels of parental education or IQ, poor health
or nutrition, poor housing, maternal depression, and family and neighborhood
violence.[12] Targeting based on socioeconomic
disadvantage and based on developmental delay are clearly different
conceptually. As socioeconomic disadvantage can lead developmental
delay, however, there is some overlap.
The early intervention literature
has focused on looking for positive effects on children’s development, most
often looking at cognitive development, but assessing effects in other domains
as well. There are hundreds of studies
of immediate and short-term effects, and their findings have been conveniently
summarized in both quantitative meta-analyses and traditional literature
reviews.[13] Across these studies, the average initial
effect on cognitive abilities is about 0.50 standard deviations, 7 or 8 points
on an IQ test. Average effects on such
socio-emotional outcomes as self-esteem, self-efficacy, motivation, and social
behavior also were positive, though somewhat smaller, 0.25 to 0.40 standard
deviations. No evidence of consistent
negative effects appears in these studies.
A strength of this literature is that similar results are found across
studies employing a wide variety of research designs, including randomized
trials and single-subject designs in which the “treatment” was experimentally
manipulated. Effects are similar in
size for disadvantaged populations and for children with disabilities or
developmental delays.
Recent years have produced
important advances in research as randomized trials, sometimes on a quite large
scale, have been employed to examine the effects of specific approaches to
early educational intervention at specific ages. The findings of these studies add substantially to the knowledge
provided by the studies summarized in previous reviews of the literature. In particular, these randomized trials have
tested the effects of home visitation and other approaches that focus on
parents and the improvement of parenting as means to improve the development of
young children. These include models
emphasizing case management to coordinate and increase the use of existing
services for children beginning in the first year of life. Randomized trials may be especially
important for studies of these types of programs; unmeasured differences among
parents might play a large role in who chooses to enroll in such programs,
leading to substantial biases when researchers attempt to estimate program
effects simply by comparing program families and children to others who did not
choose to enroll.
Results of these studies indicate
that home visit programs frequently fail to influence parenting or to improve
children’s cognitive development. Two
randomized trials have been conducted in California on Parents as Teachers
(PAT).[14]
Both found small and inconsistent effects on parenting knowledge, attitudes,
and behavior and no effects on child development. A randomized trial of the Home Instruction Program for Preschool
Youngsters (HIPPY) serving children ages four and five found significant
effects on cognitive development for one cohort, but not another, and found no
explanation for the inconsistent findings.[15]
The Carolina Approach to
Responsive Education (CARE) study randomly assigned children to three
conditions: full-day year-round educational child care and home visits for
parent education, parent education alone, and control.[16] Treatment began shortly after birth and
continued to age five. The home-visit
group of children had no better outcomes than the no-treatment controls. A randomized trial of home visits in Head
Start similarly found no effects of home visits on home environment or child
development.[17]
A test of Levenstein’s Verbal
Interaction Program (VIP) in Bermuda failed to find positive effects,
replicating the results of Levenstein’s own earlier experimental results, but
contradicting findings from quasi-experimental studies.[18] One potential explanation for lack of
consistent effects comes from a randomized trial that varied frequency of
visitation and found that three visits per week were necessary to produce
significant cognitive benefits.[19] Most programs have provided home visits much
less frequently.[20]
Several studies of attempts to
provide comprehensive services in “two generation” models also have produced
disappointing results. A multi-site
randomized trial of the Comprehensive Child Development Program (CCDP) found
that CCDP substantially increased maternal participation in parenting
education, mental health services, and their own schooling while producing
modest increases in children’s participation in health services and early care
and education over the first five years of life.[21] At age two, small effects were found on some
parent behaviors and child development (2 points on the Bayley Scales of Mental
Development, an effect size of 0.10 standard deviations[22]). No meaningful effects were found at the age
five follow-up, however.[23] Similarly, studies of the Avance family
support program, Child and Family Resource Program, and New Chance all failed
to find significant effects on child development.[24] Research on Even Start found small effects,
at best, on child development.[25]
The recent large-scale multi-site randomized trial of Early Head Start found
very small effects on child development and parent outcomes at age two,
replicating the early findings of the CCDP study with 2 points on the Bayley
and 0.10 effect sizes generally.[26]
The results of research on home
visitation and two-generation approaches that do not provide substantial direct
services to children in centers strongly suggest two conclusions. First,
attempts to influence child development indirectly through parents are
relatively weak. Second, the size of
the effect on child development varies with the amount, in frequency and in duration,
of intervention provided. These
conclusions are consistent with conclusions from earlier reviews of the
literature.[27]
A fairly intensive level of direct service may be required to consistently
produce effects on child development of the average size observed in the
literature generally.
A few seeming exceptions in the
literature suggest that further research is warranted on the circumstances
under which parent-directed programs might be highly effective.[28] Recent studies, however, also document the high costs of parent-focused programs, which
are so substantial that even programs that demonstrate positive effects are
unlikely to be deemed cost-effective.[29]
Although the evidence presented
above is not encouraging regarding the effects of home visitation on children’s
cognitive development, there is evidence that some home visitation programs can
improve the lives and development of young children in other ways. Over 20
years, David Olds and colleagues have found that a program in which nurses
conducted home visits to economically disadvantaged new mothers produced
significant positive effects: reducing the number and improving the timing of
pregnancies and births after the first child,
and reducing children’s need for health care for injuries or ingestions.[30]
The Infant Health and Development
Program (IHDP) study was a multi-site randomized trial to investigate the
effects of weekly home visits starting just after birth, with the addition of
full-day educational child care from ages one to three for low-birth weight
children.[31] The IHDP substantially increased IQ (by more
than 0.50 standard deviations) and decreased parent-reported problem behaviors
through age three. Effects were found
to be larger for children with less educated mothers and for children with
heavier birth weights.[32]
At the age five and age eight follow-ups, significant effects were no longer
found for the total sample. Significant
(though reduced) effects, however, were found for the heavier birth weight
stratum on IQ at ages five and eight and on mathematics achievement at age
eight. No differences in treatment effects were found for any of the parental
education subgroups.[33]
Why effects for the total group in
the IHDP study disappeared is not clear. It is possible that lower-birth weight
children in the control group had access to additional services – such as early
intervention services or preschool special education programs – before the age
of three and between the ages of three and five, which could lead to the
disappearance of differential findings. Conversely, the lighter birth weight
stratum might have greater incidence of neurological damage that limited the
effectiveness of the program. Some
researchers have disputed the follow-up findings of effects for the heavier
birth weight group.[34] It is worth noting, however, that the birth
weight strata were defined prior to the analysis, differential effects for the
two birth weight strata were found at three different points over five years,
and plausible explanations have been offered.
Child
care studies
Research on child care has tended
to study the effects of typical programs on the general population, though some
studies have focused on children in low-income families, with an emphasis on
social and emotional development. In particular,
child care researchers have been concerned with the potential for separation
from the mother to harm social and emotional development. More recently, the field has broadened its
attention to cognitive development and the potential for positive effects, just
as educational research has increased its concerns with social and emotional
development and potential negative effects.
Most child care studies have relied on statistical analysis of natural
variation rather than experiments or even quasi-experiments with specific
“treatments.” Over time child care
research has evolved from asking about the average effects of care to asking
how the effects of care vary depending on interactions among the
characteristics of care, children and families.[35]
Although programs for young
children under a wide variety of names provide both care and educational
experiences, child care is distinguished from preschool education by having as
a primary goal enabling parents to work or pursue other activities. Child care
centers are open for the hours parents work – typically 10 hours a day, 5 days a week – and children often attend more than 30 hours per week. Of course,
child care centers are not the only providers of child care – family day care
homes, nannies, and others, including relatives and neighbors, provide care
outside or inside the child’s home. However, the focus here is on child care
centers and their influences on learning and development.
Looking across many studies, child
care for young children, especially care for infants and toddlers, appears to
produce small negative effects in the short term on child-mother attachment and
on social behavior, particularly aggression.[36] The effects
on aggression may be contemporaneous or at entry to school. Although there is much agreement about these
findings, some researchers have questioned the conceptualization and
measurement of attachment, and it is essential to recognize that the social
behaviors of the vast majority of children in care are in the normal range.[37] In addition, there is no evidence that negative
effects on social behavior persist past the first few years of school or result
in other later problems.[38]
Some studies have failed to find negative effects on aggression and have found
positive effects on other social behaviors.[39]
Recently, new evidence on the
short-term effects of child care on social behavior has come from the NICHD
study of early child care, which had a sample of over 1300 children across 10
sites.[40]
Media reports based on a conference paper indicated that new findings
contradicted previous work and the views of most “experts” that child care was
not harmful for children’s social and emotional development.[41] In fact, the NICHD results reveal nothing
new. Child care (of all types,
including father care) for 30 hours or more per week was associated with more
reported behavior problems at age two, but not at age three, and then again at
ages four and five. At age five,
children who received child care for 30 or more hours per week during the first
four years of life had higher rates of reported problem behavior than those who
had attended less than 10 hours per week.
However, as in other studies, the effects were small. Behavior problems
for children with 30 or more hours of care were not more common than would be
expected for the general population. In
addition, the negative effects on problem behavior were somewhat reduced for
higher quality child care.[42]
Child care also has been found to
produce modest positive effects (effect sizes in the neighborhood of 0.10-0.15)
on cognitive and language development.[43] Some studies find that effects are larger
for children who enter care earlier.[44] Some studies find larger effects for
children from economically and educationally disadvantaged families. In addition, some studies have found that
there may even be small negative effects of child care (in the first three
years) for children from homes offering the richest environments.[45]
There is an implication that the difference between the resources provided to
the child through parental and non-parental care is the active factor. This is
consistent with evidence that the magnitude of effects increases with the
quality of child care as well as evidence on the effects of parental education
and other home resources.[46]
Recent large-scale longitudinal
studies provide additional evidence regarding the effects of child care on the
development of language and cognitive abilities. The NICHD study of early child
care found associations between quality and child’s language and cognitive
development throughout the first three years of life.[47] At age four, higher child care quality was
associated with greater language abilities and better short-term memory and
attention. Child care centers were associated with better language and
cognitive test scores at age four than other forms of care. In addition to associations with observed
quality, it was found that children enrolled in child care centers meeting a
greater number of professional guidelines for child-staff ratio, group size,
teacher training, and teacher education had higher cognitive and language
ability, and higher school readiness. All of these associations were modest in
size, controlling for family background and home environment.[48] Variations in effects with family background
have not been found consistently.[49]
A follow-up of the Cost, Quality,
and Outcomes study investigated the effects of child care classroom quality on
over 800 children in four states from ages four through eight, statistically
controlling for family background.[50] This study found that children who attended
higher quality child care classrooms had higher scores on the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) and on achievement tests for pre-reading and
math abilities at age four. The PPVT-R
is a test of receptive language, but it often is used as a “quick” IQ test.
Continued follow-up found significant effects on PPVT-R scores through
kindergarten, but effects declined as children moved toward age eight
(controlling for quality of later schooling).
Effects on math scores persisted through age eight. Depending upon the specifics of the
analysis, effects on pre-reading and math achievement are found for children
with less well-educated mothers, but not for children with highly educated mothers.[51]
Long-Term Effects
Reviews that simply summarize the
results of studies of early care and education have found that cognitive
effects frequently decline over time and are negligible several years after
children leave the programs.[52]
This pattern has led some to conclude that even intensive preschool programs
produce no lasting effects on cognitive development. In this view, initial effects are either artificial (children
learn to answer test questions better, but are not really smarter) or do not
lead to long-term gains in cognitive ability.
Others have called attention to differences among programs and concluded
that large-scale public programs for children in poverty produce no meaningful
improvements in cognitive abilities, while more intensive, small-scale (and
impractical) programs may produce small gains in cognitive development. For example, Herrnstein and Murray conclude:
“Head Start, the largest program, does not improve cognitive functioning. More intensive, hence more costly, preschool
programs may raise intelligence, but both the size and the reality of the
improvements are in dispute.”[53]
They and others contend that to the extent more intensive programs have
substantive long-term benefits these are more likely due to socialization than
to effects on cognitive abilities.[54]
Barnett challenged this view
through a review of the literature with a
specific focus on the long-term effects of programs on achievement and school
success, selecting studies for inclusion if they met four criteria: (1)
children entered the program as preschoolers (in Head Start this could include
some five-year-olds prior to the availability of kindergarten); (2) the program
served economically disadvantaged children; (3) at least one measure of
achievement or school success was collected at or beyond age eight (Grade 3);
and, (4) the research design identified treatment and no-treatment groups from
program records.[55] The requirement for follow-up through third
grade allowed sufficient time to observe the fade-out in effects that is widely
believed to occur.[56]
Thirty-seven studies were found
that met these criteria, a larger number of long-term studies than had been
included in previous research reviews and syntheses. All are studies of educational interventions, although five of
the model programs provided services through full-day child care. The studies can be divided into two
categories: one for small-scale research models, the other for large-scale
public programs. In 15 studies,
researchers developed model programs to study the effects of controlled
treatments. In 22 other studies,
researchers investigated the effects of on-going, large-scale public programs:
10 studied Head Start programs, eight examined public school programs, and four
studied a mix of Head Start and public school programs.[57]
Model
program studies
The
model program studies varied in entrance age, duration, services provided, and
historical context (1962 to 1980). In
later years, significant percentages of the comparison groups are likely to
have attended a preschool or child care program, leading to underestimation of
program effects. All focused on highly disadvantaged populations. The average
level of mother's education was under 12 years in all studies, and under 10
years in five studies. The majority of children were African-American in every
study except for one, in which they were Hispanic. From program descriptions of
teacher qualifications, class size, student-teacher ratio, and other
information, it is apparent that model programs were much more resource-intensive,
and therefore more expensive, than typical public programs for young children.
Two studies limited their samples in additional ways that could have affected
their results. The Perry Preschool
study selected children based on low IQ scores, and its sample had
substantially lower IQ's at age three than children in other studies.[58] The Milwaukee study selected children whose
mothers had IQ's below 75.[59]
Seven of the model program studies
were randomized trials. Two stand out
because they began with sample sizes larger than 30 in each group, and had low
attrition throughout follow-up: the Abecedarian and Perry Preschool studies.[60] The others suffered from extremely small
initial samples or serious attrition. The
remaining eight model program studies constructed comparison groups, and it is
possible that the groups differ in ways that may have biased the comparisons
either for or against the program. When
randomized trials are not used, it is difficult to distinguish program effects
from the effects of pre-existing differences (which may be unmeasured) between
children and families in the preschool group and the comparison group, a
problem sometimes referred to as “selection bias.”
Large-scale
public school programs
The 22 large-scale public program
studies generally represent public preschool programs targeting children in
poverty. Most programs served children part-day for one school year at age
four. Four programs served children
from age three. In nearly all of the
studies children moved on to regular public elementary schools. In the Child Parent Center (CPC) studies,
intervention continued through third grade, and the effects of the preschool
and school-age programs have been estimated separately. All of the large-scale public program
studies used quasi-experimental designs.
In most studies, comparison groups were identified later, and there are
no pre-program measures of children's cognitive abilities to verify that the
two groups began with the same abilities. Many studies employ family background
measures to assess comparability and adjust for initial group differences, but
the family background measures tend to be crude, increasing the risk that
unmeasured differences between groups bias the results.
Study
Findings
IQ
All of the model program studies
found positive initial effects on IQ.
In most cases IQ effects were sustained at least until school
entry. Estimated effects for 12 model
program studies with IQ data at age five ranged from 4 to 11 IQ points (effect
sizes of 0.25 to 0.75), with the exception of two studies, one
quasi-experimental reporting no effect and one randomized trial of a highly intensive program reporting an
estimated effect of 25 points. None of
the large-scale program studies provided IQ test data, but a few administered
the PPVT; these reported no significant effects on the PPVT after school
entry. In all but two studies, the
effects on IQ clearly are transitory.
Randomized trials of two model
programs (the Milwaukee and Abecedarian interventions) that provided full-day
intensive interventions over the first five years of life provide evidence that
such programs may produce very long-term, possibly permanent, increases in
IQ. The long-term effect is about 5 IQ
points, which is substantially smaller than the initial effects of the
programs. Their findings contrast sharply with the apparent failure of later,
less intensive interventions to produce lasting IQ gains. This suggests that very early intensive
interventions may have more fundamental or general effects on the cognitive
development of children in poverty.
The IQ findings of both studies
have been discounted by scholars advocating the importance of heredity as an
explanation for the low cognitive abilities of children in poverty.[61] Even the strongest claims for heredity leave
sufficient room for the estimated effects, however. Moreover, their arguments
that the study results are questionable because IQ effects appear early (in the
Abecedarian study) or are inconsistent with insignificant effect estimates for
school outcomes (Milwaukee) do not hold up to scrutiny. The Abecedarian study finds persistent IQ
effects after controlling for maternal IQ and infant home environment,
presumably sources of pre-existing differences in IQ between groups.[62]
Estimated effect sizes for special education, grade repetition, and academic
achievement are large in the Milwaukee study. With the limited statistical
power provided by a very small sample size, it is inappropriate to construe
lack of statistical significance as evidence that IQ effects occurred without
effects on academic success.[63]
Achievement
In contrast to the IQ findings,
results regarding long-term effects on achievement varied considerably across
studies. Five of 11 model program studies with achievement data found
statistically significant positive effects on achievement test scores beyond
Grade 3. Evidence of achievement
effects was strongest in the seven randomized trials, as all found
statistically significant effects on achievement at some point. The two
randomized trials with low attrition rates, the Abecedarian and Perry Preschool
studies, found effects on test scores persisting into high school. Nine studies
of large-scale programs never found statistically significant effects or lost
statistical significance by Grade 3. Twelve studies of large-scale programs
found significant positive effects on achievement at least through Grade 3.
Much of the variation in findings
regarding long-term effects on achievement across programs can be explained by
differences in research methods and procedures. Detailed analyses indicate that
in many studies the apparent fade-out in effects on achievement can be
attributed to flawed research methods, which bias estimated effects toward
zero, and high rates of attrition, which decrease statistical power over time.
Reliance on achievement test data from schools' routine testing programs is a
major source of potential problems. As
testing typically is conducted by grade level for children in regular
education, studies systematically lose the more poorly performing students from
year to year as the cumulative percentage of children retained in grade, placed
in special education, or otherwise omitted from testing grows. Program and comparison group children with
valid test scores become more similar over time (essentially equated on grade
level), gradually hiding the true differences between the groups.[64]
School Progress and Placement
School progress and placement were
primarily measured by the percentage of children repeating grades, given
special education services, and graduating from high school. Cumulative school
records data on these outcomes are not subject to the attrition bias introduced
by the use of school test data.
Estimated effects on school progress and placement are uniformly
positive and overwhelmingly statistically significant. The evidence regarding High School
graduation is highly consistent as well.
All six studies (including model, Head Start, and public school
programs) produced large estimates of effects on the graduation rate, although
only in the four with larger sample sizes were these statistically
significant.
Estimated effects on grade
repetition and special education placements can be combined across studies to
estimate average effects across studies and compare the effects of model and
large-scale programs. Model programs were associated with 20 percentage point
lower rates of special education placement and 15 percentage point lower rates
of grade repetition. The comparable
figures for large-scale public programs are 5 percentage points and 8
percentage points, which are significantly less than the model program
estimates in both cases.[65]
Social Development
Most
long-term studies of educational interventions for disadvantaged children have
emphasized research on cognitive and academic outcomes. However, most studies that assessed effects
on social behavior have found positive effects (though a few have found no
significant effects), and no study reported elevated aggression beyond Grade1.[66] Five studies of educational interventions
that investigated long-term effects on social behavior found positive effects
on classroom behavior, social adjustment, and crime and delinquency reports.[67]
This includes two of the three studies
that found elevated aggression associated with full-time child care that began
in infancy.[68] The third found no long-term effect on crime
and delinquency, but rates were low for both groups.[69]
New
Long-Term Research
Recent research on the long-term
effects of Child Parent Centers (CPC) in Chicago provides an extremely valuable
addition to knowledge regarding early education for disadvantaged children.[70]
This longitudinal study with a sample of over 1500 children estimated the
effects of a Title I funded half-day preschool and extended elementary program
from ages three to nine operated by the Chicago public schools. Separate estimates are provided for the
preschool and elementary components and effects are estimated through age
21. Controlling for family economic
disadvantage, CPC preschool participants had significantly lower rates of
special education placement, grade retention, juvenile arrest, and arrest for a
violent offense. They also had
significantly higher achievement test scores in reading and math through age 15
and a higher rate of high school completion.
Effect sizes are in the 0.20 to 0.50 range, perhaps on the high side for
large-scale programs generally. Effects are somewhat larger for children in the
highest poverty neighborhoods.
In addition, the CPC study data
were used to estimate structural models to investigate the chain of effects
from preschool program to long-term outcomes. These analyses support the view
that early education’s long-term effects on achievement and school success
primarily result from initial effects on cognitive abilities. These results replicate findings of
structural equation modeling with the much smaller Perry Preschool data set,
and the estimated chain of effects is remarkably similar to that for the Perry
Preschool program.[71]
Costs
and Benefits
While skeptics of making early education more broadly
available through public funds frequently cite cost as the basis of their
objections, some research has shown that quantifiable benefits result that can
make a high quality early education program cost-effective when properly
accounted for. Barnett has estimated the costs of benefits of a high quality
early education program based on the findings of the Perry Preschool study.[72] The cost savings to society from avoiding
crime and delinquency contribute a great deal to benefits. However, there also are important economic
benefits from reducing the direct costs of educational failure and from
increasing adult economic success by preventing educational failure. These benefits are not hypothetical, but are
based on demonstrated increases in earnings and employment and decreases in
reliance on public assistance. His
estimates reveal a high rate of return, comparable or better than one could
expect to earn from investing in the stock market. Even after discounting to calculate present value (a financial
technique for making present costs and future benefits comparable), the
estimated benefits are roughly ten times the costs.[73]
It is important to note that this includes none of the economic benefits that a
full-day, year-round program might generate by enabling parents to work more or
participate in education and training.
Barnett’s results have been confirmed by a recent Rand report[74]
that scrutinized his estimates and by similar estimates finding that the
benefits of the Chicago Child Parent Centers far exceeded costs.[75]
Program Design and Effectiveness
From the evidence reviewed so far,
it should be clear that some programs are more effective than others. Educational interventions for disadvantaged
children, including Head Start and public school programs, have larger
estimated effects than child care programs.
This is true whether child care program effects are estimated for the
general population or for disadvantaged children. Model programs have larger estimated effects than Head Start and
public school programs. However, some caution is required in drawing
conclusions because programs vary with respect to the disadvantage of the children
served and their social, political, and economic contexts, as well as in their
design.
Nevertheless, it seems clear that
a dose-response is observed with respect to quality, or intensity of resources
provided. Studies of the effects of
child care quality find that higher quality is associated with greater effects,
and the quality of child care generally is lower than the quality of
large-scale public programs, which in turn are of lower educational quality
than model programs.[76] Child care programs typically produce
smaller effects even with disadvantaged children, compared with Head Start and
public school programs. Studies that compare model programs with large-scale
public programs (including child care) serving the same population find model programs
to be more effective, confirming the cross-study inference.[77]
Additional guidance regarding
program design can be gleaned from analyses of the model programs, cross-study
comparisons of programs and their outcomes, research on variations in the quality
and effects of child care programs, and research on the effectiveness of
elementary school education.
Conclusions drawn from all of these sources are remarkably
consistent. More highly educated,
better prepared, and better compensated teachers are more effective.[78]
Smaller class sizes and better teacher-student ratios result in better
teaching, more individual attention, and larger cognitive gains that improve
achievement and school success, especially for disadvantaged students.[79]
Other characteristics of programs that have generated the largest achievement
and other gains for disadvantaged children include: a strong focus on language,
strengthening children’s cognitive abilities generally, interactions that
prepare children for the discourse patterns and other demands of school without
pushing down the elementary school curriculum, individualized support for
learning, regular opportunities for teachers to reflect with highly
knowledgeable leaders or others, and collaborative relationships with parents
to support the child’s learning and development.[80]
Research provides less guidance
than policy makers and administrators might like regarding two key aspects of
program design that have significant implications for cost: age of start and
hours per year (length of day and days per year). Highly intensive programs beginning earlier have had larger
effects than those in which children start later, but the optimal entry age is
unclear as each additional year adds to cost.
Two longitudinal studies indicate that programs beginning at age three
produce substantial long-term benefits for disadvantaged children and that the
benefits substantially exceed the costs.[81] Even intensive programs beginning at age
four might bring significantly fewer disadvantaged children up to the
thresholds of learning and development required for early school success. With respect to length of day and number of
days per year, the research on the relative lack of progress for disadvantaged
elementary school children during the summer is suggestive, and many parents
may choose not to send their children to programs that do not address their
needs for child care.[82]
In addition, benefits from effects on parental employment associated with child
care should be incorporated into any assessment of costs and benefits.
Summary
and Recommendations
Pre-kindergarten education for
disadvantaged children can greatly increase their cognitive abilities, leading
to long-term increases in achievement and school success. Although general cognitive
abilities as measured by IQ may only temporarily increase, persistent increases
can be produced in the specific abilities measured by standardized achievement
tests in reading and math. In addition,
programs can have positive effects on children’s long-term social and emotional
development, reducing crime and delinquency.
To reap all of their potential benefits, pre-kindergarten programs for
disadvantaged children must be intensive, high in quality, and emphasize both cognitive and social development.
Pre-kindergarten programs for
disadvantaged children are among the most strongly evidence-based of those
approaches to improving academic achievement and educational attainment that
have been tested. However, they will produce the desired results only if
implemented in accord with the principles for effective programs that emerged
in this review. These include:
·
Class sizes and child-teacher ratios must be kept low. The
research literature suggests that the best practice is probably a class size of
15 with a teacher and an aide.
·
Teachers must be highly qualified, with at least a
bachelor’s degree and with specialized training in early education, and must be
paid well.
·
Curricula must be intellectually rich and sufficiently broad
to address children’s developmental needs in all domains.
·
Programs must have an infrastructure adequate to support
best practices, professional development, and ongoing evaluation and
accountability.
·
Programs must engage in an active partnership with parents
and accommodate their needs, including their needs for child care.
·
Programs should start no later than age three. Beginning prior to age three might produce
substantially better results, but only if a highly intensive center-based
program is provided up to school entry.
·
Resources should be focused primarily on disadvantaged
children, recognizing that income is not the only risk factor for poor
achievement and that the poverty line is an arbitrary cut-off for educational
purposes. Universal pre-kindergarten
programs can target resources on disadvantaged children by providing them with
smaller classes, better teachers, more hours, and a sliding fee scale so that
higher-income families share the cost.
·
The existing array of public school, Head Start, and private
programs all can be used, but both standards and resources must be
substantially increased to produce the desired results. There are many
advantages to such a strategy, but the time and costs of increasing quality to
the necessary level should not be underestimated.
The way that educational costs are
conventionally calculated, the foregoing recommendations will be seen as
expensive. However, they are not as
expensive as the costs of failing to implement them: poor achievement, high
rates of school failure and special education, low productivity, and high crime
and delinquency. Also, because
disadvantaged children are highly concentrated geographically, these costs
contribute to problems of segregation, urban decay, and suburban sprawl that
add to the costs of current policy.[83] From this perspective, it is difficult to
see how society can afford not to implement high-quality pre-kindergarten
education for disadvantaged children.
2. Class-Size Reduction in Grades
K-3
Executive Summary
Summary of research findings
Reducing
class size in Grades K-3 has been found to have academic benefits in all
subject areas, especially for children living in poverty. Studies published
since the mid-1980s show that classroom behavior and test scores improve while students
are in small classes. Further, the improvement persists through the middle
school and high school years, even though students return to full-size classes.
To reap the full range of benefits, it is important that pupils enter small
classes in the early years (Grades K or 1) and continue in small classes for
three or more years. Students who attend small classes are also more likely to
take college-entrance examinations; this is especially true for minority
students.
Recommendations
·
Resources should be provided to schools and districts
serving low-income pupils to restrict class sizes in the primary grades to no
more than 18 pupils.
·
To ensure that the research-documented benefits of small
classes are realized, policies for implementing small classes should include
the following provisions:
·
Begin class-size reduction in K-1 and add additional grades
in each subsequent year.
·
Use the reduced-class model supported by the research: one
teacher in a classroom with 18 or fewer pupils. Pupils assigned to small
classes should represent a cross-section of students in the school, not
just difficult-to-manage students.
·
Plan for class-size reduction in advance, hiring
fully-qualified teachers. Additionally, some programs of professional support and
development are likely to be helpful.
·
Systems should be established to monitor class-size
reduction initiatives continually and closely, providing feedback to
administrators, policy makers, and parents about the successes of the program.
Teachers should be afforded opportunities to discuss problems as they arise,
and to have them addressed by the school administration.
2:
Class-Size Reduction in Grades K-3
[1]
State University of New York at Buffalo
The advantages of
small classes have been touted by parents and educators throughout modern
history. Only in recent years, however, has there been a significant impetus
for reducing class sizes in American public schools. This is partially due to
the fact that teachers, parents, policy makers, and the courts understand the
importance of small classes for teaching and learning, that education has risen
to the top of state and national agendas, and that high-quality research has
demonstrated the academic and behavioral benefits of small classes, especially
for children at risk. This report summarizes the current state of research on
class-size reduction and its implications for educational policy – especially
as it pertains to the academic performance of students at risk.
Class-size reduction research
The impact of class size on educational outcomes is among
the most researched areas in education. By the 1980s, more than 200 studies had
appeared on the topic. Some early studies did not establish a connection
between smaller class sizes and student achievement, but mainly attempted to
weigh the value of small classes against larger classes. Others suffered from
problems of methodology and data collection. Most acceptable studies, however,
supported the importance of smaller classes in promoting student success. In a
review of early studies, Educational Research Service[84] and Robinson[85]
concluded that reducing class sizes in
the primary grades to 22 or fewer students appeared to have a beneficial effect
on reading and math scores, especially for economically disadvantaged pupils.
Since that time, more sophisticated experiments have confirmed and extended
this conclusion.
The first refined analysis to connect reduced class size to
academic achievement was a 1978 meta-analysis by Glass and Smith of 77 earlier
research studies.[86]
This analysis found that not only did small classes improve the chances for
academic achievement, but that small classes could also be used as a predictor
of student success. Glass and Smith showed that “as class size increases,
achievement decreases.” Repeated studies have provided evidence of important
relationships between the number of students in the classroom and the success
of teaching and learning in the same classrooms. This research demonstrated that
an appropriate class size was fewer than 20 students, and that the greatest
benefits of small classes are obtained in the early grades.
Large Scale Studies
Based on this early work – particularly the findings of
benefits to poor students and to young students – beginning in the mid-1980s
some large-scale projects and an actual experiment in class size and student
outcomes were started. Among them were Indiana’s Prime Time; HB 72, which
limited class sizes in Grades K-4 to 22 students in Texas; STAR and its related
studies in Tennessee; Wisconsin’s SAGE Project; and California’s massive
Class-Size Reduction (CSR) effort. Prime Time and STAR were particularly
important because they provided the motivation for many districts, states, and
the federal government to reduce class sizes on a large scale. Several overviews of the more recent class
size research are available including a book by Achilles[87]
and monographs by Finn[88]
and by Ehrenberg, Brewer, Gamoran, and Willms.[89]
Prime Time
in Indiana
Between 1981 and 1983, Indiana launched Project Prime Time
as a statewide initiative. Prime Time began this reduction with first grade,
but was not entirely a CSR initiative. In particular, it added teacher aides to
classrooms to reduce the adult-to-child ratio – not truly resulting in small
classes. Prime Time reported mixed results with some gains in student
achievement on reading and math scores. Gains in reading were larger than those
in math.[90]
An important outcome of Prime Time was the demonstrated feasibility of large-scale
efforts to change classroom organization in the pursuit of improved student
learning.
Project
STAR in Tennessee
From 1985-1989, the STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio)
experiment was conducted in Tennessee. This large-scale (n=11,600) longitudinal
study of class sizes provided the legislature and administrators with
convincing data to support class-size reduction for students statewide. At each
grade level K-3, a strictly controlled study was set up to examine whether
small (13-17) classes made a difference in student accomplishments in the early
years, when compared to regular (22-25) classes, or regular classes with a
full-time teacher aide.[91]
Because of its magnitude and scientific rigor, the results
of STAR carried more weight than the earlier studies. The most important
findings are:
·
In every grade level (K-3) students in small classes
outperformed students in larger classes on every achievement test administered
– in all subject areas and on both norm-referenced and criterion-referenced achievement
tests.
·
The benefits of small classes were greater for minority
students and students attending inner-city schools than for white students or
those in non-urban areas. In many cases, the advantages were two to three
times as great for African-American students as for white students.
·
New analyses of the STAR data have shown that both starting
early (K or 1) and continuous participation (3 to 4 years) in small
classes lead to the greatest benefits.[92]
Students who had participated in Project STAR in K-3
were followed after they returned to full-size classes in Grade 4. The most
important long-term findings are:
·
Pupils who attended small classes in K-3 performed
significantly better in all academic subjects in all subsequent Grades, 4, 6,
and 8.[93]
·
The more years pupils spent in small classes in K-3, the
longer the benefits lasted into later grades. For example, at the end of Grade
6, pupils who had attended small classes for one year had a 1.2-month advantage
in reading over pupils who attended full-size classes. Pupils who had attended
small classes for two years had a 2.8-month advantage. Three years in a small
classes produced a 4.4-month advantage, and four years produced a 6-month
advantage in reading.
·
Pupils who attended small classes in K-3 were more likely to
graduate from high school and more likely to take SAT/ACT college admissions
tests. The impact on minority students was particularly strong, thus reducing
by 60% the gap in SAT/ACT rates between black students and white students.[94]
Additional strength was added to the STAR results by
secondary analysts at the University of London, The University of Chicago, and
Princeton University who examined the STAR data using different statistical
approaches.[95]
All approaches yielded the same conclusions.
Other large-scale CSR efforts, described below, have
confirmed the basic findings of STAR in other locations. Research using the
STAR data continues today; researchers are examining the long-term effects of
small classes on teen births[96]
and on employment and schooling after high school.[97]
Besides the impact on academic achievement, Project STAR
revealed that:
·
Teacher morale is increased in small classes, a finding
consistent with all prior research.
·
Teachers of small classes spend more time on active teaching
and less on classroom management, a finding substantiated in other research in
addition to STAR.
·
There are fewer disruptions in small classes and fewer
discipline problems, a finding replicated in other studies.
·
Students’ engagement in learning activities is increased.[98]
·
In-grade retentions are reduced.[99] Because
retained students are disproportionately minority, male, and from low-income
homes, the reduction in retentions also reduces the achievement gap in
schooling.[100]
Project STAR found no achievement advantages associated with
full-time teacher aides. In the most complete examination of this issue,
researchers concluded that there were no differences in academic achievement
“between ... students in teacher aide classes and students in regular classes
on any test in any grade (K-3).”[101] The
authors continue:
In several
instances, students in aide classes performed more poorly than students in
non-aide classes... In terms of learning behavior, again no significant
differences were found ... In several instances, behavior was marginally poorer
among students in classes with aides.[102]
Also, the problems teachers encounter in teaching and in
managing classes “are not reduced when a teaching assistant is present.”[103]
STAR and the black-white achievement gap
The disproportionate impact of small classes on minority
students and students attending inner-city schools reduced the achievement gap
between black and white students. For example, the black-white gap in pass
rates on the first grade reading mastery test was 14.3% in full-size classes –
that is, 14.3% more whites mastered the reading tests. In small classes, the
gap was reduced to 4.1%. Both black students and white students gained
significantly by being in small classes, but black students gained more.[104]
Other research has examined the achievement gap in more detail and
reached the same conclusions.[105]
Bingham performed a comparative analysis examining white vs. minority
differences and also concluded that smaller class sizes are an effective strategy
in reducing the gap. According to Bingham, the smallest white-minority gap was
associated with small classes beginning no later than in Grade 1 and lasting
for a minimum of two years. The finding of a reduced black-white gap in college
aspirations, indicated by students’ taking SAT/ACT tests, shows a positive
impact on behavior in later grades as well.[106] The
effect of small classes on the achievement gap has been confirmed in other
class-size initiatives, particularly Wisconsin’s Project SAGE, discussed below.
Critique of Project STAR
Despite the exceptional research design used in STAR, some
factors were beyond the control of the research team. In particular, students
moved from one neighborhood to another and changed schools in the process. This
led to some attrition from STAR schools over the four-year period and, in a
small number of cases, students changing from one class type to another when
they changed schools. Economist Eric Hanushek has suggested that these factors
may have compromised STAR’s findings, a criticism echoed by Witte[107]
as well as by Ehrenberg et al.[108]
These issues have been addressed by several data analysts. Krueger[109]
undertook a thorough analysis of attrition in STAR. His work showed that
neither of these factors produce “bias” in the study’s main findings, that is,
average differences in performance among the class types. Hedges and his
colleagues[110]
compared the Grade 3 performance of STAR participants who were still in
the sample in Grades 4, 6, and 8 with that of participants who left the sample.
Again, the difference between small-class and large-class students was the same
for “stayers” and “leavers.” Although attrition did result in a somewhat
selective long-term sample, the basic findings of the experiment still hold.
Other large-scale class-size initiatives
Project STAR provided the scientific support for the
long-held belief of educators and parents that small classes in the early
grades had many advantages. Because the impact was particularly strong for
students at risk, STAR helped motivate many districts, states, and even the
U.S. Department of Education to undertake further reduced class initiatives. By
the year 2000, approximately 35 states had class-size legislation.
Wisconsin’s Project SAGE, the Burke County project in North
Carolina, the massive CSR program in California, and the federal initiative
begun during the Clinton administration are among the CSR initiatives that were
accompanied by formal evaluations. These programs were not intended to be
controlled experiments: their foremost purpose was to provide an intervention –
small classes – whose efficacy had already been demonstrated. Occasionally,
critics lose sight of that purpose and comment on these programs’ lack of
tightly controlled research designs.[111] Despite
this criticism, each of the programs was accompanied by an extensive evaluation
and each produced results consistent with those of STAR.
The SAGE
Program in Wisconsin
The Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE)
program is a statewide effort to increase the academic achievement of children
living in poverty by reducing the student-teacher ratio in kindergarten through
Grade 3 to 15:1. The program began in 1996 and was targeted toward schools with
a high proportion of students living in poverty. School districts in Wisconsin
that had a least one school with 50% of children or more living below the
poverty level were eligible to apply for participation in SAGE. Within these
districts, any school with 30% of students or more below the poverty level was
eligible to become a SAGE school. Funding was set at a maximum of $2,000 per
low-income student enrolled in SAGE classrooms (K-3). During the 1996-7 school
year, 30 schools in 21 school districts, including seven in Milwaukee, began
the program in K-1. Grade 2 was added in these schools in 1997-98 and Grade 3
in 1998-99.
The program requires that participating schools implement
four interventions: (a) reduce the pupil-teacher ratio within a classroom to 15
students per teacher, (b) establish “lighted schoolhouses” open from early in
the morning until late in the evening, (c) develop “rigorous” curricula, and
(d) create a system of staff development and professional accountability. While
most class-size reductions were accomplished by assigning 15 or fewer students
to a teacher within one classroom, some alternate configurations were also
adopted. They included classrooms of approximately 30 students with two-teacher
teams, shared space classrooms with two separate teaching spaces each with one
teacher and about 15 students, and floating teacher classrooms where an
additional teacher supports classes of about 30 students during reading and
math instruction. The class-size reduction was an immediate intervention in the
schools whereas the other SAGE provisions were implemented by schools with
considerable variation and, at times, with considerable delays.[112]
To determine the
impact of SAGE pupil-teacher reductions on student achievement, the SAGE
evaluation uses a quasi-experimental, comparative change design. The
quasi-experimental design was used because it was not possible to randomly
assign students and teachers to classrooms and to keep classroom cohorts intact
from year to year. The evaluation uses a control or comparison group of
classrooms from districts participating in the SAGE program for the purpose of
assessing the impact of SAGE class-size reductions. These comparison schools
have normal class sizes, and, as group, resemble SAGE schools in family income,
achievement in reading, K-3 enrollment, and racial composition.
The longitudinal evaluation of the SAGE program has produced
substantial scientific data on the effects of small classes in Grades K-3. The
positive impact of small classes on student achievement in SAGE classrooms,
especially for minority students, has been a consistent finding for four years
and has confirmed earlier findings from STAR. The greatest achievement gains
were made in first grade with second- and third-grade students maintaining the
gains. Perhaps of greater significance, SAGE has provided guidance for policy
makers and administrators about how best to implement small classes at the
district and local level through extensive non-experimental data collection
such as principal and teacher questionnaires and classroom observations and
teacher interviews.[113]
Like STAR, Project SAGE has not been without its critics.
Some criticisms concern weaknesses in the project’s experimental design and
methods of analysis, for example, the lack of random assignment, student
attrition, a ceiling effect on some of the tests.[114] These
comments may not be germane because SAGE, although it included a formal
evaluation component, was not intended to be a controlled experiment. More
pertinent are the comments that the expansion of SAGE has met with a shortage
of qualified teachers and classroom space, especially in the Milwaukee Public
Schools. To deal with these problems at some schools, teachers have “doubled
up,” putting two teachers in one classroom with 30 students.[115]
Team teaching presents both benefits and problems. Among the latter,
teachers have to work well together and collaborate well in order for
instruction to be optimal. Extensive advance planning is needed in order for
this to occur, a principle also learned in California (below).
The Burke
County Project in North Carolina
Studies of the effects of small classes in Burke County,
North Carolina, reinforce SAGE and STAR findings, while addressing questions
about financial and educational policy implications of CSR.[116] With the
goal of improving education in relatively poor Burke County, a pilot program in
1991-1992 reduced class size to 18 in Grade 1 in four schools, and in Grades 2
and 3 in subsequent years. Pilot program results were highly positive. On the
strength of these findings, the program was extended in 1995-1996 to all
elementary schools, Grades 1-3, providing the same positive findings. By 2000,
classes of about 17:1 were in all 17 schools with Grades 1-3. By comparing the
CSR classes with the control classes, researchers reported higher rates of time
on task for students and more emphasis on student interaction. The smaller
classes significantly outperformed regular classes in math and reading at the
end of Grades 1, 2, and 3, and later these same students continued to outperform
the others after returning to regular classes in Grades 4 and 7. An important
feature of the Burke County initiative was the ability of administrators to
implement small class sizes with no increase of per-pupil expenditures for the
district. This was accomplished through the careful reallocation of existing
resources, especially the reassignment of qualified staff members who had not
been teaching their own classes all day, to reduced size classes.
The
California CSR Program
Class-size reduction began in California in 1996. Within a
period of several months, new teachers were hired and placed in Grade K-3
classrooms across the state, reducing class sizes to 20 pupils or fewer. In
three years of operation, this largest CSR initiative has resulted in 28,000
new teachers being deployed and virtually every classroom in Grades 1-2 being
reduced in size. Since the program was implemented so quickly, very few large
classes were available to serve as a comparison group for evaluators. The
evaluation has focused on Grade 3, in which small but statistically significant
achievement gains were reported in reading, language, and mathematics.[117] The benefits of small classes were in the
range 0.05 to 0.10 standard deviations.
Although these would be considered small effects, they replicate the
results from project STAR for pupils who entered small classes in Grade 3; in
STAR, the largest effects were obtained for students who entered small classes
in earlier years (K or 1).
California’s experience provided important insight into the
types of planning needed before implementing a large-scale CSR initiative: The
speed with which teachers were hired resulted in many teachers being placed in
classrooms who had not even completed their formal teacher credentialing
programs. As a result, in the first year of California’s CSR program, the
percentage of K-3 teachers who were not fully credentialed rose from 1.8% to
4%; this figure increased to 12.5% and13.4% in subsequent years.[118]
Had the program been implemented in phases, the drop in the preparation and
experience levels of California’s teachers could have been remedied.
Federal
Initiatives
Begun in 1999-2000, the federal class-size reduction program
provided funds to schools serving high-poverty populations. By the second year
of operation the program supported CSR initiatives in 36 major urban school
systems and increased its funding to $1.3 billion from $1.2 billion. School
districts targeted their funds toward low-achieving schools and those
identified as highest-need schools. Local schools districts used 87% of the
federal funds to hire new teachers. In its first-year report, The Class-Size
Reduction Program: Boosting Student Achievement in Schools Across the Nation, the
U. S. Department of Education highlights the expected benefits of class-size
reduction. Federal class-size reduction funds were aimed at helping to make
classrooms more manageable so that teachers could focus on teaching and
learning. Further, teachers were expected to report more enthusiasm for
teaching and opportunities to address students’ individual needs, accompanied
by a boost in students’ reading scores and overall achievement scores.[119]
The federal class-size reduction program permitted schools
to implement several models of small classes, including some that were not
small classes at all. The latter included large classes (e.g., 32-40 pupils)
that were team-taught by two full-time teachers, and pairs or triplets of
larger classes (e.g. 30 pupils) that shared a “rotating” teacher who would
spend part of the day in each classroom. Both of these models reduce the pupil-teacher
ratio (PTR) in classrooms but do not reduce the actual class size, that is,
the actual number of pupils in the room who interact with the teacher full-time
each day. STAR researchers have pointed out that the strong findings of
reduced-class benefits do not apply to these settings.[120]
In its first year of operation, approximately 29,000 new
teachers were hired under the federal CSR initiative. An evaluation contract
was awarded to Abt Associates, a Boston firm. However, the ensuing calendar
year saw a change in administrations in Washington. President Bush’s education
plan, “No Child Left Behind,” targets federal class-size reduction money for
elimination, apparently disregarding the research base that supports class-size
reduction. Nevertheless, with or without support from the federal government,
small classes have become standard practice in many states and districts across
the country and are producing noticeable benefits to teachers and pupils.
Research, Policy, and Practice
The research on class size supports a number of practices
that can be implemented to enhance students’ academic performance. The benefits
of small classes, especially for minority students and students from low-income
homes, have been confirmed time and again. STAR and the studies to follow STAR
have also drawn these conclusions:
Timing and continuity of class-size reduction. The most
recent analyses of STAR data show that the greatest initial impact on student
achievement is obtained when students enter reduced-size classes in
kindergarten or Grade 1.[121]
Pupils who attended small classes for at least three years had significant
sustained benefits through Grade 8; the carry-over effects of fewer than three
years were mixed. Several large CSR initiatives have started in Kindergarten or
Grade 1 and expanded to Grades 2 and 3 in subsequent years. This is good
policy, especially if the same students attend small classes for several years
in a row.
What does ‘small class’ mean? Research on class size has
been conducted according to high scientific standards; this cannot be said of
any other educational intervention to improve pupil achievement. Project STAR
has received praise from scientists and policy makers;[122] it has
provided the starting point for several national conferences of researchers
concerned with the need to base educational decisions (like medical decisions)
on strong empirical evidence.[123]
The evidence provided by STAR, and by other CSR efforts that
confirm STAR findings, are not relevant to other classroom arrangements. The
results tell us little or nothing about programs that reduce pupil-teacher
ratios without decreasing the number of students in the room. They tell us
little or nothing about team-taught classrooms, about “push-in” or “pull-out”
classrooms with a common teacher, or about part-time class-size reduction, for
example, just for reading. The STAR results do tell us about one alternative
reduced-ratio arrangement: a full-size class with a full-time teacher aide does
not work.
Alternative class configurations such as team-taught classes
or classes with support teachers for reading and math instruction need their
own research to evaluate whether or not they offer viable options to increase
student achievement. This research is important, especially given the shortage
of space faced by many schools and districts. However, for schools to benefit
from the strong findings about small classes, the accumulated body of research
indicates that actual class sizes must be small: that is, fewer than 20 pupils
for the entire school day.
Professional support and development for teachers of small
classes. Due to the short lead time in hiring teachers for California’s CSR program,
the quality of the entire state’s teaching force declined. In other locations,
difficulties in locating and placing qualified teachers in newly created
classrooms has created a level of disorganization that required weeks or months
to settle.[124]
These dynamics can easily offset the benefits that small classes provide.
The experiences of districts across the country show that
CSR initiatives benefit from careful advance planning. The most effective
settings were those in which school administrators, parents, and community
leaders were informed about the program and what it was expected to accomplish.[125]
Several initiatives were hindered by the lack of lead time to find space for
CSR classes or to identify teachers before the school year began.
Professional support and development activities for teachers
have been useful as well. Research has demonstrated clearly that the academic
benefits of small classes are obtained without programs of professional
development. Project STAR demonstrated advantages with no intervention other
than reduced classes (and teacher aides). Nonetheless:
·
Many teachers being placed in elementary classrooms are new
to teaching, new to the classroom, and new to their school setting. They have a
critical need for help “getting started” and for targeted on-the-job training.
·
Many veteran teachers are transferring from other kinds of
settings to small classes. The instructional practices that may be ingrained
from years of experience in these settings are often not current best practice.
·
It may be possible to enhance the benefits of small
classes by taking advantage of the opportunities the class size provides; good
professional development can help make this happen.
The recent report, “The Professional Development and Support
Needs of Beginning Teachers,” discusses this issue in depth.[126]
Particular classroom strategies and particular domains of professional support
are identified in the report that are especially useful when implementing CSR
programs.
The need to monitor CSR programs closely. In recent years,
many districts have undertaken CSR programs, both with and without an
accompanying evaluation. The absence of a systematic evaluation can create
problems subsequently. It may not be necessary to document that academic
achievement is improved by CSR in every site; the benefits have already been
demonstrated scientifically. Follow-up evaluation is necessary, however, to
make sure that smaller classes are implemented correctly and that problems are
addressed quickly. Several evaluations, including one in Buffalo, New York,
were able to identify implementation problems during the school year and to
provide mid-course corrections. It is also important that basic information is
available to administrators, parents, and legislators to demonstrate that the
investment in small classes has been spent properly.
There is also a great deal yet to be learned about small
classes and the opportunities they provide, as the SAGE, California, Burke
County, and US Department of Education programs have demonstrated. A regular
system for monitoring reduced-class programs, addressing problems that arise,
and reporting progress to administrators and the public has been demonstrated
to be an important ingredient of CSR initiatives. Several models have been
forwarded to help districts monitor or conduct a formative evaluation of their
CSR program.[127]
Questions that Remain
Many questions about small classes remain to be answered.
For example:
·
How small does a class have to be in order to reap the
benefits demonstrated by STAR and other studies? Most CSR interventions are
using “fewer than 20 pupils” as their guideline, but research has not
established a specific threshold that must be met.
·
What are the effects of small classes in later grades, for
example, the middle school years or high school years? The early overviews of
research on class size[128]
reported mixed results based on a relatively small number of studies. Recent
years have not seen an increased number of studies of class size in the upper
grades. Several studies have been performed using a federal data set, the
National Longitudinal Study of 1988. These have produced non-significant
results[129]
and mixed results,[130]
respectively, for Grade 8. The complexity of the situation, with students
moving from class to class for different subjects, has undoubtedly discouraged
research in this arena.
·
What are the effects of combining small classes with other
interventions, especially those targeted to students at risk, such as full-day
kindergarten, preschool programs, remedial reading programs?
·
What are the long-term effects of small classes on high
school and post-secondary outcomes, for example, college attendance and
employment? Researchers are currently studying these questions.
The broadest question not fully answered to date is, “Why
is it that small classes work as well as they do?” Many studies of
teachers’ instructional strategies have compared teachers in small classes with
teachers in full-size classes, but few if any systematic differences have been
found.[131]
It is clear that small classes make additional time available to teachers –
time that would be spent on record keeping or classroom management in larger
classes.[132]
The time saved may be used to provide more active teaching to the class and, in
theory, more individualized instruction. However, research has not shown
consistently that students in small classes receive more individual attention
or instruction directed to their specific needs.[133]
The strongest hypothesis about why small classes work
concerns students’ classroom behavior. Evidence is mounting that
students in small classes are more engaged in learning activities and exhibit
less disruptive behavior.[134]
Educational and psychological theory explain why this may occur. For example,
in a small class, each student is constantly on the firing line; he or she may
be called on at any time to answer questions or complete assignments. Students
cannot escape by sitting in back corners of the room or avoiding the teacher’s
attention. By the same token, teachers cannot ignore students that they might
otherwise prefer not to attend to, for whatever reasons. Psychologists have
forwarded the principle of “diffusion of responsibility” to explain why members
of small groups tend to take more individual responsibility than do members of
large groups – a principle supported by empirical research.[135] Further, if
one’s classmates are well behaved and engaged in the learning process, then
this behavior will become the norm that others will follow. Research on the
socializing effect of group norms is also extensive.[136]
Further research is needed to explain fully why small
classes have behavioral and academic benefits. However, the evidence to date
suggests that it is the very feature of smallness that has the greatest
impact. If this principle is correct, then it is also clear that large classes
with two teachers (reduced pupil-teacher ratio but not reduced class sizes) are
less likely to yield the same benefits.
Controversy over the value of reduced class
size
Despite the appeal of small classes and despite the strong
evidence of their value, the ideas have not gone unchallenged. In particular,
economist Eric Hanushek has engaged in a vigorous campaign to convince policy
makers and the public that small classes are not an efficient way to improve
student performance. Few researchers take this position, but Mr. Hanushek has
promulgated this view widely in the professional and public media. The view is
consistent with his thesis of many years that fiscal resources spent on public
education are not related to academic outcomes.
The conclusions are based on two sets of analyses,
summarized in a monograph published by the University of Rochester, then
Professor Hanushek’s institution,[137] and in a
document giving both sides of the argument produced by the Economic Policy
Institute.[138]
The first analysis is an examination of pupil-teacher ratios and academic
performance for the entire country from 1970 to 1995. According to Hanushek,
although the ratios declined regularly during that period, academic performance
as indicated by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) did not
increase. The second analysis is a meta-analysis of the results of 277
econometric studies of the relationship between educational “inputs” (including
class size) and academic achievement. According to Hanushek, these studies show
no systematic relationship with class size.
Hanushek’s position holds sway with some policy makers, and
he has advised the current administration, which has marked reduced-class-size
funds for elimination. A number of education researchers and other economists,
not to mention most practitioners, dispute Hanushek’s conclusions, however.
Among the points that have been forwarded to rebut Hanushek’s position are
these:
All of the studies cited by Hanushek are studies of
pupil-teacher ratios (PTRs), mainly computed at the district, state, or
national level. Pupil-teacher ratios at these levels do not reveal the actual
class sizes – that is, how many students are actually in classrooms. The PTR
includes regular teachers, special education and Title-I teachers, teachers who
don’t have their own regular classrooms (for example, remedial teachers,
language, music, or art teachers, or librarians), administrators, and other
staff members as well.[139]
Pupil-teacher ratios at these highly aggregated levels reveal little or nothing
about the actual classroom conditions in which pupils are learning. In fact, it
has been shown that large urban districts tend to have low pupil-teacher ratios
because of the large numbers of Title I and remedial teachers, yet often have
badly overcrowded classrooms.[140]
This distinction is discussed in depth in Ehrenberg et al., who concluded that
“class size is not the same thing as the pupil/teacher ration. Indeed, it is quite different.”[141]
Hanushek’s reviews do not include any of the studies of
class size reviewed by either Glass and Smith or by Educational Research
Service. He also does not include class-size studies such as Prime Time, Project
STAR, or SAGE.
Project STAR, being a controlled scientific experiment,
provides stronger evidence than is possible through “production function
analysis,” the technique used in all the studies cited by Hanushek. A
randomized experiment such as STAR is the highest quality research design
available; it is the method of choice used by the Food and Drug Administration,
for example. This point is acknowledged by Hanushek in these two manuscripts
and others. For this reason, Princeton economist Alan Krueger concluded: “The
design of the STAR experiment clearly produces results that are more persuasive
than [all] the rest of the literature on class size.”[142]
Hanushek’s conclusions are selected in order to show just
one view of the data. For example, in order to show that NAEP scores did not
increase in the period from 1970 to 1995, Hanushek focused on the reading
performance of 17-year-olds, with no attention to the NAEP Grade 4 or Grade 8
results and no attention to topics that are taught explicitly to older
students.
One extensive PTR study using NAEP data has been performed
at Educational Testing Service.[143] The study
involved a national sample of 10,000 fourth-grade students and 10,000
eighth-grade students. This study found significant gains in mathematics of
reduced PTRs, with greater impact on fourth-grade students than on eighth-grade
students. Also, the gains were larger for inner-city students than for any
other group. This study is not included in the Hanushek review.
Hanushek’s methods of analysis have also come under attack.
Researchers at The University of Chicago noted that Hanushek’s analyses did not
take into account that some studies were more informative than others because
they were based on larger samples.[144] They
reanalyzed a portion of Hanushek’s data using meta-analysis methods that weight
studies according to the sample sizes, and found the opposite conclusion – that
resources (including class size) do have an impact on academic
achievement.
Economist Alan Krueger performed an even more complete
reanalysis of Hanushek’s studies.[145] First,
Krueger noted that the 277 “studies” cited by Hanushek were in fact 59 studies
from which 277 statistics (“effect sizes”) were drawn. Some studies contributed
far more to Hanushek’s conclusions than others. (In fact, between them, two
studies contributed 48 of the 277 effect sizes; as it happens, these two
studies accounted for most of the negative findings reported by Hanushek.)
Several other studies were misinterpreted or mis-coded before being entered
into Hanushek’s analysis. Overlooking the latter issue, Krueger performed a
complete reanalysis of Hanushek’s studies, counting each of the 59
investigations just once. In additional analyses, he also took into account
that some studies were of higher quality than others, and that some studies had
more atypical samples than others. In all three analyses, Krueger’s results
were the reverse of Hanushek’s. He concluded that resources in general, and
pupil-teacher ratios in particular, are significantly related to academic
performance in the direction consistent with Project STAR: lower ratios
associated with higher performance.
Summary
and Recommendations
Class-size reduction is sound education policy. It has been
shown to be effective time and again, and no serious challenge has been made to
the research findings that support those conclusions. Educators have long known
this. No school improvement effort relies on larger rather than smaller
classes. Indeed, programs targeted to students with academic problems (for
example, special education or other remedial programs) are all based on
small-class arrangements. Parents often place children in private schools at
least in part because of small classes. Many interventions, such as home schooling,
Reading Recovery, or Success for All, rely on the ultimate small class,
one-on-one instruction.
Research has now documented the advantages of small classes,
especially in the elementary grades and especially for students who attend
small classes for two, three, or four consecutive years. The effects are
especially pronounced for minority students and those attending school in large
urban districts. As a result, the achievement gap is reduced, both in the years
while pupils attend small classes and later on when they consider applying to
college. Teachers, meanwhile, benefit as well. They spend less time on
classroom management and clerical tasks, and have more time available to get to
know each student better. Reduced-size classes provide the opportunity
for improved instruction and for increased learning to take place.
The weight of this evidence supports the following
recommendations for policy-makers:
·
Resources should be provided to schools and districts
serving low-income pupils to restrict class sizes in the primary grades to no
more than 18 pupils.
·
To ensure that the research-documented benefits of small
classes are realized, policies for implementing small classes should include
the following provisions:
1)
Begin class-size reduction in K-1 and add additional grades
in each subsequent year.
2)
Use the reduced-class model supported by the research: one
teacher in a classroom with 18 or fewer pupils. Pupils assigned to small
classes should represent a cross-section of students in the school, not
just difficult-to-manage students.
3)
Plan for class-size reduction in advance, hiring
fully-qualified teachers. Additionally, some programs of professional support
and development are likely to be helpful.
Systems should be established to monitor class-size reduction
initiatives continually and closely, providing feedback to administrators,
policy makers, and parents about the successes of the program. Teachers should
be afforded opportunities to discuss problems as they arise, and to have them
addressed by the school administration.
3: Small
Schools
Executive
Summary
Summary of research findings
Research on school size points to several
conclusions about the benefits of smaller schools. Smaller school size has been
associated with higher achievement under certain conditions. Smaller schools
promote substantially improved equity in achievement among all students, and
smaller schools may be especially important for disadvantaged students. Many US
schools are too large to serve students well, while smaller schools, especially
in impoverished communities, are widely needed. The evidence favoring the benefits of small schools, however,
cannot be generalized to so-called “Schools Within Schools,” which to date lack
a substantial research base supporting the belief that they provide benefits
equivalent to smaller schools.
Recommendations
Policy
makers should:
·
Find ways to sustain existing small schools, especially
in impoverished rural and urban communities.
·
Acknowledge an upper limit for school size, acknowledgment
that means many schools should be much smaller than the upper limit.
·
Not design, build, or sustain mega-schools serving upwards
of 500 to 2,000 students, depending on educational level and grade-span
configuration.
·
Design, build, and sustain much smaller schools in
impoverished districts or districts with a mixed social-class composition. In very poor communities, design, build, and
sustain the smallest schools.
·
Not oversell smaller schools. Operating smaller schools in
impoverished communities is good policy, but it is not a “magic bullet.”
·
Not believe that mega-schools serving affluent areas are
necessarily excellent or even very good.
Most accountability schemes obscure this fact because they do not
generally take socio-economic status into account.
·
Recognize that smaller schools in impoverished settings
accomplish miracles even when test their scores are about average.
3: Small
Schools
ERIC
Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, AEL
Even though the study of school
effects has been a major sociological enterprise over the past two decades,
empirical analyses tend to slight structural variables such as size.[146]
Matters have changed a bit since Morgan
and Alwin made their observation in 1980, and, today, despite a surprisingly
thin research literature, “small schools” is a concept in danger of becoming a
slogan. Because slogans can impede
thoughtfulness, a critical assessment of the concept is now timely.
What are “small schools”? What do different authorities mean by “small
schools”? Is there a difference between
“small schools” as set off by quotation marks, and schools that just happen to
be small?[147]
What influence does school size exert on student achievement? What do we know? What don’t we know? What
relationship does school size bear to the achievement of poor children? What
are the points of contention? Given our
inevitably limited knowledge, what are the implications for practice?
“Small schools,” in short, is not
so simple a topic as it might seem at first glance. This review aims to convey both the complexities and the
practical applicability of research on small schools. In particular, it seeks
to present the most substantive empirical work as the best chance
for understanding this complex issue.[148]
Small
Schools Research
Effusive praise of small schools
is easily found in the education literature these days. One of the most frequently cited syntheses,
for instance, portrays small schools as superior on virtually all measures of
concern.[149]
Warrants for the conclusions drawn in that synthesis come from sources –
magazine articles, evaluations of single projects, first-person narratives, and
empirical studies (that is, actual research) – of widely varying quality, and
readers are provided with no assessment of that quality. Similar reports abound.[150]
In contrast with such syntheses,
this one gives most weight to studies that exhibit larger sample sizes,
peer-reviewed publication, and, for one set of studies, state-level
replications. Evaluations, syntheses,
and anecdotal reports are used in the present review to support discussion of
the focal studies. This review also
takes note of the substantial number of unknowns in the area of small-schools
research, and of related methodological differences in the focal studies.
Defining Small Schools
The first challenge is to examine
what we really mean by “small schools.”
The best empirical literature has focused its efforts simply on school
size.
Small schools exist everywhere, as
a feature of the variability of school size.
Some states, however, maintain proportionally more small schools – sometimes
far more – than do others,
but no agreement prevails, even among small-schools advocates, about what
defines a small school. Small in rural
Vermont is apt to differ sharply from small in Queens, New York, and high
schools in rural Vermont are considerably larger than they are in rural
Montana. This variability indicates
that school size, more than class size, is an issue that requires research
designs sensitive to within-state variability.[151]
In general, one can think of high
schools enrolling 400 or fewer and K-8
or K-6 elementary schools enrolling 200 or fewer (on the basis of a 2:1 ratio
with high schools) as small. The related positions taken in state-level
policies are very wide, and all of them lack solid justification from the
research literature, which has not examined possible threshold effects of size.[152]
In cities and suburbs, “small
schools” has recently become a reform movement.[153] Rural
communities, however, struggle to maintain small schools in the face of
states’ attempts to close them on business principles based on cheap inputs.[154]
These differing interpretations have practical significance because confounding
new, reformist small schools with extant, traditional small
schools obscures the salient structural issues that are the actual object of
most research related to small schools.
Norms
of Size
In contrast to many nations, the
U.S. Constitution is silent about the human right to education and leaves the
provisions for schooling to the discretion of the various states. The geography, history, economics, politics,
and cultures of the states differ considerably, and, in consequence, school
size varies substantially from state to state.
For instance, the percentage of
9-12 high schools enrolling 400 or fewer students (a small school by most
definitions) ranges from 81% in Montana to 0% (none) in Hawaii, Rhode Island,
and Vermont.[155] Hawaii is also the state with the largest
percentage of 9-12 high schools enrolling 1,000 or more students (92%). Though there is a relationship between the
rural nature of a state and the proportion of small schools it maintains, the
relationship is not strong. In
comparison with the urban states of California (where 78% of the state’s high
schools enroll 1,000 or more students), Florida (84%), Hawaii (92%), and
Maryland (76%), such urbanized states as Illinois, New Jersey, and
Massachusetts have only about 40% of high schools enrolling 1,000 or more
students.[156]
In the District of Columbia, just 22% of all 9-12 high schools enroll this many
students, whereas 28% of DC high schools enroll 400 or fewer students. Thus, DC
maintains proportionately more small high schools than Vermont.
There is an apparent relationship
between school and district size as well.
States that have retained small districts are somewhat less likely to
have created large high schools, all else being equal. The data for Hawaii – which is administered
as a single district – make sense in this light: as a single huge district, it operates almost all high schools
with 1,000 or more students and none with 400 or fewer.
Small
Versus Smaller
Although many observers of the
school size issue long for a uniform definition of small and large schools,[157]
smaller and larger are by far the more useful terms, since, as
suggested above, school size varies so dramatically by state.[158] Look within states, rather than across
states, for useful comparisons. Vermont
and California, for instance, confront dramatically different circumstances,
and their de facto approaches to school size differ accordingly. In making within-state comparisons, however,
size rank (students per grade in rank order) needs to be viewed in
consideration of grade-span configuration, educational level, and locale
(rural, suburban, urban). A small
elementary school in Vermont will not be the same size as one in California.
Enrollment
Per Grade as School Size
Why should the number of students
a school enrolls be of much concern? In
fact, it turns out that school size is not best represented as total
enrollment. Surprisingly, exactly the
same total enrollment can describe schools of quite different size. This assertion is counterintuitive, but
consider a 9-12 school with 800 students and a 9th grade academy
enrolling 800 students. Are they really
the same size? What about a 6-8 middle
school with 800 students and a K-2 primary school with 800 students? It is easy
to see that the 9th grade academy is really larger than a four-year
high school with the same enrollment. Because it is both the expectation of the
public and a professional norm that elementary schools are smaller than middle
or high schools, the K-2 school is also “larger” than a middle school with the
same enrollment. Thus in each case, the latter school is larger than the
former, though total enrollment is the same in all four schools.
For this reason, for both research and real-world action, enrollment
per grade is a better metric of size than total enrollment. With this
measure it’s easy to see that a ninth-grade academy with 1,500 students is
really four times as large as a 9-12 high school with exactly the same total
enrollment, just as a K-2 school enrolling 800 students is at least three times
the size of a K-8 school enrolling 800 students.
If policy makers can better
appreciate the role of grade span configuration in determining school size, they
can avoid the misconception that merely reducing total enrollment in a school
(by building new schools with narrower grade span configurations, a national
trend) necessarily constitutes a reduction in school size. More likely, this trend is resulting in
larger schools.[159] Reconfiguring the grade spans of schools is
a time-honored tradition in American education used to make schools larger, but
it could also be used to make schools smaller.[160] For instance, imagine a district with 1,200
students in separate buildings that house Grades K-2, 3-5, and 6-8. Each school houses 400 students, or 133
students per grade. If, however, the
same buildings were used to house three K-8 schools, the reconfigured schools
would actually be smaller (400/9 = 44 students per grade). Creating smaller schools, then, is probably
easier than most educators and policy makers seem to realize.[161] One research team has found substantial
achievement benefits for smaller schools in impoverished communities, using this
definition of size.[162]
The
Upper Limits of Size
The notion that some size might be
absolutely too large for a school is a comparatively recent development. Most
of the 20th century was required to make schools as large as they are, and the
emerging popular consensus on small schools probably reflects a widely held
perception that schools have grown too large.[163] Authoritative opinions now
exist about the upper limits of school size.
Various authorities have given “informed judgments” about absolute upper
limits of school size. Predictably, the
opinions differ significantly. The
author[164]
has advised 1,000 as the absolute upper limit for high schools and 500 as the
absolute upper limit for K-8 or K-6 elementary schools. Tom Sergiovanni, on the
other hand, believes that no school should enroll more than 300 students.[165] Deborah Meier clearly agrees.[166] Lawton concluded that fiscal studies point
to an upper limit of 500 for a K-8 elementary school.[167] The bases of these opinions vary. Howley and Lawton claim a basis in different
research literatures (student achievement and finance, respectively). Sergiovanni and Meier base their opinions on
long and thoughtful practice.
Official policy has, however, also
addressed the issue. Florida recently
adopted legislation setting 900 as the upper limit for new high schools, 700
for new middle schools, and 500 for new elementary schools.[168] Hawaii,
with the largest high schools in the nation,[169] adopted, and then scuttled, upper-limit
legislation.[170]
In a 1999 speech to the American Institute of Architects, former Secretary of
Education Richard Riley suggested 600 as the upper limit for any school.[171] The Education Commission of the States
opined that 1,000 was the boundary between “large” and “too large.”[172] Finally, representing professional
organizations, the National Association of Secondary School Principals proposed
600 as the upper limit for high schools.[173] Once again,
all of these limits reflect the previously noted general public expectation and
the professional norm that elementary schools require a lower size limit than
middle or high schools.
To set an upper limit is to advise
against the construction of schools larger than the limit. As has already been
explained, however (see note 7), just
because a school’s enrollment falls under that limit does not necessarily make
it small. This is an issue of logic and language, not of research findings.
Many schools, though not all,
should probably be substantially smaller than the upper limits. Additional information – aside from
“authoritative opinion” – is clearly needed to make good judgments about
locally appropriate size: the findings
from research summarized shortly suggest how much smaller they should be, at
least for the purpose of maximizing the academic achievement of impoverished
students.
The
School Within a School
Because of the prevalence of the
school-within-a-school (SWAS) strategy for coping with the organizational
challenges of mega-schools, it’s worth reiterating the structural view of size
adopted here. A structural view recognizes that a whole system is more than the
sum of its parts; if a structure is broken apart, the advantages of the structural
whole vanish. On this view, larger
schools that adopt administrative simulations of smallness are unlikely
to exhibit the benefits of structurally smaller size. In fact, research evidence of the effectiveness of SWAS is
negligible.[174]
Educators tend to believe that a
practice proven effective in one setting can be transferred to another. This belief is the assumption behind “what
works” and “validated programs.” When, however, the practice itself and the setting (smaller school size) are
one and the same, the assumption seems more especially dubious than usual. Can one transfer a setting out of its
setting? It seems illogical. Unfortunately, educators’ faith that processes can
be effectively abstracted from the real structures that house them has
popularized SWAS as a “small schools option.” In fact, separate schools housed
under a single roof need to be truly autonomous. Otherwise, they will not be
small schools, but just another grouping stratagem.
School Size and Student Achievement:
The Extant
Literature
Despite widespread interest in
small schools, few large-scale studies or replications have addressed the
issue.[175]
Certainly, a huge professional literature does address school size, (largely a
result of the 20th-century push to build larger schools), but a
surprisingly small proportion of this literature constitutes the research base,
and even fewer studies jointly address the issues of school size and poverty as
a major contemporary concern.
The ERIC database now indexes
approximately 2,750 items with the terms “small schools” or “school size.” Among this very large number of resources,
however, just 47 research reports have addressed the relationship of
achievement, school size, and poverty in some fashion between 1966 and
2001. More surprising still, only 23
research reports – during the whole period from 1966 to 2001 – define school
size, socioeconomic status, and student achievement as a major focus of
investigation.[176]
Within this surprisingly small literature, the studies that are conceptually
related to the Matthew Project[177]
are the only ones that pursue the issue systematically in multiple replications.[178]
Surprise at the thinness of the
research base should be tempered by the realization that, until very recently,
researchers, practitioners, and policy makers alike generally assumed that
smaller schools, in general, must be academically inferior to larger
ones, especially at the secondary level. Given this legacy, the early part of
the research literature related to academic achievement and school size aimed
to demonstrate that there was no significant difference between the achievement
of larger and smaller schools, once statistical controls for socioeconomic
status (SES) were imposed.[179] The previous literature had not deployed
such controls.
Subsequent investigations,
building on the work of Noah Friedkin and Juan Necochea,[180] suggested
that the interaction between size and socioeconomic status may explain the
apparent absence of a significant difference at the school and district level.
Another line of investigation focused not on school- or district-level test
scores, but on student-level gains, and concluded that smaller high
schools had an advantage, regardless of SES.[181]
Selecting
the Best Research
Three bodies of research,
contributed by three different teams of researchers, represent the best empirical
work done to date examining the influence of school size on academic
performance with particular attention to poverty or socioeconomic status. The work done by these teams includes
prominent peer-reviewed publication, quantitative methodologies, large scale
research designs, and various replications and quasi-replications. Issues of theory, method, and ability to
generalize persist within this group of studies, and it would be wrong to say
that all the evidence points to a single set of clearly demarcated
conclusions. Nonetheless, after
presenting the evidence, the author offers a practical interpretation of the
accumulated evidence for policy and administrative action.
The three bodies of work are those
by:
1.) Herbert Walberg and colleagues;[182]
2.) Valerie Lee and colleagues;[183] and
3.) Craig Howley and colleagues.[184]
The studies highlighted here all
used some form of achievement test scores, not grades or GPA, as dependent
variables. They all used some form of
regression analysis to estimate the influence of size on achievement. The Walberg and Howley teams’ studies
analyzed test scores at the school and district level at single points in
time. Lee and colleagues used
individual students’ test scores, computed as gain scores (achievement change over
time) rather than scores from a single point in time.[185]
Despite many similar qualities,
then, these three bodies of work address somewhat different issues (school and
district performance in the case of the Howley and Walberg teams, and growth in
student learning in the case of the Lee team) and deploy different ways of
looking at the issues (different regression models, national versus state data
sets, and substantially different theoretical models and research questions).
School Size, Academic Achievement,
and Socioeconomic Status
Circumstances influence student
achievement complexly, of course, and simply comparing achievement levels in
smaller versus larger schools will often show that smaller schools have lower
achievement levels than larger schools, simply because smaller schools are
often located in poorer communities in many (not all) states.
Dealing
Responsively with SES
Valid comparison across schools
and districts requires at least that the direct influence of poverty be
accounted for in some legitimate fashion, since poverty (or SES) is one of the
major influences on achievement; ignoring its well-documented influence is a
mistake even worse than presuming that nothing can mitigate its influence.[186] The three major lines of research assessed
here adopted two methods of accounting for SES: controlling for it (the usual method in educational
studies) and theorizing about its particular interaction with school
size.
Herbert Walberg and colleagues
were among the first to control for SES in significant studies of the
relationship school size and district size to achievement.[187] These
studies, in effect, removed the influence of SES, leveling the playing
field. Lee and Smith’s studies
controlled for the influence of SES in the same fashion as the Walberg team,
but in a more complex fashion.[188] For both teams, the relevant SES control
variables are, in effect, additional (additive) terms in a linear equation.[189]
In contrast to the Walberg and Lee teams, the Howley team
adopted a specific school- and district-size theory originated by Noah Friedkin
and Juan Necochea,[190]
which multiplies size and SES.
Friedkin and Necochea viewed the
size of both schools and districts as a structural feature presenting
opportunities and constraints in the realization of student achievement.[191] They postulate that schools and districts
differ in their capacity to realize opportunities and to overcome restraints.
If this is the case, the effects of size should vary rather than (as is assumed
in other studies) remaining constant across settings. The key question is what feature of settings might make such
variation regular and predictable, rather than chaotic and unpredictable. Friedkin and Necochea observed:
Studies of the distribution of public funds ... suggest that
the power of a system to extract resources from its environment, the wealth of
the environment from which a system draws its resources, and the priority
accorded to the delivery of high quality services all are associated with the
SES of a system’s client population.[192]
Hypothetically, then, affluent
communities would be in a good position to maximize the opportunities and
minimize the constraints of size, but the reverse would hypothetically be true
in impoverished communities. In this
model, the interaction is realized as a multiplicative term in the
equation. SES, then, is an
environmental condition hypothetically capable of regulating the effects of
school and district size.
The
Walberg Team
The small-schools-are-good line of
evidence has been under development since the early 1980s, particularly by
University of Chicago researcher Herbert Walberg in collaboration with various
associates.[193]
Others contributing significantly to this line of evidence include Mark Fetler.[194]
Although Fetler is not part of the Walberg team, his important study on this
issue is considered here because its findings favor smaller size generally
rather than differentially, and his unit of analysis is the school rather than
individual students.
Walberg’s investigations included
a variety of influential variables such as various SES measures, expenditures,
class size, teacher characteristics, and various measures of school and
district size.[195] With SES controlled, the Walberg team’s
studies have focused on the influence of school and district size, using data
sets from New Jersey.
As reported by Fowler and Walberg,[196]
the influence of district size was several times as great as school size.[197] The significance of this body of work, on
the whole, is that it rigorously and consistently identified school and
district size as negative influences on achievement. The research established the possibility that smaller schools and
districts were academically, and not just socially, advantageous regardless of
SES.
In a study focusing on dropout
rates, but using achievement as an independent variable, Fetler, working with
data on California high schools, reported findings similar to those of Walberg
and colleagues.[198]
School enrollment in his study was negatively correlated to achievement without
any controls for SES. [199]
After controlling for size and SES, Fetler sought to determine whether schools
with better aggregate achievement also exhibited higher dropout rates, which
would suggest that the higher achievement was the result of lower-achieving
students dropping out. His analysis showed the opposite: With socioeconomic status (SES) and size
controlled, higher achievement was actually associated with a lower dropout
rate. This finding suggests that equity
and excellence not only can be realized simultaneously but might actually
reinforce one another.[200]
The Lee
Team
Lee and colleagues’ principal
interest was school restructuring, and included school size as one feature of
interest, rather than as the key focus of research.[201] Whereas the
Walberg and Howley teams studied only public schools, the Lee team’s key study[202]
also included Catholic schools and elite private schools, with sector an
additional control variable. This body
of work is based exclusively on data from the National Center for Education
Statistics’ National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88), and the
focal study analyzes the individual achievement gains of students over the
course of their time in high school.
Lee and Smith formed eight high
school size categories.[203] Compared with students attending high
schools of 1,201-1,500 students, those in schools enrolling 601-900 students
and those enrolling 901-1,200 students showed higher achievement gains.
Students in the 301-600 student category performed somewhat better in reading
and somewhat worse in mathematics than those in high schools of 1201-1500
students. Students in high schools
enrolling fewer than 300 students performed significantly worse, however.[204]
Improvements in the equity of
achievement gains, [205]
however, were robust in high schools attended by NELS:88 students in the three
smallest size categories. In other words, disparities in achievement gains
based on SES were smallest in those categories of school. The improvement in
the equity of gains in reading achievement was stronger than improvement in the
equity of gains in math achievement and was highest in the 301-600 category.[206]
Lee and Smith derived these
recommendations for policy makers:
1.) many high schools should be smaller than
they are;
2.) high schools can be too small;
3.) ideal size does not vary by type of student
enrolled (i.e., low-SES or minority); and
4.) size is more important in some types of
schools, because disadvantaged students suffer disproportionate achievement
costs in very large or very small schools.[207]
Overall, Lee and Smith concluded
that a one-size-fits-all ideal size (600-901) was the best equity and
excellence compromise. The next section of this review will take exception to
some of these findings and recommendations.
The
Howley Team
The author and his colleagues
extended the Friedkin-Necochea theory and investigations to a series of
state-level replication studies.[208] Like the Lee team, this team was concerned
with both achievement excellence and equity. The studies, along with the
original Friedkin and Necochea study in California in 1988, show that in
affluent settings, the influence of school size on the excellence of student
achievement (at the school and district level as measured with state-mandated
tests) is positive, but in impoverished settings, the influence is
negative. In other words, larger sizes
are academically beneficial in affluent communities, but they are harmful in
impoverished communities, producing a differential excellence effect.[209]
In addition, as with the Lee studies, achievement equity was substantially
enhanced in smaller schools (schools in each state were divided by the median
size). Importantly, these findings apply
equally to district size.
The strength of the differential
excellence effects, however, varied markedly from state to state. For instance,
predominately rural Montana maintains many small schools. The state showed
weaker differential excellence effects, and generally higher achievement equity
across the board, than did other states. The smaller half of schools in the
state exhibited lower socioeconomic status than the larger, somewhat more
affluent, half of schools. Despite that difference, achievement equity was so
high in Montana that the smaller half of schools exhibited higher
achievement levels than the larger, more affluent half. Even with a reduced
correlation of poverty and achievement across the board, however, equity was
greatest in the smaller schools and districts in the state. At some grade
levels within the smaller half of schools, the relationship between poverty and
achievement was not statistically significant.[210]
Evidence of the differential
excellence effect of school size was strong in California, Georgia, Ohio, West
Virginia, and Texas. The Alaska study,[211]
unlike the others, used student-level data and a host of control variables
relevant to students, schools, and communities. But even with such extensive controls in place, the interaction
between SES and school size remained a statistically significant influence on
individual-level achievement.
Bickel and Howley extended the
Matthew Project investigations to a multi-level analysis using their Georgia
data set, and examining schools within districts.[212] The single-level Georgia analyses had not
found a differential excellence effect at the district level. The multi-level
study, however, found influences interacting in a variety of ways. Poverty at
the school level, for instance, interacted with the overall size of a district.
A number of other such interactions between multiple influences also were
found. The multi-level study also
discovered a remarkable pattern to equity results among four groups of schools,
created by dividing schools and districts at the medians of school and district
size.[213] Achievement was least equitable in
larger schools in larger districts (many of these “larger districts” were rural
countywide districts) and most equitable in smaller schools in smaller
districts (some of which operated in urban locales). Smaller schools in larger districts were the second most equitable
configuration, and larger schools in smaller districts were the second most
inequitable configuration. In
general this study showed that school- and district-level variables interacted
complexly to influence achievement excellence and equity.
Critiquing the Best Research
Three consensus implications seem
to lurk in this body of work:
1.) smaller school size is associated with higher achievement under
some conditions;
2.) smaller schools promote substantially improved achievement equity;
and
3.) smaller schools may be especially important for disadvantaged
students.
Without a broader critique of the
limitations and the sharp differences among the works cited, however,
translating these vague implications directly into practice is unwise.
The Walberg studies seemed to
suggest that smaller schools and districts were universally more efficient and
effective, but the findings pertain almost exclusively to New Jersey and are
hardly generalizable to other states or to the nation as a whole. The norms of school and district size are
quite different from state to state.[214] It’s quite possible that replications in
contrasting states would yield substantially different results.
Nonetheless, the studies of the
Walberg team were among the first to suggest the possibility that smallness
might harbor an achievement advantage, a hypothesis that had not
previously been taken very seriously by prominent researchers.[215] The Walberg team’s district-level findings
have been almost entirely ignored, as have those of the Howley team.[216]
Lee and Smith analyzed a national
data set (NELS:88), rather than state data sets, largely because their research
questions focused not on school size, but on national efforts to sponsor school
restructuring. Use of a national data set to study school size specifically is
problematic if the state-level variations in the norms of size are not
accounted for. This critique, in the
author’s view, compromises the external validity of the focal study.[217] Policy makers must regard claims about
“ideal high school size” as unproven in the context of actual practice in the
various states.[218]
The Howley team’s studies, like
the Walberg team’s, focused not on student-level achievement but on school and
district performance on a variety of state-mandated tests. The problem with such analyses, however, is
that school- and district-level scores exhibit less variability than do
individual-level scores. A complete
model would examine individual-level achievement within classroom, school,
district, and state contexts of size.
This insight links the notion of the scaling of the educational system,[219]
which has hardly been studied at all.[220] Bickel and Howley (by examining schools
within districts) and Lee and Smith (by examining individuals within schools),
however, have made a beginning with two-level analyses.
In essence, the Walberg, Lee, and
Howley teams studied different phenomena using different methods. The Walberg team’s work was exploratory and
conducted in one state; the Lee team modeled gains in student achievement, but
ignored variability in state contexts and imputed a dubious “ideal” size; the
Howley team replicated the California work of Friedkin and Necochea in six
additional states, providing support for the original theory about school and
district size. Nonetheless,
student-level variability is absent from this team’s work, which is more
relevant to policy than to instructional manipulations themselves.
What Remains Unknown
Much more is unknown than is known
about school size, despite the popularity of the issue in current writing for
practitioners and in state and national legislation (e.g., the Feinstein
amendment to the ESEA reauthorization).
In particular the author believes that assertions about “ideal size” are
misleading abstractions, and that the school-within-schools strategy of
simulating smallness has emerged with no basis in research to suggest that it
will produce the achievement advantages confirmed for extant smaller schools
operating under certain circumstances.
Several of the key unknowns have
hardly been addressed in the research literature at all. In the author’s
judgment, the following unknowns merit substantial attention from scholars of
schooling (with student achievement the dependent variable):
·
To what extent do the popular but unresearched
administrative simulations of smaller size (i.e., houses, pods, “academies” or
other such within-school grouping arrangements) realize achievement advantages
(including improvements in achievement equity) comparable to those reported for
actually small schools?
·
To what extent does “ideal size,” as asserted by Lee and
Smith, vary by state and under what conditions (type of locale, educational
level, grade span configuration)?
·
Do minimum and maximum size thresholds actually exist (and
under what conditions – state, type of locale, educational level, grade span
configuration), beyond which larger or smaller size magnifies the negative
effects of poverty?[221]
·
What is the relationship of grade span configuration to
student learning, given differing state policy contexts and the likely
influence of community socioeconomic status?
·
What are the simultaneous and interacting relationships of
class size, school size, district size, and state context to the achievement
level (particularly achievement gains) of individual students in respect of
SES? What are the relationships of
these interacting contexts to school-level achievement equity?
Many, many other unanswered
questions exist. For instance, why
is smaller school size (variously defined) associated with higher and more
equitable levels of achievement for individuals, schools, and districts? Hypotheses abound, with most having to do
with the care, attention, and respect enabled by smallness in the conduct of
personal relations. Links between achievement level and equity and such
possible influences have hardly been investigated at all, however.[222]
Summary and Recommendations[223]
It would be an educational tragedy
for current and future generations if, after a decade or so of experimentation
with “small schools,” policy makers were to conclude that “small schools don’t
work.” The danger is real, however,
because in the name of “small schools” as a reform tactic, there has been a
tendency to confound schools-within-schools, established in the name of “small
schools” reform, but which have not been seriously studied, with the school
size research reviewed here. As a reform product, “small schools” has almost
nothing to do with the extant research base on school size, and lacks a
pertinent research base of its own.[224]
“Small schools” will become
another fad unless approached thoughtfully in the realms of practice and
policy. Research can supply some, but
not even most, of the necessary thoughtfulness. Because so many small schools continue to exist, however, small
schools are not principally a reform project, so far as the research into
school size goes. Some schools are
smaller than others, and some smaller schools are awful places. On average, though, smaller schools come out
ahead of larger schools, but under certain conditions and not always.
Major conclusions
Three overarching implications
seem warranted across all the works cited:
1.) Many US schools are too large to serve students well.
2.) Smaller schools are widely needed.
3.) Smaller schools are particularly valuable in impoverished
communities.
Common to many literature reviews
on this topic,[225]
such implications have been translated into practical decision-making
principles for policy makers by the author:[226]
·
Find ways to sustain existing small schools, especially
in impoverished rural and urban communities.
·
Acknowledge an upper limit for school size (even though not
confirmed by research), acknowledgment that means many schools should be much
smaller than the upper limit.
·
Don’t design, build, or sustain mega-schools (serving
upwards of 500 to 2,000 students depending on educational level and grade-span
configuration).[227] Schools this large provide no detectable
advantage to affluent students (the elite New England private high schools, for
instance, enroll about 1,000 students in grades 9-12) and probably do academic
harm to impoverished students.
·
Design, build, and sustain much smaller schools in
impoverished districts or districts with a mixed social-class composition. In very poor communities, design, build, and
sustain the smallest schools.[228]
·
Don’t oversell smaller schools. Like other schools, smaller schools can be wonderful or awful,
but, all else equal, their odds of being awful are reduced as compared to
larger schools. Operating smaller
schools in impoverished communities is good policy, but it is not a “magic
bullet.”
·
Do not believe that mega-schools serving affluent areas are
necessarily excellent or even very good.
Most accountability schemes obscure this fact because they do not
generally take SES into account.
Graduates of such schools, however, can articulate the problems: cliques, careerism, anti-intellectualism, de
facto tracking, and so forth.[229]
·
Recognize that smaller schools in impoverished settings
accomplish miracles even when test their scores are about average. Such schools exhibit a very real but almost
entirely unacknowledged degree of excellence, compared to which the vaunted
“excellence” of large, well-funded suburban schools is more properly understood
as mediocrity.
Increasing the number of smaller
schools
Three efforts need to be engaged
simultaneously – retaining existing small schools in
impoverished communities (especially necessary in rural communities),
establishing new autonomous small schools in impoverished communities
(especially necessary in urban communities), and helping struggling small
schools to thrive. Small in this
instance means high schools enrolling approximately 400 or fewer students, and
elementary schools enrolling approximately 200 or fewer students. Recommendations for policy makers include
the following:[230]
1.) Provide capital outlay mechanisms not based on big-school norms.
2.) Put an absolute enrollment cap of between 600
and 1,000 students on the size of new high schools and between 300 and 500 on
the size of new elementary schools.[231]
3.) In impoverished locales establish, sustain,
and improve schools that are substantially smaller than the absolute upper
limits.
4.) Revise curriculum policies to implement
small-school (rather than big-school) principles.
5. ) Implement a state-wide salary scale (which
helps stabilize staffing, with stable staffing a foundation of school
improvement).[232]
Superintendents, principals, and
teachers [People] work in particular communities and schools, and, with this
fact in mind, the author has offered the following counsel:[233]
1.) Become better informed about the recent literature on small
schools.
2.) Take
communities’ desires to retain or to re-establish smaller schools seriously,
and not as a symptom of sentimentality or as a wild pipe dream.
3.) Engineer the
political will locally to support smaller schools, if the district currently
operates mega-schools, or if it serves either mixed-social-composition or
impoverished communities. Engineering
this political will is a lengthy process, and waiting to discuss the issue when
construction funds materialize is dangerously reactive. Obviously, stable leadership is required.
4.) Develop
community purposes for smaller schools; smaller schools are most sustainable
when levels of community engagement are high.[234]
5.) Work with other administrators and with policy makers to facilitate appropriate policy changes (see above).
6.) Regard
claims made about “schools-within-schools” with great skepticism. Research on the variety of SWAS options does
not exist, and this review regards
claims about achievement-related benefits for “pods,” “houses,” and non-autonomous
“schools” as unwarranted.
Surely it makes sense to
reorganize mega-schools in the attempt to foil the anonymity and impersonality
of bureaucratically oriented high schools.
It is, however, not necessary to justify this move with reference to the
school size literature related to student achievement; to do so misuses the
literature and, worse, misrepresents the facts.
The best way
to capture the achievement benefits of smaller size is to establish new smaller
schools and to sustain and to exert effort to improve the ones already in
existence. Schools everywhere need not
be small – unless by “small” one means a school enrolling fewer than 1,000
students, the benchmark used in the Feinstein amendment. One thousand students, however, is a large
school. Nothing in the empirically based research literature on school size and
achievement suggests that academic benefits of any sort accrue in schools
larger than this, even in schools serving a very affluent clientele.
4:
Time for School: Its Duration and Allocation
Executive
Summary
Research
Findings
Small marginal increases (10-15%) in the time
allocated to schooling show no appreciable gains in student achievement. Alternative
calendars on which the typical 180 days of schooling are offered (e.g.,
year-round calendars) show no increased benefits for student learning over the
traditional 9-months-on/3-months-off calendar. Summer programs for at-risk
students are probably effective, though more research is needed.
Recommendations
·
Small – 10-15% – increases in the time allocated for
schooling would be expensive and would not be expected to produce appreciable
gains in academic achievement.
·
Furthermore, changes in the calendar by which those 180 days
are delivered are very unlikely to yield higher levels of pupil achievement. In
terms of pupil achievement, it matters not at all whether those 180 days are
interrupted by one long recess or four short ones.
·
There is no reason not to expect – but little
research to support – that three months summer school would result in the same
rate of academic progress as any three months of the traditional academic
calendar.
·
Within reason, the productivity of the schools is not a matter
of the time allocated to them as much as it is a matter of how they use the
time they already have.
4: Time
for School: Its Duration and Allocation
Arizona
State University
On average,
America’s children spend six hours each weekday and 180 days each year in
school between the ages of 5 and 18. Roughly 25% of school districts have
longer school years, and another 25% spend fewer than 175 days in school.[235]
The questions addressed here have to do with the duration of schooling
(allocated time) within the yearly school calendar, and the arrangement of that
school time throughout the year. Would adding hours to the school day or days
to the school year increase the amount that students learn? Would rearranging a
fixed number of days schooling within the school year produce greater academic
achievement? These are the central questions around which this review is
organized. It is important to note that this report examines allocated time
– the total amount of time students are in school. One commonly discussed and
very visible aspect of school time will not be addressed in this review,
namely, engaged time or academic learning time or time-on-task.
Of the many hours children spend in school, the majority of them do not involve
attention to learning the intended
curriculum. Berliner estimated that American students are actively
engaged in learning for less than 40% of the time they are in school.[236]
We are here dealing with
the question of the potential effect on academic achievement of increasing the
length of the school day, or increasing the number of days of schooling during
a calendar year, or both. In addition, the research on alternative yearly
calendars will be reviewed to see what advice it might have for increasing
achievement. Other options not investigated here involve the assignment of
homework as a means of increasing students’ learning time (this area has been
thoroughly investigated by Walberg, Paschal and Weinstein[237]
and more recently by Cooper[238]),
or the rearrangement of a fixed amount
of allocated time within the school day or week, as in block scheduling (see,
for example, Cobb and Baker,[239] Veal and Schreiber[240]).
School Time Research
Allocated Time and Achievement
Attention to allocated time as an
important factor in accounting for differences in academic achievement received
a huge boost in 1974 with the publication of research by Wiley and
Harnischfeger.[241] These
authors published the results of secondary analyses of the Equality of
Educational Opportunity[242]
dataset that seemed to indicate that the amount of schooling a student receives
is a powerful determinant of the degree to which that student achieves
academically. Wiley and Harnischfeger
(hereafter W&H) based their analysis and conclusions on a group of
sixth-grade students in 40 elementary schools in Detroit, Michigan. They
quantified the amount of schooling present in a particular school by combining
measures of “average daily attendance,” “days in the school year,” and “hours
in the school day.” When W&H related quantity of schooling to achievement
holding constant a school’s socio-economic status (as measured by “percent
white,” “average-items-in-the-home,” and “average number of siblings”), they
discovered what they regarded as an impressive effect of quantity of schooling
on achievement. Indeed, W&H christened quantity of schooling (allocated
time) a “potent path for policy.”[243]
The Wiley and Harnischfeger
findings did not go long unchallenged, even by researchers who were quite
sympathetic with W&H’s conclusions. Karweit[244]
worried that the number of schools in W&H’s secondary analysis of the
Coleman data was small (40) and that the effect of quantity of schooling only
appeared for a subset of schools in the central city of Detroit. Moreover, the attempt to equate schools
operating under very different circumstances by performing statistical
adjustments on only three background variables, imperfectly measured, could
well have left unaccounted for variability in the achievement data that might
have been improperly attributed to quantity of schooling by W&H. The best
corrective for these problems would be to attempt to replicate the effect on
different data sets, each with its unique strengths and limitations. Karweit
set out to do just that. Using the same Coleman EEO data set, Karweit analyzed
the effect of quantity of schooling on achievement for schools in the inner
city of Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Washington D.C., Cleveland and Baltimore. In
none of these instances was the W&H effect of quantity of schooling found.
Next, Karweit conducted similar analyses using data for all schools in the
state of Maryland. In this analysis, school-level test scores on the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills (vocabulary, reading comprehension, mathematics and language)
at Grades 3, 5, 7 and 9 served as the dependent variable and “percent in
attendance” was used as the quantity of schooling variable, with background
equating variables of “mother’s education,” “family income,” “cognitive
ability,” and “percent disadvantaged.” Again, no appreciable effect of
variations of quantity of schooling on academic achievement was found. Still
other analyses that Karweit performed failed to reveal the powerful effects
that W&H had claimed. Karweit arrived, somewhat reluctantly it seemed, at
the following conclusion: “Whether we use the school as the unit of analysis
and incorporate quantity as a mediating variable, whether we examine central
city or suburban schools, whether we control or do not control for ability,
whether we use the individual as the unit of analysis, in no case do we obtain
the sizeable effects reported by Wiley and Harnischfeger.”[245]
The Wiley-Harnischfeger and
Karweit exchange did not end the matter of allocated time and achievement for
researchers. Subsequent studies tended to confirm Karweit’s findings that there
is little relationship between small marginal variations in allocated time for
schooling and measured academic achievement.
Learning
Curves
Smith[246]
correlated allocated time and achievement in social studies for about 70
sixth-grade classes and found no statistically significant relationship (r
= 0.17 for allocated time and achievement gain). Brown and Saks[247]
employed data from the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study to fit “learning
curves” relating allocated time to achievement. Their analysis showed small
relationships between the two variables. When curves were fit separately for
high-ability and low-ability students, the latter showed a slightly stronger relationship
between allocated time and achievement.
The list of researchers who have
found no important relationship between the length of the school day or school
year and the achievement of students is
long; a partial roster would include
Blai,[248] Borg,[249]
Cotton and Savard,[250]
Fredrick and Walberg,[251]
Honzay,[252] Karweit,[253]
Lomax and Cooley,[254]
Mazzarella,[255] and
Walberg and Tsai.[256]
It must be noted, however, that in every instance, the variation in the amount
of allocated time is not great. No one has asserted, and no researcher
believes, that students attending school for 100 days a year will achieve at
the same level as students who attend school for 200 days a year.
Costs
and Benefits
Proposals to increase the length of
the school year must be looked at in terms of cost and returns on such
expenditures. Odden[257]
estimated that extending the school day to eight hours or lengthening the
school year from l80 to 200 days (marginal increases of 11% in allocated time)
would cost the nation more than $20 billion yearly in 1980 dollars (or roughly
$40 billion in year 2000 dollars). In a
quantitative synthesis of the existing
research on the relationship of allocated time to student achievement, Glass,[258]
Levin and Glass,[259]
and Levin, Glass and Meister[260]
sought to relate the cost of increasing allocated time to the returns in terms
of grade equivalent gains on standardized achievement tests. Their analyses,
using the results of prior research, simulated the addition of one hour to each
school day for an entire school year; this hour would be used equally for
instruction in reading and mathematics (30 minutes each). This additional time
represents increases of between 25% and 50%, depending on subject and grade
level, in baseline allocated time for basic skills instruction. These authors
estimated that such increases in allocated time would result in yearly
increases in achievement of less than one month in grade-equivalent units
(seven-tenths of a month in reading and three-tenths of a month in
mathematics). Levin[261]
suggested that increasing teacher salaries, hiring remedial specialists, or
buying new equipment are all superior in cost-effectiveness to increasing
allocated time. Levin, Glass and Meister[262] went on to compare the effects of a fixed
financial investment in lengthening the school day with the effects of three
other possible interventions intended to increase achievement in elementary
school basic skills: computer-aided instruction, class-size reduction, and
cross-age tutoring. Of these four interventions, increasing allocated time
showed the smallest return per dollar spent. Levin and Tsang[263]
supported this conclusion with analysis that drew upon economic theory; they
concluded that large and costly increases in allocated time would be needed to
effect even small increases in academic achievement.
International
Comparisons
As has been pointed
out, children in typical public schools in the
U.S. attend school for six hours each weekday for 180 days a year. Some other
industrialized countries, e.g., the United Kingdom, operate schools for up to
eight hours a day for as many as 220 days a year. The sensational character of
international comparisons of educational achievement has done much to obscure
the issue of allocated time for schooling and mislead the public and policy
makers. Stigler and Stevenson[264] attributed the superiority of Japanese students in
mathematics to their longer school year. Barrett,[265] in a journalistic account of the duration of school years
in various countries, claimed that the cause of the low performance,
particularly at higher grades, of U.S. students in algebra, calculus, and
science was the relatively short U.S. school year. Such international
comparisons as TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science Study) are
frequently read as supporting the conclusion that certain high-scoring nations,
which have longer school years than the U.S., owe their superior status to the
greater amounts of allocated time for teaching and learning. In most cases, the
differences between allocated time in the U.S. and in other nations are small
and statistically insignificant. But more important, the assessments of
achievement are undertaken in such non-standardized ways as to render any
conclusions suspect, or patently invalid.
Bracey forcefully
criticized the attempt to base policy decisions about America’s schools on the
TIMSS data.[266]
For example, consider the TIMSS assessment in science and mathematics. Although
the U.S. ranks relatively high in achievement at Grade 8, most public attention
focuses on the poor performance of the U.S. at “Grade 12.” When this poor
standing is linked – rhetorically, not scientifically – to the relatively short
U.S. school year, bad research is compounded by being invoked as the basis
for bad policy recommendations. There
are so many circumstances, particularly at the Grade 12 level, that differ
among nations that little credibility is warranted for the TIMSS findings. For
example, although the TIMSS assessment ostensibly assesses students in the
“last year” of high school, the meaning of the “last year” differs from country
to country, enrolling 19 year-olds in one nation and 17 year-olds in another;
the U.S. high-school seniors are among the youngest assessed. The U.S. students
were among a small minority of nations which chose to disallow the use of
calculators on the TIMMS test. And to make matters worse, the U.S. is the only
TIMSS assessment site in which most instruction is not in the metric system,
although the TIMSS tests use only the metric system where measurements are
involved. U.S. seniors score relatively low in international assessments of
educational achievement, and they spend relatively fewer days in school during
the year; but there are many other factors that intervene in this relationship,
and the conclusion that small marginal increases in the length of the school
year would lead to greater achievement is not warranted.
Conclusion
Regarding Increasing Allocated Time and Student Achievement
The import of a couple of decades
of research on the effect on student achievement of small, marginal increases
in the amount of time allocated to schooling is clear. Such increases have
virtually no benefits for student achievement, and what small benefits there
might be would not be justified by the increased cost of small increases in the
length of the school day or the number of days per school year. This conclusion
has a counter-intuitive ring to it: if any amount of schooling is effective –
as it surely must be, or else unschooled children would achieve at levels equal
to their schooled counterparts – then why shouldn’t more schooling be better?
The answer probably lies in the intricacies of curriculum development and the organization
of instruction. Virtually all of the research on allocated time for schooling
has studied natural variation in the length of the school year and small
differences therein. It is unlikely that an increase in the length of the
school year of a few days (five or ten, for example) would prompt any important
changes in the school curriculum. Most likely, teachers used the same textbooks
and activities in the lengthened school year that they used in the shorter
school year; more reviewing likely took place, and so on. Before major changes
in curriculum and instruction take place, significant increases in the length
of the school year would have to be attempted.
Changing the School Calendar
(Year-Round Schools)
Given that increasing allocated
time would likely yield small, insignificant increases in student achievement,
are there ways of arranging the 180 days in the typical school year to promote
greater academic achievement? Of all those ways of organizing a fixed amount of
allocated time, only the proposals to deliver schooling on a “year-round” basis
(equally spaced with intermittent vacations across twelve months) have gained
much of a following among educators. Significantly, the original proposals to
operate year-round schools (YRS) came from a consideration of the economics of
school construction rather than any consideration of learning gains.
In year-round schools, as in
traditional 9-month schools, students attend classes about 180 days spread
throughout the twelve calendar months.
Typically, the student body is divided into three, four or five groups;
school year starting dates are staggered so that at any one time, between
one-third and one-fifth of the students are on vacation. In the most popular year-round schedule, the
45-15 plan, four groups of students attend school for forty-five days, or about
nine weeks, and then have fifteen days off.
Building capacity can be increased 25% because one-quarter of the
student body is always on vacation. The
45-15 plan is the most popular year-round attendance plan because all students
have a summer vacation, even if it is shorter than the traditional 3-month
summer recess of the 9-month/3-month calendar.
It is not, however, favored by high schools because the short,
three-week vacations limit summer job opportunities. In the Concept 6 year-round plan, the calendar year is divided
into six 2-month blocks. The students,
in three tracks, have classes for four consecutive months and then a vacation
for two months. Concept 6 can
accommodate a one-third increase in enrollment. Because the students attend two 4-month terms a year, the
administrative burdens of scheduling classes and recording grades are not as
heavy as in the 45-15 plan. One-third
of the students will have no summer vacation at all; in areas with great
seasonal temperature variations, this track will be unpopular. Concept 6, then, can meet with a great deal
of community resistance when the students’ tracks are mandated and not freely
chosen.
Another year-round schedule is the quinmester. Five 45-day terms, or quins, make up the
year; students attend four of the five quins.
In some districts, the fifth quin is optional; students who desire
acceleration or enrichment, or who need remediation, attend all five
terms. Obviously, if many students take
advantage of this option, the district does not save money, because the
enrollment remains the same as in traditional schools. There are many other year-round schedules,
such as the trimester or quarter systems.
The rationale for most, however, is the same: to avoid construction of
new schools by increasing enrollment at existing schools.
Determining which of the claimed
advantages are in fact true requires a look at what has actually happened in
year-round schools.
Do
Year-round Schools Improve Academic Achievement?
Year-round schools are principally
a cost-cutting measure. Their success in reaching this goal and the many
advantages and disadvantages that ensue from the change to a year-round
calendar are the subject of some published policy studies[267].
But the subject of this review is the potential benefits to learning and
achievement of converting schools on convention 9-month/3-month calendars to
year-round calendars.
1.)
Proponents of the year-round calendar claim several
advantages:
2.)
Students retain more over shorter vacations.
3.)
Learning proceeds via the psychologically more effective
“distributed” rather than “massed practice” schedule.
4.)
Teachers spend less time reviewing previously learned
material because of less forgetting during shorter vacations.
5.)
Because breaks will be more frequent, teachers experience
less burnout.
Dempster[268]
argued, in support of calendars such as the 45-15 year-round calendar, that
spaced (or “distributed”) practice over several sessions is superior to the
same amount of time concentrated into a single study session. These arguments
often rely on data drawn from laboratory experiments where subjects memorize
nonsense syllables or perform other non-meaningful tasks. The relevance of
these studies to actual classroom practice is questionable.
Cherry Creek District 5 in the
state of Colorado implemented year-round schools in 1974. After one year, student achievement in three
year-round schools was compared to achievement in traditional calendar schools. Differences between standardized test scores
in the two types of schools were found to be insignificantly small even after
matching pupils on IQ. Similar findings
are reported for other year-round programs in Colorado and across the country.
For example, examination of three years of standardized test scores for Mesa
County Valley School District (CO) indicates that the year-round schedule does
not in any way enhance learning. A closer look at the Mesa County (CO) study
reveals a pattern common in research on the academic benefits of the year-round calendar. In 1982, Chatfield
Elementary School of the Mesa County Valley School District was converted from
the conventional school calendar to the 45-15 year-round calendar. George and
Glass[269]
collected the SRA Achievement Test battery scores for all students at Chatfield
who were tested in the Spring of 1981 (before conversion to the year-round
schedule) and again in the Spring of 1982 (after one year on the year-round
calendar). As a control, the district-wide SRA test scores were collected at
the same two points in time; district averages were calculated after removing
the scores of the Chatfield pupils. The results appear in the following table:
Average Percentile Gain (1981 to 1982)
for Chatfield (YRS) and District-wide Pupils
|
|
Reading |
Mathematics |
Language |
|
Chatfield (YRS) |
+3% |
+5% |
+1% |
|
District-wide |
-3% |
+3% |
+2% |
These gains are statistically
insignificant and should not be “over interpreted.” They indicate no
superiority of one calendar over the other. They are indistinguishable from the
kinds of yearly variation that all schools and school districts experience
normally.
Many teachers and parents who
favor year-round schedules believe that students learn more and faster when the
learning process is interrupted for only short periods of time, as it is on the
45-15 plan. Even in Concept 6 schools
as in Colorado Springs, Colo., the most teachers in year-round schools rated
their pupils’ vacation learning loss as less severe than in traditional
schools.[270] Smith and Glass[271]
attempted to substantiate teachers’ perceptions in Colorado’s Cherry Creek
District 5. They found that although
teachers in year-round schools spent less time reviewing pre-vacation material
than teachers in schools on the traditional calendar, the actual achievement
differences were insignificant on tests designed specifically to measure
district objectives.
Other
YRS Studies
The early findings in Colorado
were replicated across the U.S. when researchers sought to compare achievement
of students in YRS with their counterparts in schools on the traditional
9-month/3-month calendar. Several studies – by Naylor,[272]
Zykowski,[273] Carriedo
and Goren[274] – reached
the conclusion that there is no significant difference in achievement between
students in YRS and students in traditional calendar schools. Campbell[275]
reported finding no significant achievement benefits due to year-round schools
when compared with the traditional 9-month/3-month calendar in several Texas
elementary schools. Webster and Nyberg[276]
concluded that no evidence existed for the superiority of the year-round
calendar at the secondary school level: “There appear to be no trends in any of
the districts describing either improvements or decline in standardized
achievement test scores as measured by district-administered tests and the
California Assessment Program. Further evidence produced from interviews and a
review of evaluation reports from Los Angeles Unified School District confirm
that the impact of year-round education on achievement scores at the high
school level has been inconclusive.”[277]
In a journalistic report on
practitioners’ assessments of the learning benefits of the year-round calendar,
Harp[278]
cited the experiences of administrators in several states to the effect that
the year-round calendar appeared to have no appreciable benefits for academic
learning. For instance, Dr. N. Brekke, a Superintendent of Schools in Oxnard,
reported that 17 years of the year-round calendar failed to raise students’ achievement
to the California state average. Harp quoted administrators in Orange County,
Florida, as saying that “‘many of the benefits associated with the year-round
schedule have been more perceived than realized… people want you to prove that
test scores are going up, but that’s a very difficult thing to do.”[279]
Not all studies have failed to
find achievement advantages for the year-round calendar. Those that do claim
advantages, however, stem disproportionately from an advocacy organization that
has grown up around this issue: the National Association for Year-Round
Education (www.nayre.org/). (Institutional memberships range from $350 to $750
per year depending on the number of students that a school or school district
has enrolled in year-round education.) NAYRE publishes its own research
reports, and avoids established peer-reviewed scholarly journals; copies of
research reports outlining the benefits of the year-round calendar sell for
about $30. “Negative” studies have tended to come from researchers working in
universities.
The
“Summer Forgetting” Argument for YRS
A primary argument in
favor of YRS is that the long summer vacation of the 9-month/3-month calendar
causes a large negative effect on student achievement. Allinder et al.[280] studied the summer break “forgetting”
phenomenon for Grades 2 through 5. They found statistically significant losses
in spelling, but not in mathematics, at Grades 2 and 3; they also found losses
in mathematics, but not in spelling, for Grades 4 and 5.
Tilley, Cox, and
Staybrook[281]
studied summer regression in achievement for students receiving no educational
services for three months. They found that most students experience some
regression during the summer recess. Cooper et al.[282] reviewed
39 such studies and found that
achievement test scores do indeed decline over the summer vacation. Their
meta-analysis revealed that the summer loss equaled about one month on a
grade-level equivalent scale, or one tenth of a standard deviation relative to
spring test scores. The effect of summer break was more detrimental for math
than for reading and most detrimental for math computation and spelling. Also,
middle-class students appeared to gain on grade-level equivalent reading
recognition tests over summer while lower-class students lost on them. Possible
explanations for the findings included the differential availability of
opportunities to practice different academic material over summer (reading is
much more easily practiced than mathematics) and differences in the material’s
susceptibility to forgetting (factual knowledge is more easily forgotten than
conceptual knowledge).
Both the Allinder et al.
and the Cooper meta-analysis of the summer forgetting phenomenon place
estimates on the loss of achievement over the traditional 3-month vacation that
are smaller than many expected. This may in part help explain why the YRS
calendar does not produce the dramatic effects on achievement that some hoped
to see.
Year-round schools can accomplish
their principal goal of saving money by avoiding construction of new
buildings. However, there is no
credible evidence that the year-round calendar causes improved academic
achievement. How is it, then, that an idea whose benefits have eluded all
objective attempts to discover them nonetheless engenders enthusiasm and
loyalty to such a degree that it has its own national organization? Perhaps the
answer lies in the problems administrators have “selling” the idea of YRS to
parents and teachers. YRS calendars can disrupt family life, including vacation
schedules and traditional summer activities (baseball leagues, camping programs
and the like). These problems can be particularly severe when one child in a
family is on a year-round calendar and another attends school on a traditional
calendar. Convincing parents that the inconveniences caused by the year-round
calendar are worth the trouble is a task that falls to school principals. One
argument used to make the case for conversion is that the year-round calendar
is much superior to the traditional calendar in terms of academic learning.
Unfortunately, this position lacks empirical support.
The Extended School Year
Of course, the obvious antidote to
summer forgetting is to extend the school year throughout the summer. Without
thinking much about it, parents in surveys give strong support (85%) to the
idea that students who fail to meet academic standards should attend summer
school.[283] Such an extension for all students would
represent an astronomical increase in the cost of schooling in the U.S. – on
the order of $80 billion in current dollars. No such proposals have been
seriously advanced and no research exists to suggest the potential returns in
terms of academic achievement. “Extended school year” proposals have been
limited almost entirely to services for handicapped or disabled students.[284] Heyns’s analysis of summer programs for
at-risk students in Atlanta schools revealed gains in academic achievement, but
at rates considerably slower than during the regular academic year.[285] The absence of research on the effectiveness
of extending schooling through the summer months should not deter reasonable
judgments of the potential success of such proposals, however. The elements in
the successful delivery of schooling are not mysterious, after all.
Well-trained and experienced teachers, good curriculum materials, adequate
physical facilities – these ingredients in combination succeed day-in and
day-out in teaching our nation’s children. There is no reason to believe that
the continuation with a high-quality program of the 9-month school year
throughout the three months of the traditional summer recess would result in
any less academic achievement than is observed during the regular school year.
Cooper and his colleagues[286]
have based their recommendations for quality summer school programs on a
meta-analysis of the literature.
The absence of a relationship
between small marginal increases in the length of the school year or the school
day throughout the year must not be extrapolated to reach the conclusion that
significant increases in allocated time for schooling (such as three months’
instruction throughout the summer) would not result in significant increases in
academic achievement.
Recommendations
The research conducted on time allocated
for schooling yields three broad conclusions:
·
Small – 10-15% – increases in the time allocated for
schooling would be expensive and would not be expected to produce appreciable
gains in academic achievement.
·
Furthermore, changes in the calendar by which those 180 days
are delivered are very unlikely to yield higher levels of pupil achievement. To
paraphrase a famous poet, “180 days is 180 days is 180 days.” And, at least in
terms of pupil achievement, it matters not at all whether those 180 days are
interrupted by one long recess or four short ones.
·
There is no reason not to expect – but little
research to support – that three months summer school would result in the same
rate of academic progress as any three months of the traditional academic calendar.
Within reason, the productivity of
the schools is not a matter of the time allocated to them. Rather it is a
matter of how they use the time they already have.
5: Grouping Students for
Instruction
Executive
Summary
Research Findings
Ability grouping has been found to have few benefits
and many risks. When homogeneous and heterogeneous groups of students are
taught identical curricula, there appear to be few advantages to homogeneous
grouping in terms of academic achievement. More able students make greater
academic progress when separated from their fellow students and given an
accelerated course of study. Less able students who are segregated from their
more able peers are at risk of being taught an inferior curriculum and
consigned to low tracks for their entire academic career. Teachers assigned to
higher tracks and parents of bright students prefer ability grouping. Teachers
in lower tracks are less enthusiastic and need support in the form of materials
and instructional techniques to avoid the disadvantages of tracking.
Recommendations
·
Mixed or heterogeneous ability or achievement groups offer
several advantages:
1.)
less able pupils are at reduced risk of being stigmatized
and exposed to a “dumbed-down” curriculum;
2.)
teachers’ expectations for all pupils are maintained at
higher levels;
3.)
opportunities for more able students to assist less able
peers in learning can be realized.
·
Teachers asked to teach in a “de-tracked” system will
require training, materials and support that are largely lacking in today’s
schools.
·
Administrators seeking to “detrack” existing programs will
require help in navigating the difficult political course that lies ahead of
them.
5: Grouping Students for
Instruction
Arizona
State University
The sorting of students into
homogeneous ability and achievement groups is nearly as old as universal
compulsory education in the United States. The grouping of students by ability
or achievement forms a continuum that extends from “reading groups” (the
redbirds, bluebirds, and canaries) at one end to tracking and even segregation
of students between school districts at the other. While the one extreme may be
a matter strictly of professional pedagogical judgment, the other extreme may
represent the impact of broad social forces outside the control of any on
educator or group of professionals. This review will touch on each point across
this continuum.
The seemingly simple notion of
grouping pupils by their ability for instruction proves, upon closer
examination, to be very complex with many variations. Within-class grouping, between-class grouping, the Joplin plan,
XYZ grouping, gifted classes, academic tracks, charter schools – the inclination
to sort students comes in many forms and has a long history. Otto found evidence of homogeneous
achievement grouping of pupils as far back as the nineteenth century in
America’s schools.[287]
The Santa Barbara Concentric Plan of the early 1900s divided classes into A, B
and C groups who received three levels of curriculum based on their past
performance.
The pedagogical justification for
homogeneous grouping centers on the role of the teacher: with students grouped
by ability or achievement, the teacher is able to focus more instruction at the
level of all the students in the group; thus, time is not wasted as bright
students wait for elementary explanations to be given to their slower
classmates, and slow students are not troubled with instruction that is over
their heads. Bright students are thought to need a faster pace and enriched
material; low-ability students are thought to require remediation, repetition
and more reviews. Slower students, it is felt, will be better off shielded from
competition with their brighter classmates; more able students will not become
complacent by comparing themselves with slow students, and they will be spurred
to higher levels of achievement by competing with their own kind. These images,
not unfamiliar to teachers and parents alike, are rife with assumptions about
the nature of human intelligence, the conditions of learning, the development
of students’ self-perceptions, and the behavior of teachers, only a few of
which are tested in the research literature.
Ability grouping enjoyed wide
professional and public acceptance beginning in the heyday of the “scientific”
movement in education (from Edward L. Thorndike, to Lewis M. Terman, to the
post-WW II era) and extending to the post-Sputnik era of emphasis on enriching
curriculum for the gifted.[288] Homogeneous grouping in the form of tracking
received severe criticism in the last quarter of the 20th century.
James Rosenbaum’s Making Inequality [289] and Samuel
Bowles and Herbert Gintis’s Schooling in Capitalist America[290]
saw ability grouping as not just perpetuating but creating disadvantages
for poor and minority students. Jeannie Oakes’s Keeping Track[291] prompted
vigorous debate regarding the effects of homogeneous grouping. Tracking’s
detractors leveled charges of
stigmatizing students, and consigning them to inferior and “dumbed-down”
instruction. Homogeneous grouping was not completely without its supporters.
Thomas Loveless concluded: “The primary charges against tracking are (1) that
it doesn’t accomplish anything and (2) that it unfairly creates unequal
opportunities for academic achievement. What is the evidence? Generally
speaking, research fails to support the indictment.”[292]
Student
Grouping Research
Researchers approaching this
policy question from different points on the disciplinary compass have reached
different conclusions about the value of homogeneous grouping. The issue of
homogeneous grouping not only separates researchers and scholars, it separates
social classes and ethnic groups as well. Ability grouping is nearly
universally condemned by scholars from minority ethnic groups (e.g., Braddock[293],
Darling-Hammond[294],
Esposito[295]). Why these various groups have arrived at
conflicting conclusions and what educators should make of their conflicting
recommendations is the central question to be resolved in this review.
The Prevalence of Homogeneous
Grouping
How common is it for teachers and
schools to separate students into groups of similar ability or achievement for
purposes of instruction?
In part, estimates of the incidence
of homogeneous grouping depend on how one asks the question. Public sentiment
and professional judgment have turned against strict ability (IQ) grouping of
the XYZ-type that first made an appearance in the 1920s. Beginning in 1919, the
Detroit public schools administered intelligence tests, divided the
distribution of students into strictly ordered ability groups – X, Y and Z –
and taught the same curriculum to all three groups. This Huxleyesque scheme, so
reminiscent of the Alphas and Betas in Brave New World, would be found
unconstitutional in the present day. (Indeed, in Hobson v. Hansen, the
tracking of students into ability groups in the Washington, D.C. schools was
ruled to be a violation of Fourteenth Amendment rights.[296]) Ask educators today if they track pupils
into “ability groups,” and they will probably say “No.” Ask them if they group
students homogeneously by achievement to facilitate instruction, and their
answer is likely to be “Yes.” While grouping is currently based on past performance
rather than measured academic aptitude, the results are probably not much
different, given the reasonably high
correlation between achievement and aptitude.[297]
Hoffer[298] reported
data from the Longitudinal Study of American Youth that addressed the incidence
of tracking in mathematics and science in more than 50 middle schools of the
late 1980s. About 40% of the schools
tracked students for science teaching in Grade 7; this figure rose to 50% in
Grade 8. For mathematics instruction,
80% tracked in Grade 7 and more than
90% tracked in Grade 8. These data are
supported by Epstein and MacIver’s[299] survey,
also performed in the late 1980s. Survey respondents were asked “For which
academic subjects are students assigned to homogeneous classes on the basis of
similar abilities or achievement levels?”
Homogeneous grouping was practiced in two-thirds of the middle schools
in some or all subjects at Grade 5 and in three-quarters of the schools at
Grade 8. Surveys of homogeneous grouping in elementary grades would show even
higher incidences, where the proverbial redbirds, bluebirds and canaries are
almost ubiquitous.
Middle Schools Classified by Tracking
in Some or All Subjects: 1988
With Percents by Columns
(After
Epstein & MacIver, 1990)
|
Tracking in… |
Grade 5 |
Grade 6 |
Grade 7 |
Grade 8 |
|
All Subjects |
23% |
22% |
22% |
23% |
|
Some Subjects |
40% |
44% |
47% |
50% |
|
No Tracking |
37% |
34% |
31% |
27% |
These surveys may underestimate
the incidence of homogeneous grouping in the nation’s public schools. Even the
most inexperienced administrator knows that this issue divides teachers,
parents and other stakeholders in our schools. Complete candor on
questionnaires received in the mail or in reply to questions posed by some
ephemeral visitor to one’s school is not only unlikely, it could even be
disruptive. Visitors to schools who enter them on different terms and who press
for deeper answers might place the incidence of homogeneous grouping at levels even higher than these surveys. In
an interview on his book Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol remarked:
“Virtually every school system I visit, with a few exceptions, is entirely
tracked, although they don’t use that word anymore.”[300] Whichever figure
one might accept – two-thirds, three-quarters, or 100% – the conclusion seems
inescapable that homogeneous grouping of students by ability or achievement is
virtually endemic in American education.
Open enrollment plans in which
students choose from among a set of courses also produces stratification of
schools by ability groups. Sam Lucas
has documented this phenomenon in his book Tracking Inequality:
Stratification and Mobility in American High Schools.[301] Welner has observed the same pattern of sorting entering the school system in the form of choice programs:
…tracking under a choice regime resembles tracking under the
more rigid tracking regimes of the past.[302]
for many district students, choice was more apparent than
real. Scheduling conflicts constrained some students’ choices in ways that
perpetuated tracking (e.g., taking a lower-level math class prevented
scheduling of a higher-level English class). For other students, … the course
selection process amounted to little more than accepting the schools’
recommendations.[303]
Who
Wants to Group Students: Teachers or Parents?
A survey published by the National
Education Association in 1968 indicated that at least 75% of teachers preferred
to teach homogeneously grouped classes.[304] Teachers’
affinity for ability grouping disappears among teachers who are assigned the
lower-tracked classes.[305]
Contemporary surveys, though lacking, would likely duplicate this finding. It
is not difficult to understand why teachers’ jobs are made easier by teaching
students in groups of similar achievement levels. However, it is not clear
whether homogeneous grouping is intrinsically more effective or whether it is
preferred because of an absence of curriculum materials and instructional
techniques designed for heterogeneous groups.
Teachers’ preferences for
homogeneous grouping must surely be matched or even exceeded by parents’
preferences for the same, at least the preferences of educated and wealthier
parents to have their children placed in the highest groups. Parents’ interventions into tracking decisions are
common. Highly educated parents have
been found more likely to push for high track placements than other parents.[306]
Oakes and Wells studied 10 middle schools and high schools in their research on
“detracking” secondary education and found that middle-class suburban values
and norms are strong reinforcers of tracking.[307]
Multiple Perspectives on the
Effectiveness of Ability Grouping
The topic of grouping students for
instruction has been studied by researchers from quite different perspectives.
On the one hand, educational psychologists have focused on academic achievement
narrowly construed as performance on paper-and-pencil tests and self-esteem
scales. Sociologists have taken a broader view that encompasses students’
academic careers, and the opportunities and services offered students in
different groups and tracks. Indeed, on this particular topic, it is fair to
say that two different disciplines – psychology, and particularly educational
psychology on the one hand, and sociology on the other – have focused on
different aspect of this phenomenon and have arrived at different conclusions.
Educational
Psychologists’ View
Research on ability grouping by
educational psychologists has a very long history, dating from the very
beginnings of educational research itself. As early as 1916, Whipple[308]
studied students in the Urbana, Illinois, school system who had been grouped
into homogeneous gifted classes. A handful of major studies – which themselves review
and integrate the findings of dozens of primary studies extending over several
decades – now forms the empirical basis of most persons’ opinions about the
effects of ability grouping on achievement: the Kulik and Kulik[309]
and the Slavin[310] meta-analyses for elementary and secondary
school ability grouping.
Since the meta-analyses[311]
play a key role in forming an evaluation of the efficacy of homogeneous
grouping, a brief explanation of this technique is in order. Meta-analysis is a
statistical technique used to combine and integrate the findings – themselves
expressed statistically – of many individual empirical studies. In its simplest
form, as an example, a meta-analysis might collect a hundred studies of the
correlation of achievement and ability and report that the correlation
coefficients ranged from 0.25 to 0.85 with an average correlation of 0.62. When the primary research studies
being “meta-analyzed” involve comparing two groups – for example, students taught
in homogeneous (condition A) v. heterogeneous (condition B) groups – it is
common to express the findings of each primary study in a form known as an effect
size. An effect size that describes the difference between two groups is
defined as a mean difference (between conditions A and B) in units of the
within-condition standard deviation:
ES = Mean(A) –
Mean(B)
![]()
σ
The value of ES reveals the
degree of superiority of condition A over condition B (or, B over A in the
event that ES has a negative value). Under the assumption of normally
distributed scores, an average ES
of +1.0 indicates that the average student in condition A scores above
84% of the students in condition B. The concept of the effect size applied to
standardized achievement test data enjoys a fortuitous coincidence. It is an
empirical fact that the standard deviation of most achievement tests is 1.0
years in grade equivalent units. Consequently, an effect size of 1.0
implies that the average superiority of condition A over condition B is one
year in grade equivalent units. Likewise, an effect size of 0.50 implies that
students in A achieve, on average, 5 months in grade equivalent units above
students in condition B.
The Kuliks’ Meta-analyses.
Kulik and Kulik[312]
integrated the findings of 52 experimental and quasi-experimental studies of
the effect of ability grouping on achievement of secondary school students. The
results of their analysis showed that the benefits in terms of academic
achievement of ability grouping were virtually absent in all cases, with the
exception of the comparisons of high-ability students in gifted classes vs.
their counterparts in mixed-ability classes. When the effects for different
subjects (math, science, reading, social studies), standardized vs. locally
relevant tests, and objective vs. non-objective tests were examined, no
consistent benefits were seen for ability grouping. When Kulik and Kulik
examined the effects of ability grouping at the elementary school level, they
found small but positives effects in reading and mathematics for both
within-class and between-class ability grouping. Effect sizes were
approximately 0.30 for high-ability students and declined to less than 0.20 for
low-ability students. There emerges in the Kuliks’ meta-analyses the first hint
that the benefits of ability grouping may be due to the fact that high-ability
students receive an enriched curriculum in homogeneous classes (as described,
for example, by Oakes[313]).
This conclusion was given further substantiation in Kulik’s meta-analysis of enrichment and accelerated
programs for gifted and talented students that, when compared to gifted
students in heterogeneous classes, yielded effects sizes of 0.40 for enrichment classes and 0.90 for
accelerated classes. The Kuliks’ meta-analyses were the first to challenge
reviews like that of Good and Marshall[314] that
recommended against all forms of ability grouping.
The Slavin Meta-analyses.
The Kulik and Kulik meta-analyses
contrast somewhat with the meta-analyses (called “best evidence syntheses”)
published by Robert Slavin[315]
in 1986 and 1990. Slavin, who relied on a good deal more selectivity in forming
the database of studies on ability grouping before attempting to integrate
their findings, drew conclusions from the body of work that questioned the
efficacy of homogeneous grouping for instruction at the secondary school level:
“Comprehensive between-class ability grouping plans have
little or no effect on the achievement of secondary students, at least as
measured by standardized tests. This conclusion is most strongly supported in
Grades 7-9, but the more limited evidence that does exist from Grades 10-12
also fails to support any effect of ability grouping.”[316]
At the elementary school level,
Slavin[317]
concluded that the research supported modest but reliable benefits of
within-class ability grouping for mathematics at the intermediate grades and
benefits for reading achievement of the Joplin plan for all elementary grades.
(In the Joplin plan, students are grouped across grades into intact
classes for reading instruction, in which reading is taught in the same manner
to the whole class, or at most two groups within the class; students then
return to their principal grade assignment for all other instruction.) The
seeming discrepancy between Slavin’s and Kulik and Kulik’s conclusions (Slavin
being considerably more pessimistic about homogeneous grouping at the secondary
school level than the Kuliks) is resolved when the criteria for inclusion of
studies in the meta-analyses are examined. Whereas Kulik and Kulik threw a
fairly broad net over the body of literature traditionally identified as
ability grouping research, Slavin excluded studies that did not attempt to
standardize curriculum among the various homogeneously formed groups that were
compared. Slavin’s interest was in isolating the unique effect of having
students learn in homogeneous groups, not in evaluating how curriculum may
become differentiated (enriched in high ability groups, “dumbed down” in low
ability groups) among homogeneous groups. Indeed, Slavin issued a warning that
is seldom acknowledged in brief or journalistic accounts of this research:
…there is an important limitation to this conclusion [of no
beneficial effect of ability grouping]. In most of the studies that compared
tracked to untracked grouping plans…, tracked students took different levels of
the same courses (e.g., high, average, or low sections of Algebra 1).
Yet much of the practical impact of tracking, particularly at the senior high
school level, is on determining the nature and number of courses taken in a
given area. The experimental studies do not compare students in Algebra 1 to
those in Math 9…. The conclusions drawn … are limited, therefore, to the
effects of between-class grouping within the same courses, and should
not be read as indicating a lack of differential effects of tracking as it
affects course selection and course requirements.”[318]
[Added emphasis shown in boldface.]
The findings of the Kulik &
Kulik and the Slavin meta-analyses are summarized in the following table:
Average
Effect Sizes from the
Kulik & Kulik and Slavin Meta-Analyses
Of Ability Grouping Studies
|
Ability
Grouping Type |
Grade Level |
Kulik &
Kulik |
Slavin |
|
Within-Class |
K-6 |
+.20 |
+.30 |
|
Joplin Plan |
K-6 |
+.30 |
+.45 |
|
XYZ Ability Grouping |
7-12 |
.00 |
.00 |
|
Enriched for Gifted |
K-12 |
+.40 |
|
|
Accelerated for Gifted |
K-12 |
+.90 |
|
What becomes clear from
examination of the above results is that, whatever benefits may accrue from the
grouping of students into homogeneous ability groups for instruction, these
benefits pale beside the benefits that accrue to gifted students when they are
separated from their classmates and given enriched and accelerated curricula.
Proponents of ability grouping
have sometimes made extraordinary reaches to supply their position with
empirical warrants. Allan reached toward the research on “peer modeling” from
educational psychology:
Further, the idea
that lower ability students will look up to gifted students as role models is
highly questionable. Children typically model their behavior after the behavior of other children of similar ability
who are coping well with school. Children of low and average ability do not model themselves on fast learners.[319]
It appears that “watching someone
of similar ability succeed at a task
raises the observer’s feelings of efficiency and motivates them to try the
task.”[320]
Students gain most from watching someone of similar ability “cope” (that is,
gradually improve their performance after some effort), rather than watching
someone who has attained “mastery” (that is, can demonstrate perfect
performance from the outset).[321]
These are extraordinary claims, if
true, because they seem to oversimplify the complex dynamics of children’s
lives in real classrooms. Indeed, the most generous thing that may be said for
the research basis of this claim is that it is oversimplified and was never
intended as justification for such positions. Schunk’s review of “peer models
and children’s behavioral change” focuses entirely on short-term (a few minutes
or hours), staged incidences in laboratories where children observe “models”
performing artificial tasks, for the most part. In fact, Schunk excluded from
his review studies of “natural peer interactions, [and] … tutoring or peer
teaching.”[322]
Moreover, this literature lacks any definition of what a “peer” is. At one
point, Schunk concluded that, of four
experiments involving observational learning of cognitive skills or novel
responses, “Each of these studies supports the idea that model competence
enhances observational learning.”[323] Schunk
continues:
Social cognitive theory [predicts both that] Children should
be more likely to pattern their behaviors after models who perform successfully
than to emulate less-successful models, [and that] models who are dissimilar
in competence to observers exert more powerful effects on children’s behavior.
… Similarity in competence may be more important in contexts where children
cannot readily discern the functional value of behavior; for example, when they
lack task familiarity, when there is no objective standard of performance, or
when modeled actions are followed by neutral consequences.[324]
In other words, similar competence
may be important – this theory seems to say – in those circumstances where
children have no basis for inferring what the competence of the “model” is. If
the reader thinks that this entire line of research bears scarcely a tenuous
relationship to classroom practice and education policy, he or she is joined in
those doubts by Schunk himself, who wrote: “Given the present lack of
classroom-based research, drawing implications for educational practices is a
speculative venture.”[325]
No research appeared to correct this “lack” between Schunk review in 1987 and
Allan’s use of it in 1991.
Sociologists’
View
Not surprisingly, psychologists
acted like psychologists when they studied the effects of ability grouping:
they contrived experiments, wrote paper-and-pencil tests, and sought objective
evidence of superior test performance. When sociologists turned their attention
to the tracking of students into ability groups, they acted like sociologists:
spending time in schools observing; interviewing teachers, parents and
students; asking questions about opportunities, preconceptions; and wondering
about what this form of schooling had to do with the larger society of which it
was one small part.
Gamoran[326] found that
students in low tracks or ability groups were less likely to attend college
than students in higher tracks. That lower tracks receive a poorer quality
curriculum, less experienced teachers, and teachers with lower expectations for
their students’ performance has been observed by several researchers, including
Gamoran,[327]
Oakes,[328] Persell,[329] Rosenbaum.[330]
Jeannie Oakes has been a
consistent critic of homogeneous grouping of students at all levels of the
educational system. Her research,[331] dating from
the late 1970s, has drawn on the evidence accumulated in literally thousands of
person-hours of observation of teachers and students in tracked classes and
schools. She has presented her findings forthrightly and forcefully:
Tracking does not equalize educational opportunity
for diverse groups of students. It does not increase the efficiency of
schools by maximizing learning opportunities for everyone…. Tracking does not
meet individual needs. Moreover, tracking does not increase student
achievement.
What tracking does, in fact, appears to be quite the
opposite. Tracking seems to retard the academic progress of many students –
those in average and low groups. Tracking seems to foster low self-esteem among
these same students and promote school misbehavior and dropping out. Tracking
also appears to lower the aspirations of students who are not in the top
groups. And perhaps most important, in view of all of the above, is that
tracking separates students along socioeconomic lines, separating rich from
poor, whites from nonwhites. The end result is that poor and minority children
are found far more often than others in the bottom tracks.[332]
Even proponents of tracking into
ability groups have acknowledged that
research “has verified again and again . . . that many low-track classes
are deadening, non-educational environments.”[333] What is
more, assignment to a low track is seldom followed by later reassignment to
middle or high tracks. The professed intention of assignment to lower tracks
being a transitional remedial period for the purpose of bringing students back
up to speed is seldom realized.[334]
In summarizing research on
tracking from the sociological perspective, Welner and Mickelson wrote:
In a nutshell, this substantial body of research
demonstrates that low-track classes are consistently characterized by lowered
expectations, reduced resources, rote learning, less-skilled teachers,
amplified behavioral problems, and an emphasis on control rather than learning.
…The extant empirical research has also demonstrated that low-track classes are
rarely remedial; that is, students placed in a lower track tend not to move
later to higher tracks and, in fact, suffer from decreased ambitions and
achievement…. Track placements, while increasingly subject to parental and
student choice, remain highly rigid and highly correlated to race and
class-over and above measured academic achievement….[335]
Although he does not present
himself as a sociologist, Jonathan Kozol has earned a reputation over nearly
forty years as a perceptive and credible observer of America’s schools,
particularly the schools hat suffer the multiple insults of severe poverty.
Kozol’s 1991 book, Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools,
detailed his observations of the extreme inequities experienced by the poor and
particularly the ethnic minority poor in U.S. schools. Tracking played a
prominent role in most of the schools he visited. In an interview for the
magazine Educational Leadership, Kozol was asked the following question:
Interviewer: Let’s talk a little bit about
curriculum innovations–for instance, the idea of reaching at-risk kids in ways
that are usually reserved for the gifted. Teaching algebra to remedial
students, for instance. Dissolving the tracking system. What are your opinions
about these solutions to problems of inequity?
Kozol: Tracking! When I was a teacher, tracking had been
thoroughly discredited. But during the past 12 years, tracking has come back
with a vengeance. …We have these cosmetic phrases like “homogeneous grouping.” It’s
tracking, by whatever name, and I regret that very much. It’s not just that
tracking damages the children who are doing poorly, but it also damages the
children who are doing very well, because, by separating the most successful
students–who are often also affluent, white children–we deny them the
opportunity to learn something about decency and unselfishness. We deny them
the opportunity to learn the virtues of helping other kids. All the wonderful
possibilities of peer teaching are swept away when we track our schools as
severely as we are doing today.[336]
Why
Such Different Views?
Two groups of scholars –
educational psychologists on the one hand and educational sociologists on the
other – come to quite different conclusions on the value of homogeneous
grouping of students for instruction. Why?
The answer lies in what they look for and how they look for it.
Psychologists have tended to focus on short-run comparisons of different
ability groups exposed to the same curriculum; they have evaluated the effects
of grouping with paper-and-pencil tests of achievement. For example, only nine
of the 52 studies in the Kuliks’ meta-analysis of secondary school ability
grouping involved any formal adaptation of the curriculum to the ability
level of the students.
Sociologists have taken a broader
view of the various effects that ensue from the separation of students into
homogeneous groups: the curriculum they receive, the type of instruction they are
given, the social climate that is created and how it might shape their
long-range plans, and the like. In large part, then, these two groups have been
observing different phenomena, and operating with different disciplinary
assumptions that have led them to draw conclusions that, if they don’t
contradict each other, at least place emphases on different outcomes.
Psychologists’ efforts to control independent variables have led them to focus
on experiments that held curriculum constant and varied group composition:
homogenously formed groups in one school, heterogeneously formed groups in
another. Sociologists, by contrast, have employed methods more akin to
naturalistic observation, finding tracked schools and observing all of the
consequences that ensue, including markedly differentiated curricula between
tracks. These different perspectives account, perhaps, for the relatively
benign view of tracking taken by educational psychologists.
Conclusion
One’s position on the ability
grouping question will probably turn on the value one attaches to academic
achievement of traditional types versus the broader goals of education. Those
who construe the purpose of schooling as primarily preparing students –
particularly the more academically able students – for higher education or the
workforce, and who feel they see clearly the demands of those future roles, are
likely to accept homogeneous grouping as an appropriate instructional strategy.
On the other hand, those who see education as sorting children and reproducing
social and economic class inequalities and protecting the privileges of already
privileged social and ethnic groups are likely to regard homogeneous grouping
as a principal means of achieving this goal. Loveless,[337] in his much
cited book The Tracking Wars, sketches a view of education that
virtually presupposes the superiority of ability grouping: Schools are “places
for students to learn content that is designated, authoritatively, by someone
else”[338]
(p. 13). This authoritative designation involves “deciding what students should
know (content), deciding what they are capable of learning (ability), and
finally, reconciling the content with students’ ability to learn it.” [339]
The educator’s responsibility is that of “matching students with curriculum”
and having “a legitimate party [decide what] students should learn.” [340]
This authoritarian, content-centered view of schooling has as many detractors
and as it has supporters.
Welner summarized the situation
with respect to tracking in language stripped of vagueness and euphemisms:
Ultimately, tracking is philosophically premised on the
belief that some children are so academically different from other children
that these two (or more) groups should not be in the same classroom.
Accordingly, the academically inferior children are placed in separate
classrooms where, in theory, they catch up (remediate) but where, in practice,
they usually fall further behind. Tracking, then, is about the rationing of
opportunities. From the perspective of the low-track student, it’s about
deciding that this student should not be exposed to curriculum and instruction
that would prepare him or her for subsequent serious learning. From the
perspective of the high-track student, it’s about enhancing the schooling
environment for some students by shielding (segregating) them from other
students.[341]
The teacher who worries about the
potential injustice to poor and minority students of tracking them into
homogeneous groups will find little support for dealing with the special
challenges that heterogeneous grouping presents. Commercially available
curriculum materials are unlikely to aim at the same goals while
differentiating the approach for students of differing levels of ability.
Cross-ability tutoring, which has the potential to significantly raise the
achievement of the tutors as well as those students being tutored,[342]
is seldom provided for in today’s schools and almost never included among the
techniques imparted during pre-service teacher training. Often, the most vocal
and active parents in a school will request ability grouping, when their
children stand a good chance of being assigned to the fast track. It is little
wonder that teachers prefer homogeneous groups for instruction, unless they are
confined to teaching the lowest tracks. However, the challenge that must be
faced whenever students are separated into homogeneous achievement groups is to
avoid the “dumbing down” of the curriculum, to make the content and activities
of the class as engaging and interesting as the curriculum of the highest
tracks, whether they are called “gifted,” “accelerated,” or “advanced.” One of
the few efforts to reverse the ill-effects of tracking at-risk students into
low-achieving homogeneous groups is Henry Levin’s[343] accelerated
schools movement, in which curriculum and teaching methods thought to be
appropriate only for high track students are adapted for the education of all
students. Tomlinson has recently offered advice on how instruction can be
differentiated in mixed-ability classrooms without suffering the many ills that
can result from segregating students into homogeneous ability groups.[344]
Administrators wishing to
“detrack” traditionally tracked schools will face a considerable challenge.
Welner and Oakes have offered plans for navigating the choppy political waters
that must be crossed when schools that have evolved to primarily serve the
interests of the brightest students are transformed into schools that serve all
students’ needs.[345]
Ability grouping, achievement
grouping, within-class, between-class, Joplin plan, gifted programs, tracking,
advanced placement – all of these devices may spring from the same basic
motivation. Since the empirical research on academic progress shows nothing
much more than small benefits to bright students of any of these forms of
grouping per se, and large benefits from enriching and accelerating the
curriculum for select students, the prevalence of these forms themselves
probably represents another expression of the wish of middle-class and
upper-middle-class parents to secure some advantage or privilege for their
children within the public school system. Is this bad? In a schooling system
already markedly segregated on the basis of housing patterns and in which poor
and academically deprived children already suffer not just from sub-standard
schooling but from the indignity of racial and socio-economic segregation (as
noted by Kozol[346]
and by Orfield and Eaton[347]),
the homogeneous grouping of students for instruction is one more advantage
conferred on those who already enjoy many. Jonathan Kozol has called the
tracking of poor and minority students into “special-needs” classes while white
middle-class students are accelerated in classes for the gifted “one of the
great, great scandals of American
education.”[348]
Recommendations
·
Mixed or heterogeneous ability or achievement groups offer
several advantages:
1.)
less able pupils are at reduced risk of being stigmatized
and exposed to a “dumbed-down” curriculum;
2.)
teachers’ expectations
for all pupils are maintained at higher levels;
3.)
opportunities for more able students to assist less able
peers in learning can be realized.
·
Teachers asked to teach in a “de-tracked” system will
require training, materials and support that are largely lacking in today’s
schools.
·
Administrators seeking to “detrack” existing programs will
require help in navigating the difficult political course that lies ahead of
them.
6: Parental and Family
Involvement in Education
Executive Summary
Summary of research findings
This paper reviews the research evidence
relevant to understanding the relationship between parental involvement and
children’s performance in school.
Indicators of parental involvement with school (e.g., attendance at
school events, parent/teacher conferences, PTO) have mixed associations with
children’s school performance. In
contrast, measures of parental involvement at home (e.g., talking to children
about school-related matters, high educational expectations, warm and consistent
discipline) show consistent associations with children’s school success. But even this evidence – based on
correlations – may not represent causal relationships, and so some critics
maintain that what parents do has little effect on children’s school performance.
Recommendations
·
Programs designed to promote parent/teacher interaction
should be continued, but with greater emphasis on initiatives designed to
improve the parent/child relationship.
·
Programs should be promoted that increase the amount of time
low-income children are exposed to school-based activities, whether through
more after-school programs, summer activities, or year-round schooling.
6: Parental and Family
Involvement in Education
The Ohio
State University
By the age of eighteen, children have typically spent only
13% of their waking life at school,[349] and there
are credible reasons for believing that parents have a role in shaping whether
the remaining 87% is spent in a way that promotes school success. The current
research evidence provides some guidance for understanding the kinds of
parental involvement that most likely improves children’s school performance,
although limitations of this work merit attention.
Parental
and Family Involvement Research
Research on parental involvement in their children’s
education covers two broad areas: the effects of parental interaction and
involvement in the school, and the impact of parental involvement in the home.
Research has examined both the norms of parental-school interaction at various
levels of society, and the efficacy of special efforts to enhance parental
involvement with school activities.
Parents at School
Parents
and teachers
There are several reasons for believing that good
parent-teacher relationships are conducive to children’s school
performance. Izzo, Weissberg, Kasprow,
and Fendrich[350]
explain: “When parents communicate constructively with teachers and participate
in school activities, they gain a clearer understanding of what is expected of
their children at school and they may learn from teachers how to work at home
to enhance their children’s education” [351] When parents attend parent/teacher
conferences, for example, it creates continuity between the two dominant
spheres of influence in the child’s life, home and school,[352] and likely
signals to children the parents’ value for education. In addition, some have argued that children learn more when they
receive consistent messages from home and school.[353] Epstein[354]
writes that the “main reason...for better communications and exchanges among
schools, families, and community groups is to assist students at all grade
levels to succeed in school and in life.” [355]
But what is the evidence that children’s school performance
in enhanced by a strong parent-teacher relationship? Stevenson and Baker report
that children performed better in school (as measured by teacher ratings of how
well the child performed in school and whether the child performed up to his or
her ability) when teachers rated the parents as actively involved in school
activities such as PTO and parent-teacher conferences in their sample of 179
children drawn from the Time Use Longitudinal Panel Study.[356] Similarly,
Grolnick and Slowiaczek studied 300 11-14 year-olds and found a strong
association between teachers’ reports of parental involvement (measured as
frequency of attendance at parent-teacher conferences, open school night, and
school activities and events, such as the PTO) and teacher reported grades,
controlling for parents’ education.[357]
But several studies report the opposite pattern: an inverse
relationship between parent/school contact and children’s school success.[358]
Desimone analyzed the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS), a
nationally representative sample of nearly 25,000 eighth graders collected in
1988, and found negative associations between parents’ contact with the school
regarding academic matters and students’ math and reading test scores and grades.[359] Rigsby, Stull and Morse-Kelly suggest that
one reason for this puzzling pattern is that parents may become involved with
adolescents’ schooling when the youths experience either behavioral problems or
poor grades.[360] Unfortunately, cross-sectional data do not
allow us to assess that possibility.
Some study designs avoid the limitations of correlational
research by comparing children involved in an intervention program with those
who did not experience the intervention. Moses et al. report the results of an
intervention in which parents were involved in children’s schooling in several
ways: as project leaders, through informational meetings, through participation
in workshops, and by acting as voluntary classroom helpers. In this study, students demonstrated a
marked increase in math performance compared to the achievement of students
from previous years lacking this parental involvement intervention.[361] Although it is impossible to know if the
intervention program was the only major difference in the children’s
experiences across the different school years, the results of this study are
consistent with the claim that nurturing parental involvement in the classroom
can improve school performance.
School-level
parental involvement
Children may experience some benefits from their parents’
involvement at school, but do they also fare better merely by attending a
school where many other parents are highly involved? One argument is that children benefit from school-level parental
involvement because it promotes information sharing and greater normative
control over children’s behavior.
Coleman described how “social closure,” i.e., environments in which
parents know each other, facilitates children’s identification with school.[362] Podolny and Baron[363] explain that
“a cohesive network conveys a clear normative order within which the individual
can optimize performance, whereas a diverse, disconnected network exposes the
individual to conflicting preferences and allegiances within which it is much
harder to optimize.” [364] As an illustration, if most parents strictly
enforced homework rules then it becomes more difficult for any single child to
resist because they are exposed to an environment where doing homework is
normative. In this way, children
benefit from their own parents’ school involvement but also by attending a
school where many parents are involved.[365]
While this argument has face validity, to date it receives
only modest empirical support.
Carbonaro found mixed support for Coleman’s claims. He reported that social closure was related
to better performance on mathematics test scores and a decrease in the
probability of dropping out, but had no effect on reading test scores or
grades.[366] Importantly, other researchers analyzing the
same data concluded that social closure was associated with lower math
test scores,[367]
and so the debate regarding the benefits of social closure in school persists.[368]
Other researchers have asked how much variation in students’
scores on achievement tests can be attributed to school-level differences in
parental involvement. The answer,
apparently, is very little. Sui-Chu and
Willms analyzed NELS data and concluded that while schools did differ in the
level of involvement associated with parental volunteers or attendance at parent-teacher
conferences, school-level parental involvement plays only a very small role in
explaining students’ math and reading test scores.[369] They concluded that while schools vary in
the degree to which parents are involved in school activities, relatively few
schools have a strong influence in shaping the learning climate at home, the
dimension of parental involvement most closely related to students’ school
success.[370]
Intervention studies also show little evidence that
school-level parental involvement has any significant impact on students’
school performance. For example, a
recent intervention termed CoZi (Co for James Comer and Zi for Edward Zigler)
involved:
1.)
parent and teacher participation in school-based decision
making that is grounded in child development principles;
2.)
parent outreach and education beginning at the birth of the
child;
3.)
child care for preschoolers and before- and after-school
care for kindergarten through sixth graders; and
4.)
parent involvement programs.
In initial evaluations comparing one CoZi and one non-CoZi
elementary school, the CoZi school had better school climate and parental
involvement than the comparable non-CoZi school, but parent-child interactions
and children’s level of achievement were not improved.[371] Of course,
it is possible that the children experienced no improvements in school
performance because the program was only in effect one year.
Taken as a whole, the current research evidence suggests
that parent involvement in children’s schools via attending parent-teacher conferences,
contacting school officials, attending school events, and developing a
close-knit community where many parents know each other, probably has modest positive effects on children’s school
performance. If parents are serious
about helping their children do well in school, improving their relationship
with teachers and involvement in school activities are worthy goals. The bulk
of research evidence, however, suggests that how parents interact with their
children at home matters more.
Parents at Home
There are many reasons for believing that what parents do at
home plays an important role in shaping children’s school-related skills. One piece of evidence comes from the
recently collected nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study–Kindergarten Cohort of 1998-99.
Eighteen percent of children entering kindergarten in the U.S. in the
fall of 1998 did not know that print reads left to right, where to go when a
line of print ends, or where the story ends in a book.[372] At the
other end of the spectrum, a small percentage of children beginning
kindergarten could already read words in context. These large differences in beginning skills likely represent
varying levels of exposure to print in the home. More evidence that what
happens at home is important comes from researchers making seasonal
comparisons–comparing students’ cognitive gains during the summer and
winter. Three independent longitudinal
studies reach the same conclusion:
disadvantaged children lose ground primarily during the summer, when
school is not in session and parents’ influence is primary.[373] But if home practices matter so much, what
exactly do parents do that promotes children’s school success?
Parenting
Style
To the extent that school-related skills, both cognitive and
social, are shaped by parenting approaches, parents play an important role in
preparing children to meet teachers’ demands. One characteristic of parents
that is consistently related to children’s school performance is the
expectation parents have for their child’s educational future. Children with parents who hope and expect
them to do well are more likely to do well in school than their counterparts
with parents who do not have high educational expectations for their children.[374]
But other work suggests that the best parenting approach
combines high expectations with parental responsiveness or warmth. One idea popular among developmental
psychologists is that an authoritative parenting style, characterized by
a balance between parents’ expectations and responsiveness, promotes children’s
self-esteem, mastery, and ultimately school success.[375] The argument is that children benefit from
authoritative parenting because parents establish and consistently enforce
rules and standards for their children’s behavior using nonpunitive methods of
discipline. Authoritative parents are
warm and supportive and encourage communication with their children while
validating the child’s individual point of view. In contrast, children’s development is said to be less consistent
when exposed to permissive parenting (low expectations and high
responsiveness) or authoritarian parents (high expectations and low
responsiveness).
Some empirical evidence is consistent with this view. Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, and
Fraleigh studied 7,836 high school students in the San Francisco Bay area and
found associations between the parents’ style of interaction (reported by the
student) and students’ grades that persisted despite statistical controls for
parents’ education, race, family structure, and the child’s sex. Students
describing their parents as employing an authoritative style performed best in
school, while students with authoritarian and, to a lesser extent, permissive
parents were more likely to have lower school grades, net of controls.[376] Similarly, in their study of adolescents in
nine different high schools, Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, and Darling found
that students with authoritative parents took greater responsibility for their
school outcomes.[377]
Other studies, although not employing Baumrind’s
“authoritative/authoritarian” nomenclature, supplement our understanding of
parental practices that are related to children’s school success. The Children of the National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth (CNLSY) and Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP) employ
the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) scale to assess
the quality of the child’s home environment.
The scale is based on interviewers’ observations and questions of the
mother. It includes measures of
learning experiences outside of the home (e.g., trips to museums, visits to
friends, trips to the grocery store), literary experiences within the home
(e.g., child has more than ten books, mother reads to the child, family members
read newspaper), cognitively stimulating activities within the home (e.g.,
materials that improve learning of skills such as recognition of letters,
numbers, colors, shapes, and sizes), punishment (whether child was spanked
during the home visit; maternal disciplinary style), maternal warmth (mother
kissed, caressed, or hugged the child during the visit; mother praised the
child’s accomplishments during the visit), and the physical environment
(whether the home is reasonably clean and uncluttered; whether the child’s play
environment is safe). A one standard
deviation increase on the HOME scale was associated with a 9-point gain on the
PPVT-R vocabulary test.[378] Phillips et al. conclude: “For parents who
want their children to do well on tests (which means almost all parents),
middle-class parenting practices seem to work.”[379]
Similarly, in once-monthly observations of 40 families over
a two and a half year period, Hart and Risely[380] found
several dimensions of parenting style that were related to the child’s
subsequent performance on IQ tests.
They conclude that three primary dimensions of parenting are what
matter:
1.)
The absolute amount of parenting per hour (e.g., how often
the parent is in the child’s presence, the percentage of child activities in
which the parent took a turn, the number of words the parent speaks to the
child);
2.)
parents’ social interaction with the children (e.g., the
percentage of child’s initiations the parent responds to); and
3.)
the quality of speech to the child (e.g., how often did the
parent repeat child utterances, the percentage of parent utterances that were
questions, and the absence of prohibitions such as “stop,” “quit,” or “don’t”).
The third factor, quality of speech to the child was the
strongest predictor of the child’s later IQ.
They conclude that “[t]he major differences associated with differences
in IQ were the extensive amount of time, attention, and talking that higher SES
parents invest in their children and their active interest in what their
children have to say.”[381]
Clark’s 1983 study also is consistent with Baumrind’s
emphasis on warm and responsive parenting.
Clark studied 10
African-American children, half of whom were successful academically and half
of whom were not. Clark reported that
parents of high-achieving students had a distinct style of interacting with
their children. They created
emotionally supportive home environments and provided reassurance when the
children encountered failure.[382]
Other studies also show evidence of parental involvement in the
child’s school planning as important.
Using the NELS, Sui-Chu and Willms developed four dimensions of parental
involvement: 1.) home discussion, 2.) home supervision, 3.) school
communication, and 4.) school participation.
They report that “of the four types of involvement, home discussion was
the most strongly related to academic achievement.”[383] The pattern
they found was replicated by others.[384] This
association may represent greater parental interest in the child’s progress,
greater involvement in negotiating course selection, guidance in how to handle
school problems, or a number of other ways parents help their children with
schooling.
Children whose parents provide structured, adult-supervised
activities at home tend to do better on cognitive tests and earn better grades.[385]
Clark found that parents of successful students actively helped them organize
their daily and weekly schedules and monitored this schedule closely to ensure
that it was followed.[386] Similarly, Taylor reports that family
routines (e.g., “My family has certain routines that help our household run
smoothly”) are associated with success in school.[387] Children
may benefit from structure because it promotes the development of
school-related habits that teachers tend to reward (e.g., consistent
attendance, attentiveness, consistently turning in homework, not disrupting
class).
Parents’ linguistic styles are also related to children’s
school success. Children do better in
school when their parents verbalize instructions frequently and specifically .[388] Parents use of verbal variety and detailed
instruction are features of language associated with high academic achievement
among children. Further, the parents of
high-achieving children tend to be closely attuned to the cognitive level of
their children and to respond more to individual cues their children give than
to preconceived expectations or status rules for children.[389]
Reading to
Children
Not surprisingly, several research strains suggest that children
whose parents read to them 20 minutes or more a day during the pre-school years
have substantially higher pre-reading skills when they enter kindergarten.[390]
When analyzing the Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
(CNLSY), Phillips et al. note that five- and six-year-olds’ vocabulary scores
are about 4 points higher (one-quarter of a standard deviation) when their
mothers read to them daily as opposed to not at all, net background controls.[391]
Furthermore, a British study suggests that parental reading may be more
effective than reading with someone else.
The authors report that children benefited more from being read to aloud
two to four times a week from books sent home from school than did children
receiving additional assistance at school from a tutor.[392]
Educational
opportunities
Some research suggests that children’s school performance is
better when the home has a variety of educational objects, such as books,
newspapers, a computer, magazines, and a place to study.[393] While
children would obviously not benefit from books in the home if never opened,
the presence of books or a computer provide the child with the opportunity to
develop school-related skills. In
addition, there is an association between the amount of money parents save for
children’s educational future and school performance.[394] It is not clear whether this money directly
influences children (by providing the message that they are expected to go to
college) or if it is merely correlated with other parental characteristics that
matter.
Homework
Finn suggests that helping with homework is a concrete way
that parents demonstrate the commitment they have to education.[395] Surprisingly, however, there is little
research support for this claim. Many
studies based on the NELS sample of eighth graders show an inverse association
between parents’ help with homework (or rules about homework) and youths’
performance in school,[396]
although most suspect that this association is a result of parents deciding to
help a struggling child. In addition,
parents’ effectiveness may depend on their level of education. Balli, Wedman,
and Demo found that students whose parents held a college degree benefited more
from parental involvement with homework than did students whose parents lacked
a college degree.[397]
Cultural
capital
Bourdieu posited that students receive academic rewards not
just for course knowledge, but also for signaling affiliation with elite groups
(i.e., “cultural capital”) through their speech, style, mode of dress, and other
habits.[398] Bourdieu viewed cultural capital as
arbitrary – he argued that the cultural practices of the elite are not
inherently “better” than those of the disadvantaged – but cultural capital
associated with elite culture tends to be rewarded in the classroom. From this perspective, some of the skills or
habits children need to develop for school success are not necessarily “good”
but are simply the ones rewarded by teachers.[399] Consistent with these claims, DiMaggio
reported that U.S. high school students received higher grades, net of
socioeconomic status, when they reported interests (e.g., interest in being a
composer) and involvement (e.g., attending literature readings) in art, music,
and literature.[400] Other researchers have also noted that
children tend to do better in school when they have been exposed to events or
activities outside of school such as art and history museums, or music and
dance lessons.[401]
What are some of these cultural skills for which children
are rewarded? Swidler describes a tool
kit of cultural skills, habits, and styles as largely ingrained behaviors.[402] These might be as simple as understanding
appropriate kinds of responses to teachers’ questions about a book[403]
or understanding that print reads left to right, where to go when a line of
print ends, or where the story ends, three skills that nearly one in five
children entering kindergarten in America lack.[404] This cultural tool kit may also contain
non-cognitive skills that are important for negotiating the student role. For example, students who can demonstrate
the appropriate level of attentiveness, persistence at tasks, eagerness to
learn, and organizational skills are more likely to earn good grades.[405]
Low-Income
Parents
Many of the parental practices described above are highly
correlated with socioeconomic status, and so it is likely that one of the
reasons children from disadvantaged backgrounds do less well in school than
their more advantaged counterparts is because their parents’ interaction style
less successfully prepares them for school.
Indeed, some scholars report that the typically positive effects of
socioeconomic status on children’s school performance are mediated entirely by
parenting practices.[406] It is difficult to discern precisely how
related parenting styles and socioeconomic status are, but it is clear that
there is substantial overlap.
In his classic 1969 book, Class and Conformity,
Melvin Kohn offers one reason for this overlap. He argued that parents’ style of interaction with their children
is influenced in important ways by the parents’ occupations. Parents who work in jobs with little
autonomy (e.g., data entry) and are rewarded for adherence to external standards
(e.g., being on time, being neat, obedience to authority), tend to parent in
ways that prepare their children for success in these same kinds of jobs. Kohn found that working-class parents put
more emphasis on obedience than did middle-class parents. In contrast, parents in occupations that
allow for more self-determined activities
and decision-making tend to promote their children’s skills for assuming
these kinds of middle-class occupations.
The middle-class parent, therefore, uses a less punitive style of
discipline and puts greater emphasis on developing children’s internal
controls. From Kohn’s perspective, both low- and high-socioeconomic parents
want what is best for their children; they are simply teaching their children
the skills they deem necessary for success in the world. Through the working-class parent’s
interaction style, however, he or she unwittingly increases the likelihood that
the child will remain in the same social class position.[407]
Socioeconomic position is also related to how parents
interact with teachers and school officials. Lareau observed parent/teacher
relationships in a working-class and a middle-class community and reported that
teachers in both communities made active efforts to involve parents, but that
low-income parents were less involved. Working-class parents were less likely
to attend parent-teacher conferences, for example, in part because the costs of attending – in terms of
obtaining transportation, securing child care,
and rearranging work schedules – were typically greater for working-
than for middle-class parents. In addition, working-class parents were more
likely than middle-class parents to espouse a view that it is the school's job
to educate their children.[408] Lareau writes: “Working-class culture ...
promotes independence between the spheres of family life and schooling.”[409] In contrast, middle-class parents were more
likely to view their child’s education as partly their own responsibility,
along with the school’s. Working-class
parents were less involved with teachers for other reasons too. They were less comfortable interacting with
teachers, in part, because they reported feeling unqualified to discuss
academic problems. When they did have
contact with teachers, working-class parents often discussed non-academic
issues such as bus schedules or playground activities.
Others note how language differences across class end up
shaping success in school. Bernstein describes how parents of low socioeconomic
status tend to use a “restricted” language code in which language is embedded
in context, reflects the status of individuals, and minimizes the need to make
one’s meaning explicit. In contrast,
higher socioeconomic parents use an “elaborate” code that is less context-based
and more individualistic so that language is used to make meaning more
explicit.[410] To illustrate this difference Bernstein
offers two vignettes of a mother and a child riding a bus. In the lower socioeconomic pair, the
mother’s mode of control relies on commands with little explanation (e.g.,
“Hold on tight”) and reflects the hierarchical view of the adult-child
relationship (“I told you to hold on tight, didn’t I?”). In the middle socioeconomic group, the
interactions are less hierarchical, and the mother provides a learning
opportunity by using language to explore the situation (“If you don’t hold on
tight, you will be thrown forward and you will fall,” “If the bus stops
suddenly, you’ll jerk forward on to the seat in front.”) Bernstein notes that
an important educational consequence of these two different approaches to
language is that the relatively context-independent style used by the
middle-class parent matches that expected by school teachers.[411]
In addition, low-income parents experience greater financial
stress and health-related problems than other parents, and both of these may
impede their ability to develop consistent routines. Children perform better in school when their learning is not
compromised by hunger, distracting physical ailments, lack of adequate sleep,
unattended visual limitations, or other health related problems. Ear infections during the early years
(before age four) pose a special problem because they can alter the functioning
of the middle ear and thus affect the child’s hearing and, consequently,
language development. A report from the National Institute on Early Childhood
suggests that treating middle ear infections is crucial to children's language
development.[412]
Kellaghan et al. note that iodine deficiency during pregnancy, zinc deficiency,
and iron deficiency have long-lasting consequences for children’s development.[413] There is also greater drug and alcohol abuse
among the poor, factors that work against consistent routines. While some low-income parents may benefit
from instruction on developing home routines, for those low-income parents who
suffer from drug and alcohol abuse or experience stress related to financial
problems, health problems, or both, it unlikely that they will make substantial
progress in developing home-based routines while these underlying problems
persist.
Implications For Practice And Policy
The current evidence suggests that there may be some profit
in improving parent/teacher relations, but that a more effective way to improve
children’s school performance involves improving parent/child relations. This is disconcerting news for policymakers,
because parent/child relations are much more difficult to affect via policy
than parent/teacher relations. And for
low-income families, part of parents’ interaction style – linguistic style, for
instance – is likely rooted in class position and may not be fundamentally
altered unless class position
changes. If parents are unlikely to
change what they do at home unless their class position is improved, one policy
approach is to increase the amount of time that children are with teachers via
after school programs or year-round schooling.
Given what has been already noted from seasonal comparison research – that the gap in
cognitive skills between advantaged and disadvantaged children emerges
primarily during the summer – low-income children would likely benefit the most
from more exposure to schooling.
The record for changing parents’ home behaviors in ways that
affect children’s school performance is not encouraging. White, Taylor and Moss carefully reviewed the
results of 172 studies ranging from those training parents to improve
children’s developmental skills (e.g., motor, language) to those where parents
were classroom aides.[414]
Surprisingly, they find little evidence that parental involvement matters. They
conclude that “there is no convincing evidence that the ways in which parents
have been involved in previous early intervention research studies result in
more effective outcomes.”[415]
However, one recent study shows success. Children
participating in the Chicago Child-Parent Center Program enrolled in half-day
preschool at ages three to four years and were exposed to rigorous reading
lessons in small classes while their parents were involved in activities with
other parents (e.g., educational workshops, reading groups, and craft
projects), volunteered in the classroom, attended school events and field
trips, and were encouraged to complete high school. Further, the program included health and nutrition services,
health screening, speech therapy, and nursing and meal services. Results
suggest that children in the program were more likely to graduate from high
school and less likely to be arrested 15 years later than similarly matched
children.[416] Because involvement in the program was not a
result of parent initiative – parents were actively recruited for the program –
it is unlikely that the advantages for participants merely represent the
selectivity of more involved parents.[417]
What Have Critics Said?
The vast majority of research on parenting practices is correlational,
and so an important concern is that the observed associations between parenting
practices and students’ school performance represent mere correlations, not
causal relationships. This position has
received considerable attention lately from behavioral geneticists who assert
that the role of parental behaviors has been overstated in the social sciences
and that genetic influences have been understated.[418] With respect to the impact parents have on
children through shaping the home environment, Scarr writes:
It is
clear that there are family differences, but it is also clear that most of
those differences are not environmental.
Among families in the mainstream of Western Europe and North American
societies, differences in family environments seem to have little effect on
intellectual and personality differences among their children, unless they are
seriously deprived of opportunities and support... [g]ood enough, ordinary
parents probably have the same effects on their children’s development as culturally
defined super-parents.[419]
For purposes of understanding how parental involvement
influences children’s school performance, this debate is especially important
because, if the behavioral geneticists’ position is correct, most parents
cannot affect their children’s school success much.
An example of the problem of determining causality with
correlational studies can be illustrated with the frequently found negative
relationship between how often parents help with homework and children’s school
performance.[420]
The idea that more help is associated with poorer performance strikes one as
counterintuitive.[421] But this association probably represents
parents’ response to children’s need for help.
The kinds of children needing help are different (probably poorer
students) than the kinds of children who easily complete their homework on
their own. In a typical correlational
study, researchers try to address this possibility by statistically equalizing
the two groups on characteristics such as income, education, family structure,
race, urban/suburban/rural location, and other factors they suspect might be
different between the kinds of parents who supervise children’s homework versus
those who do not. They would also statistically
control for the child’s previous performance in school.
These attempts to isolate the unique effect of “parental
involvement in homework” are limited, however, because we usually cannot
measure or even conceive of all of the ways the two groups of parents and their
children may be different. As a result,
despite statistical controls we probably fail to obtain unbiased estimates of
the true effect of parental help with homework. Of course it is possible that children’s school efforts really
are hampered rather than helped by their parents, but few researchers espouse
this view. A more likely explanation is
that the statistical controls used to equalize the two groups are
inadequate. But if this kind of problem
affects our ability to estimate accurately the effects of parental involvement
with homework, it likely affects our estimates of other parental behaviors too,
casting doubt on nearly all of the parental involvement literature.[422]
Another example of the behavioral geneticists’ position can
be understood by considering the associations between “good” parenting
practices and children’s school success.
Behavioral geneticists note that parents influence children in two ways,
by providing their home environment but also by passing on genes. If parents who create good environments are
also parents with good genes, associations between good parenting behaviors and
students’ school success may have little to do with parenting actions and may
simply represent the genetic advantages typical of parents who also happen to
use good parenting practices. This line
of thinking posits that the correlation between “good” parenting
(authoritative) and children’s school success may be a function of parents with
genetic advantages (high intelligence, easy disposition) having children with
similar advantages and also parenting in the culturally prescribed way. Among middle-class Americans of European
descent this means an authoritative approach.
Because other racial/ethnic groups favor other parenting styles,
genetically advantaged parents in other groups might not use authoritative
parenting. Asian Americans, for
example, more often use authoritarian parenting, yet Asian-American children
often do well in school.[423] Correlations from most parenting studies
could be reinterpreted as the effects of good genes rather than good parenting.
It is difficult to discern between environmental and genetic
explanations with correlational data, so one approach is to look at whether
adopted children are more like their adopted parents (who provide their
environment) or their biological parents (who provide their genes). In terms of scores on intelligence tests, it
appears that adopted children are more like their biological parents, even if
they were adopted at birth [424] Another analytically powerful comparison is
to look at children who are similar genetically but who have experienced
different environments: identical twins reared apart. Of course, identical twins are rare themselves and so finding
identical twins raised apart is nearly impossible. Researchers at the
University of Minnesota have collected data on more than 100 pairs, however.
Analyses of these data show surprising results – the twins are more alike each
other than we would expect, even when unaware of each other’s existence for
most of their lives.[425]
While the position that children’s
outcomes are more readily understood via genetics rather than environment may
strike many as unlikely, it is not easily dismissed based on the current
empirical evidence.
The implications of this position – that parental
involvement matters little – are clear for policy: Only programs designed to raise children out of the very worst
environmental conditions would be effective.
Several important issues regarding heritability studies are
still debated. For example, critics
point out that it is not clear how much contact occurred between some of the
identical twins raised apart in heritability studies. Identical twins in these studies vary in many ways (e.g., the age
at which they were separated and the difference in the kinds of home
environments they were raised); ideally all would have been separated at birth
and raised in randomly different environments, but, of course, it would not be
ethical to set up such an experiment prospectively. Another issue has to do
with the attempt to neatly separate environmental and genetic effects. Critics claim that genetic and environmental
effects interact and so typical heritability studies underestimate
environmental contributions.[426]
For example, a temperamentally difficult child may be difficult for genetic
reasons, but this child also evokes harsh parenting. Perhaps identical twins reared apart are similar to each other
because they end up evoking similar environments (they look alike), and only
modestly so because of shared genes. If
this interpretation of heritability studies proves true, then how parents
interact with their children matters.
Summary and Recommendations
The research available to
date on the subject of parental involvement in education yields conclusions
about what we know as well as what we don’t know.
It is unlikely that increasing parents’ participation at PTA
meetings and in helping with homework alone will have a substantial
impact on children’s school performance.
Programs that successfully raise children’s school performance via
parental involvement do so by meeting the broad needs of parents. For example,
the success of the Chicago Child-Parent Center Program is probably a function
of the wide range of services provided to parents, including educational workshops,
reading groups, and craft projects, health and nutrition services, health
screening, speech therapy, and nursing and meal services.
There is little reason to believe that the kinds of policy
initiatives employed in the past – even the Chicago Child-Parent Center Program
– will dramatically affect the gap in performance among students from low- and
high-income families. After-school and
year-round programs will probably benefit low-income children the most.
It is not clear that children’s performance in school is
solely or perhaps even primarily a function of parenting style. While children’s school success is
associated with parenting approaches, this association is culturally specific
(e.g., authoritative parenting is used among the parents of successful white
students but authoritarian parent is used among the parents of successful
Asian-American students in the U.S.) and may represent, in part, the genetic
similarity between parent and child.
These conclusions support the following policy
recommendations to enhance parental involvement:
·
Programs designed to promote parent/teacher interaction
should be continued, but with greater emphasis on initiatives designed to
improve the parent/child relationship.
Programs designed to meet the broad needs of parents (e.g., improving
parents’ reading skills, reducing financial stress, meeting health and
nutritional needs) are likely to be the most successful.
·
Programs should be promoted that increase the amount of time
low-income children are exposed to school-based activities, whether through
more after-school programs, summer activities, or year-round schooling.
7:
Public Schools and Their Communities
Executive Summary
Summary of Research Findings
Although limited largely to case studies, research has documented a wide
range of programs that have expanded public schools’ involvement with the
communities in which they operate. Such programs face a variety of challenges
that range from institutional rivalries to competition for scarce financial
resources. Operated effectively, however, than can contribute to improved
achievement by students living in poverty.
Recommendations
·
Basic parental involvement programs should be enhanced to
include multiple opportunities for formal and informal communication between
school personnel and parents.
·
Parental involvement programs should be developed that
embrace the ethnic, linguistic, cultural, racial, and religious diversity of
the parents.
·
Parental involvement programs should be designed to be
sensitive to the special needs of poor parents, single parents, parents with
large families, and those families where both parents work outside of the home.
·
Written materials should be provided in the language
with which parents are the most familiar.
·
Schools and other social organizations wishing to provide
school-linked services should carefully consider the scope, funding needs, organizational
and professional complexities, and types of services to be offered.
·
Funding for new community involvement projects should be
kept consistent and stable. The bigger and more complex the project, the
greater the need for adequate funding.
·
Extra-curricular programs should be kept vital to help
foster strong parental involvement.
·
Educational leaders and policy makers should be encouraged
to reconceptualize the public school as a vital economic resource that must be
nurtured.
7: Public Schools and Their
Communities
Rutgers
University
The interplay between public schools, their respective
communities and child welfare has been an area of public policy concern for
well over a century. From as early as the late 19th century, various
educational and social reformers have sought to strengthen the ties between
schools and communities in hopes of bolstering better outcomes for children, as
well as building stronger, more functional communities.[427] Yet, many
of the same problems reformers faced over a century ago stubbornly remain: low
parental involvement, the deleterious effects of concentrated poverty,
inappropriate pedagogy and policy, racial and ethnic economic isolation,
dysfunctional families, and ineffectual political leadership.[428]
Each issue can hinder an individual child’s educational achievement, but the
interaction of multiple factors can be devastating.[429]
This report seeks to map out this history and the
contemporary research literature regarding the interaction of public schools,
their communities, and student outcomes, especially academic achievement. It
reviews some of the major consistencies within the research literature,
particularly during the past 15 years. It also notes some of the major
criticisms regarding school to community outreach, including some of the
lingering paradoxes. This report pays particular attention to what reforms seem
to work best with poor children and concludes with recommendations for the best
choices in educational practice and policy making.
Schools and Community Research
An Historical Overview
During the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, educational and social reformers pushed for an expanded role for
public education. Many were deeply concerned by the exploding numbers of poor
and destitute children who seemed to overwhelm local schools, particularly in
the nation’s booming urban centers. Cities were also faced with an
ever-enlarging immigrant population, many of whom had little education or
economic resources.[430]
In hopes of improving the lives of children, educators and social reformers
sought to expand the mission of the public school. Not only would the public
school educate, but it would also bathe, feed and inoculate needy children.
Their mission did not stop there: all children, many of whom were either
immigrants themselves or children of recent immigrants, would be
“Americanized.” They would learn the dominant social, political, and cultural
norms of mainstream – and at that time, largely Anglo – America.[431]
Reformers of the era viewed the public school as a linchpin in the process of
“child-saving.”[432]
By the 1910s, numerous city schools offered gyms, school nurses, playgrounds,
shower facilities, and even school lunches.[433] Some
locations offered adult education classes for parents, held typically at night,
not only to build their own language skills and knowledge base, but also to
learn new parenting skills. In other instances, teachers would visit their
students’ homes in hopes of fostering better communication between the school and
parents, as well as building a consistency of academic and behavioral
expectations. Urban districts began to use the “school newsletter” as a means
of communication with parents and the public at large.[434]
These efforts to better link the schools with their
communities were rooted in the late 19th century sociological notion
of building “social ecology,” or improving the overall environment in which
children and their parents lived. For many children, their lives did improve.
Public schools not only ameliorated the harshest effects, but also offered
children the promise of a way out of poverty. Attendance rates soared as
immigrant children in particular streamed into the public schools. By 1908, a
larger percentage of immigrant children attended public schools than did their
“native-born” peers.[435]
These services came at costs that were both personal and
fiscal, however. The personal costs were generally borne by those who were
receiving the help. To become “Americanized” meant that children had to
relinquish the cultural practices and norms from the “old country.” In
practical terms, it meant that many immigrant children were taught that their
heritage (and by implication, their parents) were inferior. Accordingly,
teachers and administrators treated with immigrant parents more than a whiff of
condescension. As one educator explained:
They must
be made to understand what it is we are trying to do for the children.
They must be made to realize that in forsaking the land of their birth,
they were also forsaking the customs and traditions of that land; and they must
be made to realize an obligation, in adopting a new country, to adopt
the language and customs of that country.[436]
In addition to problematic relations between the schools and
parents, both the textbooks and teachers could be hostile towards non-Anglo
children, with more than a few hurling racial, ethnic and religious slurs.[437] In 1903,
reporter Adele Marie Shaw recounted that one elementary teacher bellowed at one
child, “You dirty little Russian Jew, what are you doing?”[438]
Finally, the help tended to be imposed whether or not
students and their parents believed they needed assistance.[439] The
assumption of the era was that professional educators were far better prepared
to assess the welfare of children than were their immigrant parents.
The greatest drawbacks to extending more services to
“children at risk,” though, were fiscal, and these financial drawbacks were
rooted in the politics of the era. These efforts were subjected to intense
scrutiny on the heels of the 1917 Russian Revolution, with some commentators
noting that such social programs were dangerously “socialistic.”[440]
For years, public education had been under the policy microscope regarding its
seeming lack of fiscal accountability, possible political radicalism,[441]
and instructional inefficiencies. Thanks to the churning political
environment, much of the tax money for greater social services, which, in some
places, was extensive and expensive, evaporated.[442] In hopes
of maintaining political and fiscal support, public school leaders scrambled to
deflect criticism, and many embraced the new “science” of public relations,
touting public education’s ever-increasing efficiency.[443] Until the
late 1980s, efforts to do community outreach and communication to bolster
student academic outcomes would become largely one-way –with information
flowing only from the schools to the families.[444]
Schools and Communities Today
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers, educators, social
service providers, and policy makers were alarmed at the rising number of
children in crisis, particularly in poor urban areas. Many states had curtailed
social service provisions to offset budget shortfalls. Additionally, the
federal government had greatly reduced its level of fiscal involvement with
poor children beginning in the early 1980s.[445]
Concurrently, the number of children in poverty was rising. As researcher Joy
Dryfoos observed in 1994:
By 1991,
more than fourteen million children – 22 percent of all children – lived in
families below the poverty line, the highest number and rate since 1965. As in
no other period of time, disadvantage shifted from the oldest people to the
youngest. And those children living in mother-only households have become the
most deprived of all, with more than 55 percent living in poverty.[446]
Such social and economic turbulence was adversely affecting
many students and their academic achievement. This turbulence was also coupled
with increased political concern regarding public education and its possible
adverse effects on the nation’s economic competitiveness.[447] Public
schools leaders, community members, social service providers, policy makers and
researchers took a renewed interest in rebuilding the social ecology of local
public schools in hopes of fostering better academic outcomes, and in turn,
stabilizing the social environment—thus revitalizing a national economy.[448]
States and the federal government began to explore the
notion of “systemic reform,” or coordinating the various governmental policies
that affect children in a more holistic fashion to improve both their current
lives and their long-term life chances.[449] For
education, and urban education in particular, this meant involving various
branches of government in efforts to better link schools to the communities
they serve.[450]
Many of these new reform efforts drew on the work of the
sociologist James S. Coleman. In the early to mid-1980s, Coleman and his
colleagues had studied the academic effectiveness of urban Catholic schools. He
theorized that the reason Catholic schools seemed to generate better outcomes
for their students was that these schools and their students enjoyed a high
degree of “social capital.” Coleman further theorized that these schools in their
particular communities were “functional communities,” because their members
shared a high degree of what he called “intergenerational closure.”
Additionally, the communities and the schools shared a strong interest in the
general welfare of the students. Parents knew each other and each other’s
children. The implications were that these schools functioned in relatively
close-knit communities. Parents, school personnel, and community members
cultured the relationships and shared norms (i.e. the social capital) that were
critical to successful child rearing and schooling.[451]
There were criticisms of the Coleman studies, particularly
regarding their possible utility and applicability for public schools. The
critics noted three key differences between Catholic urban and public urban
schools. First, Catholic schools tended to “cream” the academically strongest
students (and their parents) away from the distressed urban schools.
Additionally, students who attended Catholic schools did so voluntarily, unlike
many of their public school peers. Finally, Catholic schools were free to expel
students who failed to conform to either academic or behavioral expectations.[452]
Nevertheless, researchers and policy makers began to explore
the possibilities that public schools, in conjunction with other community and
social service groups, could build, rebuild or even expand the social capital
of their communities. Reformers also drew on the earlier efforts of
Progressive-Era reformers to strengthen the social ecology of school neighborhoods.
Subsequently, multiple and various blueprints were designed; all aimed at
bringing various stakeholders together.[453]
Full-Service Schools
By the early 1990s, well over 800 projects were aimed at
fostering greater ties between schools and their communities.[454]
States from California to New Jersey were experimenting with vastly expanded
social service provision as well as experimenting with differing organizational
structures, including interagency
collaboration and full-service school programs. These terms, as well as
school-linked services, have been used in the research literature. They
describe efforts to bring various social service providers together within a
formal organizational structure—sometimes sharing a building, typically a
public school—to share staff, resources, and responsibilities. All were to
better serve children, their parents and the larger community.[455]
In an age of continuing budget constraint, some early proponents of this
approach argued that providers might even realize budgetary cost savings if the
collaborating agencies could eliminate needless service duplication.[456]
These projects tended to be idiosyncratic in nature. As Joy
Dryfoos noted in 1994, full-service schools, by design, were to be highly
sensitive to the local contexts. There has been no one model of a “full-service
school.” The disparate interagency collaborations have included personnel from
public schools, child protective services, juvenile justice agencies, mental
health agencies, public health departments, the medical system, as well as
parents and other community members.[457]
Most of the extant evaluation research of these projects has
been in the form of single-case or multi-case studies. However, common
similarities across project sites include better attendance rates, lower
substance abuse, and lower dropout rates. Additionally, “[s]tudents, parents,
teachers, and school personnel report a high level of satisfaction with school
clinics and centers and particularly appreciate their accessibility,
convenience, and caring attitude.”[458]
Despite the encouraging signs, stubborn organizational and
legal issues have been hard to resolve in these expansive undertakings. Some of
the most vexing issues have been those of professional “turf,” client
confidentiality and budgetary authority.[459] In the area
of professional turf, for example, some school counselors have felt threatened
by the presence of social workers from child protective services and were
reluctant to share information.[460]
Furthermore, child protective agencies and the criminal justice system at
times were barred by law from sharing crucial information regarding children
with school officials.[461]
Finally, a number of collaborative efforts got snarled in various budgetary
directives, many of which demanded single, rather than shared, lines of fiscal
accountability.[462]
Another issue facing proponents of full-service schools has
been maintaining consistent funding. A mixture of state and federal funds and
private foundation grants has paid for many of these collaborative projects.
These projects have been particularly vulnerable to shifting political winds.
For instance, the movement suffered a setback by the withdrawal of funding by
one major foundation. After a disappointing preliminary evaluation of an
inter-organizational collaboration in June of 1994, the Pew Charitable Trust
withdrew from a highly ambitious 10-year, $60 million project dubbed The
Children’s Initiative. Pew concluded that to realize the positive changes
envisioned by the initial project, even greater expansion of social service
provision was needed. For the initiative to have even greater influence on
children’s lives, it was going to move into areas such as housing, employment
and drug abuse. It was already a large-scale and highly complex initiative that
called for various service providers to fundamentally reconceptualize their
professional roles and behaviors, while they continued to work in traditional
bureaucratic environments. The weak initial evaluations regarding student
outcomes in a political climate that had been hostile to tax-based social
service provision made the project too politically risky for Pew to maintain
its presence.[463]
Disappointing as this has been, the demise of Pew’s
Children’s Initiative is congruent with what we know about educational reform.
Historians David Tyack and Larry Cuban surveyed more than 100 years of
educational and social reforms to determine which ones had staying power. They
concluded the reforms that were institutionalized all had the following
characteristics:
1.) The reforms were adaptable to local circumstances.
2.) Successful reforms were modest in approach and design.
3.) Policy makers and regulators solicited and incorporated
continuous input from those who had to implement the reforms (teachers,
administrators, parents, etc.).
4.) Successful reforms enjoyed strong and consistent political and
fiscal support. Popular at the grassroots, these reforms encountered little
opposition.
5.) Successful reforms were relatively easy to implement and
maintain (for example, structural or programmatic add-ons—adding kindergarten
programs, the development of the junior high school, expanding the school lunch
program to include a breakfast program, offering computer classes to parents
after hours, etc.).[464]
Given these findings it is understandable that the Pew
initiative was not sustainable. Yet, as Tyack and Cuban have demonstrated,
there are effective reform efforts targeted at community building and parental
outreach, which this report now explores.
Successful efforts at linking schools and
communities
Parental
involvement
In bolstering school community outreach, public school
educators have used numerous strategies. Many of these are centered on
increasing parental involvement in their children’s education and school. As
researchers Daniel J. McGrath and Peter J Kuriloff observe:
For policy
makers, parent involvement in schools represents a method for, first, improving
schools' services to families by making schools more accountable to parents;
second, strengthening ties between schools and families traditionally
underserved by schools; and, third, better serving students by taking advantage
of parents' rich stores of knowledge about their children.[465]
Additionally, the research base regarding the efficacy of
parental involvement is strong, and these findings have generally demonstrated
that parental involvement can have positive effects on student academic
achievement. Students
whose parents are involved with their education tend to have fewer behavior
problems in school, fewer absences, and higher rates of academic achievement
and graduation than those students whose parents do not get involved.[466]
Additionally, those students who are failing can improve dramatically if
parental assistance is cultivated by school personnel. In particular, ethnic
minority students or those with learning disabilities can enjoy significant
benefits if their parents are involved with their schooling.[467]
Many public schools use the traditional methods of
soliciting parental involvement: hosting the open house or “parents’ night,”
soliciting parent volunteers to help work during a special event, maintaining
and PTA/PTO, sending parents a school newsletter, using infrequent notes and
phone calls, and of course, issuing a regular report card. While these efforts
are a good start, they have significant limitations. First, the more
traditional approaches to cultivating parental involvement can lead to parents
being guided and sometimes manipulated by teachers and administrators.
Parents are carefully steered away from voicing concerns around contentious
professional issues like grading policies and teaching style. The second
criticism is that the traditional forms of parental involvement tend to be constrained.
By design, the information is to flow in one tightly controlled direction –
from the school to the parents. Parents tend to be viewed as
“non-professionals” and hence have limited value in shaping the larger policy
issues of the school. The third criticism is that the traditional forms of
parental involvement tend to be representational, since many
contemporary parents cannot participate. The traditional forms assume a stable,
two-parent family, with one parent (typically the mother) working full-time as
a homemaker. Given that the vast majority of adults with children work outside
of the home (whether they are parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.), only
a few “representative” parents can participate. The parents who can participate
tend to be white and middle- to upper-middle-class. And finally, the forth
criticism of the traditional forms of parental involvement is they expect
parents to be passive. Parents are to receive information from the school,
but the school does not seen to want much information from the parents.[468]
While the traditional forms of parental involvement do
include some parents, there remains the potential to do more. Additionally, the
traditional forms of parental involvement are strikingly ineffective at
reaching out to families that are: (a) large, (b) headed by a single-parent
(usually female), (c) poor, (d) non-English speaking, (e) abusive, or (f)
include parents and older siblings who dropped out of school.[469]
Experiments
to expand participation
Recognizing the problems of the traditional forms, public
educators have experimented with a variety of reforms to encourage greater
parental participation. One of the more recent innovations is the “open
school.” In this approach, the school opens itself up to each member of the
community and actively seeks their input. This has been called the
“warts-and-all” approach, because community members get to see the school staff
at their best, and possibly at their worst. Parents and other adults can drop
in at any time of the day, to see how their children are doing, what else is
going on within the school, and have meaningful conversations with teachers and
educational leaders regarding their child’s education. Contemporary parents and
guardians may not have schedules or consistently reliable transportation that
permit them to visit the school during a scheduled (and formal) meeting. The open
school demands a fair measure on flexibility on the part of the school
personnel, many who have been socialized to view “their” school as a
pedagogical island, removed from external forces and pressures, including
parents. Yet, an open school grants parents and the community greater and very
real access. It also provides parents with a meaningful sense of ownership, not
only of the school, but also of their children’s education.[470]
Parental
Education
Another reform aimed at boosting parental involvement is
parental education. Some parents, particularly those who have had poor school
experiences themselves, may need experiences as a co-learner, advocate, and
decision-maker, so they can become their child’s educational advocate. Parent
education programs encourage parents to become their children’s resident
teacher, as well as the critical caretaker and nurturer.[471]
For example, Norwood and her colleagues designed a model
program of parental involvement through the University of Houston’s Graduate
School of Social Work and College of Education. They provided parent education
to a school within the Houston public school system. The school had a
high-percentage of students who were considered at risk for academic failure
and came from poor socioeconomic backgrounds. All were African-American. Their
parents were recruited to participate in an experimental parental education
program that was focused on skills and that was also culturally and
linguistically sensitive. Additionally, a sense of community among the
researchers and participating parents was carefully cultivated, and the
researchers took pains to blur distinctions between parents and the
researchers. Participants were surveyed prior to the beginning of the program
to determine what their needs and concerns were. Soliciting detailed input from
parents also helped to establish ownership of the program by parents.[472]
The actual program focused on building parenting skills, as
well as parents’ teaching or coaching skills. Throughout the sessions, parents
were invited to share their knowledge and experiences in raising their
children. This helped to validate parents’ knowledge and broadened the
knowledge base of all participants. The parents also engaged in role-playing
and various school- and home-related scenarios with Norwood and colleagues, so
parents could practice their newly acquired skills.[473]
Six months after the program concluded, parents were asked
to evaluate the program. All were very enthusiastic, and they had put their
newly acquired skills immediately to work. As one woman explained:
Most
parents just run up to the school, but she [the instructor] helped us to see
there are two sides to every story. We did role-playing, one was the parent and
one of us was the teacher. We also practiced how to ask teachers for the things
we need. I used this when my little boy didn't have homework. I went to his teacher
and she gave me some homework for him. (Ms. C)[474]
Another participant noted:
I felt the
information on the parent-teacher conferences was very good. Now when I have to
talk to my child's teacher, I am not as timid or afraid as I used to be. I have
some say in his education. (Ms. W)[475]
The researchers then examined the subsequent academic
achievement of these parents’ children. They scored significantly higher on
standardized measures of achievement, in math and reading, than did the
children whose parents did not participate in the program. The degree of
difference surprised Norwood and her colleagues, since they were expecting only
modest academic gains at best.[476]
The Houston parental education program succeeded in large
part because it was attentive to the needs and concerns of urban, minority
parents, as well as being respectful of their backgrounds. Parents were treated
with respect and their cultural, linguistic, and racial backgrounds honored.
This result is consonant with other researchers’ recommendations–that public
school personnel who solicit parental involvement need be sensitive to the
needs of an increasingly multicultural parent population to have greater and
meaningful parental involvement with the schools.[477]
School-Based
Management
Another parental involvement program that has been part of a
larger school reform effort is school-based management (SBM). In this model,
the authority for most decisions is delegated to the school site. In turn, the
individual school establishes an SBM committee or council that is typically
composed of teachers, parents, administrators, and perhaps, additional
community members. The idea behind the reform is that those closest to real
students know what policies, programs and budget expenditures will serve them
best. Hence, the SBM council is empowered to make most of the policy decisions
that affect that specific school. The ultimate goal is to improve the
decision-making process and empower those closest to children to such an extent
that student achievement improves. The
research regarding SBM’s effectiveness in bolstering student achievement is
conflicted, although it does seem to improve the morale of the teachers who
participate.[478]
A final note is in order regarding some of the more
overlooked and undervalued parental involvement programs. Extra-curricular
offerings have been a traditional form of parental involvement, perhaps the
most popular of all informal forms of parental involvement. These programs,
which range from athletics, music, drama, and arts programs to various student
interest clubs, have historically involved highly disparate students. In terms
of socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, religious, gender, etc., these
activities have produced enthusiastic parental involvement, regardless of
background. Additionally, members from the larger community tend to get
involved, if only as spectators. Research indicates that extra-curricular
activities promote student academic achievement, in that they inhibit students
from dropping out. The direct influence on improving student achievement is
more tenuous.[479]
In many distressed urban areas, extra-curricular venues are most vulnerable to
budget reductions. This may be unwise given the strong connections that appear
to be generated by these activities among students, their families, the
schools, and members of the larger community.
Community
Development
A more recent notion of strengthening school, community and
parental interaction views the public school system as a critical economic
resource. That is, like any other industry or business, it provides both
services and employment to individuals located within a certain geographic
area.[480]
Researcher Charles Kerchner argues that instead of viewing the school systems
as a sometimes-crushing municipal burden, cities should aggressively support
their public schools.
Schools
build cities in two ways. They develop the economy, both indirectly by adding
to a location's stock of human capital and directly through programs that
enhance neighborhoods. Schools become part of a microeconomic policy. Schools
also serve as agents for community development, the creation of cohesion and
civic relations among neighbors.[481]
Kerchner theorizes that a public school system could greatly
enhance a community’s economic stability in four ways, by:
1.) providing jobs for professional and service
staff;
2.) enhancing the human capital of the children in
the community through quality education;
3.) encouraging local businesses through targeted
contracts for goods and services; and
4.) enhancing property values while concurrently
holding down property taxes.[482]
This economic vitality, in turn, can rebuild the social
stability of the area. A stronger local economy reduces many of the social
pathologies faced by urban areas.
Greater social and economic stability for parents also has a
direct positive influence on student achievement, since the social capital of
the area is enhanced. An additional benefit is that more people, those with and
without children, will move to the area because of its relative economic health
and growing social stability. When these new residents become involved in the
services that the school district offers, such as concerts, plays, athletic
events, computer classes, and the like, the community’s social appeal is
further enhanced.[483]
When Lawrence Picus and Jimmy Bryan examined the economic
and fiscal influences that the Los Angeles area school systems have on both the
local and state economies, they discovered public education in the LA region to
be an enormous enterprise:
In Los
Angeles County, the school districts provide education for nearly 1.6 million
children, spend almost $6.9 billion, and employ some 133,500 people. As a
business concern, the Los Angeles County schools would rank 190th on the Fortune
500, larger than such companies as Northrop Grumman (192), Coca-Cola (196),
Levi Strauss (198), and even Microsoft (219). On its own, the Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD), with its $4.9 billion budget, 55,767
employees, and 650,000 students, would rank 270 on the Fortune 500.[484]
Obviously, large urban school systems have a far greater
economic influence on an area’s economy and possible social stability than many
businesses—including professional sports franchises.
A New Conceptual Lens
Viewing the public school system as a major community
economic resource, as well as a social service, may provide local and state
educational policy makers with a new conceptual lens. Public schools will no
longer be seen as a never-ending drain on the community, but as a source of the
community’s economic and social well being. This vision of the public schools
will also enable community members to view the system as critical to the
welfare of the local economy and, therefore, a vital social institution. While
there is much research to be done in this specific area, these initial
explorations do offer intriguing possibilities regarding building stronger
links between public schools, their communities and student academic
achievement.
What Cannot be Concluded from the Research
This report has presented historical and contemporary
overviews of the research pertaining to schools, their communities, and student
academic achievement. While much of this research is stimulating and offers
school personnel and policy makers various conceptual plans, a basic problem in
the research base is that it is almost entirely comprised of single or
multi-case studies. This is not surprising given the degree of autonomy that
some districts have in developing and implementing community outreach programs.
Additionally, since public education is largely a state responsibility, there
is great variation and among the 50 states and Washington, DC. Fragmentation is
a hallmark of the US educational system. Unfortunately, this makes conducting
large scale, experimental studies most difficult. While case studies do provide
us with some compelling insights and broad guidelines, they make specific and
highly prescriptive recommendations difficult.
Summary and Recommendations
Public schools have been reaching out to parents and
communities since their inception. With over 100 years of data, we know what
programs can enhance student academic achievement. The challenge is to devise
the right mixture of services and programs in organizational situations that
are highly idiosyncratic.[485]
As Joy Dryfoos notes, there is no model for social service provision.[486]
This is congruent with educational historian David Tyack’s observation that
there is “no best system” for public education.[487] Yet there is
enough information to permit informed decisions regarding what might be
feasible to implement.
Despite the limitations of the case-study approach, the
documented results of efforts to create deeper ties between schools and the
communities in which they operate and which they serve warrant efforts to
further enhance school-community relationships. The history of more than 100
years of research and experience in involving schools in community life points
to several potential policy initiatives:
·
Basic parental involvement programs should be enhanced to
include multiple opportunities for formal and informal communication between
school personnel and parents. Open, engaged, mutual, and honest communication
should be encouraged. As much as possible, public schools should move towards
an open, or “warts and all,” approach to school-community relations.
·
Parental involvement programs should be developed that
embrace the ethnic, linguistic, cultural, racial, and religious diversity of
the parents.
·
Parental involvement programs should be designed to
be sensitive to the special needs of poor parents, single parents, parents with
large families, and those families where both parents work outside of the home.
This might mean providing transportation and child care for some, while
planning meetings around work/home schedules for others.
·
Written materials should be provided in the language
with which parents are the most familiar.
·
Schools and other social organizations wishing to provide
school-linked services should carefully consider the scope, funding needs,
organizational and professional complexities, and types of services to be
offered. While perhaps not as compelling or intellectually stimulating,
incremental types of school-linked services should be pursued if providers are
dedicated to institutionalizing the project.[488]
·
Funding for new community involvement projects should be
kept consistent and stable. The bigger and more complex the project, the
greater the need for adequate funding.
·
Extra-curricular programs should be kept vital to help
foster strong parental involvement.
·
Educational leaders and policy makers should be encouraged
to reconceptualize the public school as a vital economic resource that must be
nurtured.
What works
best with poor urban children?
In addition to the above recommendations, programs
particular targeted to assist children and communities living in poverty should
take into account the following principles:
·
Programmatic offerings need to be stable, consistent and
long-lived. Poor urban children’s lives are marked by chaos. Public schools and
the services they provide may be the only stable “thing” in many children’s
lives.
·
New services should be carefully expanded, ensuring they
become institutionalized over time. For example, it might be advantageous to
expand the free lunch program to include all students. Once this has been
established and consistently maintained over several years, it might be time to
include or expand a school breakfast program.
·
Schools facing a budget shortfall should focus on
maintaining extra-curricular activities that are relatively low cost and can
serve broader numbers of students. This logic might make the choral program
more appealing than the more expensive and litigation-prone football program.
·
Parental education programs should focus on parents’
knowledge and skills in child raising and work to build on this foundation.
School personnel and other service providers must be aware of the parents’ own
needs and wishes for their children, and design programs so these are
addressed.
·
Parental education programs need to be sensitive to the
racial, ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds of participating parents.
These programs must also attend to the realities that families in poverty
confront. This might include offering transportation to the program and
offering on-site child care, and even providing an evening meal for the
families attending.
·
City and educational leaders need to view the public school
system as a foundation for community revitalization initiatives.
8: Teacher Characteristics
Executive Summary
Research Findings
Traditional psychometric techniques
(using ability, achievement, other paper-and-pencil tests, GPAs, and the like)
to predict teaching effectiveness (in terms of student achievement) have
failed. Certification status appears to be causally related to improved student
achievement: regularly certified teachers produce higher student achievement
than non-certified or emergency certified teachers. Teacher experience
generally has been shown to be positively related to student achievement when
other variables are statistically controlled. Little research has published on
the unique characteristics of teachers that make them successful in teaching
children in poverty.
Recommendations
·
Paper-and-pencil tests are not useful predictors of teaching
candidates’ potential to teach successfully and accordingly should not be used
for that purpose.
·
A teaching candidate’s academic record (e.g., GPA) is not a
useful predictor of his or her eventual success as a teacher. A candidate’s
record of success in pre-service (undergraduate) technical courses (mathematics
and science, for example) may contain useful information about that candidate’s
success in teaching secondary school mathematics and science.
·
Other things equal, 1) students of regularly licensed
teachers achieve at higher levels than students of emergency certified
teachers; and 2) more experienced teachers produce higher student achievement
than less experienced teachers. Teacher selection policies should reflect these
facts.
·
The selection of teaches who will best contribute to their
students’ academic achievement should focus on peer and supervisor evaluation
of interns, student teachers, substitute teachers and teachers during their
probationary period.
8: Teacher Characteristics
Arizona
State University
Introduction
How can one identify in advance of a decision to hire which
teachers will most improve their students measured achievement? What are the
characteristics of promising teachers that will permit an accurate prediction
of their ability to teach children well?
This review deals with those characteristics of teachers
that might be identified and used in the initial hiring of teachers to increase
their students’ achievement. These characteristics can include qualities of
teachers that are viewed as personal – such as mental ability, age, ethnicity,
gender and the like – or as “experiential” – such as certification status,
educational background, previous teaching experience and the like. Some
characteristics are combinations – in unknown amounts – of personal and
experiential qualities, e.g., candidates’ performance on teacher-certification
tests such as the National Teacher Examinations and state-mandated tests.
This review will not examine characteristics of teachers
that it would be impractical to assess in the initial hiring and selection
process, such as deep personality traits. The term “teacher characteristics”
typically refers to qualities of teachers that can be measured with tests or
derived from their academic or professional records. It does not generally
refer to the direct observation of their impact on students’ learning in terms
of either students’ test performance or teaching behaviors (both of which are
addressed elsewhere in the present work). Rather, the approaches dealt with
here are those that fall traditionally into the province of personnel
psychology or personnel selection.[489]
These distinctions are particularly important because of the conclusions at
which the present review arrives, namely, that psychometric selection is
inappropriate in the initial selection of teachers and should defer to the
evaluation of probationary teachers (teachers in the first few years of their
employment).
Research on Teacher
Characteristics
Micro-Studies
and Macro-Studies
The research literature on teacher characteristics and
student achievement encompasses two quite different kinds of study. One type –
here referred to as micro-studies – uses individual teachers as the unit
of analysis. Correlation coefficients are calculated from data descriptive of
individual teachers and their students’ achievement (usually expressed as a
class average). Studies of this type yield findings most relevant to the
question whether there are characteristics of teachers that predict their
ability to improve the achievement of their students.
The second type of study is here called macro-studies.
These studies measure characteristics of groups of teachers, such as “percentage
of teachers in the school district who hold Masters degrees.” Macro-studies
attempt to exercise statistical controls by means of complex multiple
regression analyses, often taking account of the multiple levels (states,
districts, schools) of organization that tie individual teachers together.
Macro-studies often inform policy at high levels but give limited direction to
administrators who face individual selection decisions. Frequently, they do not
express relationships in a form that permits the calculation of the actual
benefits of selecting an elementary school teacher in terms of increased
student achievement. Moreover, these macro-studies – useful though they are for
addressing state or national level policy questions – seldom achieve the levels
of control needed to reach consensus
among their readers. In spite of their contribution, macro-studies of the
relationship between teacher characteristics as a school, district, or state
“input” and student achievement as an “output” have several limitations: they
must rely on imperfectly measured “background characteristics” of students to
equate unequal conditions; they can not, without substantial and seldom
realized extensions, resolve the ambiguity of the direction of the causal
influence (Does a high percentage of Masters degrees raise student achievement,
or do districts with able students who learn quickly and easily attract
teachers with Masters degrees?); they typically fail to address the ambiguities
present in ecological correlation analysis. (For instance, it is unclear whether the teachers holding the
Masters degrees in the school district are the teachers actually responsible
for the increased student achievement).
Nevertheless, macro-studies of the relationship between teacher
characteristics and student achievement are visible and influential at policy
levels and will be reviewed here.
The Micro-Studies
Aptitude
and Intelligence
Two major reviews of research[490]
on the relationship of teachers’ measured intelligence and their students’ achievement
arrived at the same conclusion: there
is no important correlation between the two variables. Various explanations
have been advanced for the failure to find a relationship that many expected
would exist: the truncated variability
of the intelligence scale for a population of teachers already highly selected
for academic aptitude; the unreliability and lack of content validity of
measures of student achievement; as well as the essential irrelevance of high
levels of measured intelligence for effective teaching, particularly at the
elementary school level.
Academic
Preparation
Research suggests that there is a modest relationship
between teachers’ college course work in the subject area in which they
subsequently teach and their students’ achievement.[491] Monk[492]
analyzed data for almost 3,000 high school students from the Longitudinal Study
of American Youth. Students took tests
in mathematics and science, and supplied information on their backgrounds. Their math and science teachers were also questioned. Monk correlated teacher characteristics with
student achievement, taking into account students’ earlier achievement,
background characteristics and teacher inputs.
The greater the number of college-level mathematics or science courses
(or math or science teaching courses) teachers had taken, the better their
students did on the mathematics and science tests. Goldhaber and Brewer[493]
found similar relationships in a secondary analysis of more than 5,000 high
school sophomores and their teachers. College-level math courses taken by the
teachers was the only variable that accounted for any appreciable variation in
students’ achievement.
The
National Teacher Examinations (NTE)
The National Teacher Examinations (NTE), developed and
administered by the Educational Testing Service of Princeton, New Jersey, are
widely used and an influential model
for the state-level paper-and-pencil licensure exams that are currently
proliferating throughout the United States. The validity of the NTE was the
subject of an extensive review published in 1973 by Quirk, Witten and Weinberg.[494]
Subsequent reviews have not substantially added to nor altered their
conclusions. Quirk et al. documented the nearly 30-year history of NTE
research attempts to correlate NTE scores with such “concurrent validity”
measures as high school GPA, undergraduate GPA, graduate GPA, ability tests
(GRE-V, GRE-Q), as well as grades in specialized education courses. (Such
correlations are referred to as “concurrent validity” coefficients because the
two measures correlated are taken at roughly the same stage, in this case,
during a prospective teacher’s pre-service career.) Such criteria are only
presumptively related to student learning; but even so, the concurrent validity
evidence was not impressive. The highest correlations were with
paper-and-pencil tests of academic ability and were in the region of 0.60. Paper-and-pencil tests correlate with
other paper-and-pencil tests; that much might have been expected. Correlations
of NTE scores with GPAs were in the region of
0.30. Most significantly, the two studies that produced correlations of
NTE with grades in practice teaching yielded the following results: Shea[495]
correlated NTE scores with grades in practice teaching for 110 pre-service
teachers who had graduated from Worcester State Teachers College and obtained a
r of –0.01; Walberg[496]
correlated performance on the NTE with practice teaching grades for 280
pre-service teachers and found an r of
–0.04. These are sobering findings indeed for those who hope for
paper-and-pencil test information that will predict teaching effectiveness.
The usefulness of the NTE for predicting principals’ ratings
of various qualities of in-service teachers is similarly wanting. Research over
30 years in a wide variety of settings has shown correlations of NTE test
scores and principals’ ratings ranging from -0.15 to 0.50 with an average r
of about 0.10.[497] In the
face of these discouraging results, researchers have been prone to blame the
professionals’ evaluations of their peers and subordinates, suggesting that
they are unreliable or biased or distorted by friendships or prejudices or
unsophisticated views of quality teaching. The fault, however, may lie more
with the inadequacies of paper-and-pencil tests as measures if teachers’
abilities to manage the complex demands of educating groups of children.
Quirk, Witte and Weinberg found only a single study in which
NTE scores were correlated with students’ average gain in performance from
pretest to posttest, and this study by Lins,[498]
published in 1946, produced data on only seven teachers. The correlation of NTE
score with pupils’ gain scores was 0.45; unfortunately, one can only assert
with reasonable statistical confidence that a much larger sample would produce
a validity coefficient somewhere between –0.50 and +0.90.[499]
The State of Massachusetts has instituted one of the most
controversial paper-and-pencil teacher licensure tests. Haney and his
colleagues found no empirical evidence that the Massachusetts teacher tests
could predict student learning.[500]
Certification
(Licensure)
A job candidate’s certification status has become a visible
consideration in recent decades as a result of a variety of reforms and
economic pressures placed on the educational system. Class-size reduction
efforts, most notably in California in the mid-1990s, not surprisingly created
an acute need for teachers that could not be met by the existing supply of
regularly certified personnel. The difficulty of recruiting certified teachers
for schools in the deteriorating core of large cities prompted the hiring of
college graduates without pre-service training or teaching experience – “Teach
for America” being the most visible program of this type.[501]
In addition, the market ideology that has influenced both the discussion and
the implementation of education policy proposals since the 1980s questioned the
need for state-operated systems of teacher certification. Some believe that any
educated person, with or without a college degree, can teach.[502]
Educators are left with the question, What value is represented by the teacher
license? Should certification status be considered in the hiring of new
teachers?
Darling-Hammond wrote that “…reviews of research over the
past thirty years, summarizing hundreds of studies, have concluded that even
with the shortcomings of current teacher education and licensing, fully
prepared and certified teaches are … more successful with students than
teachers without this preparation.”[503] Ashton[504]
noted that teachers with regular state certification receive higher supervisor
ratings and student achievement than teachers who do not meet standards, but
this observation was based on data with virtually no statistical controls
having been imposed. In spite of the
quantity of research on the benefits of teacher certification for student
learning that Darling-Hammond refers to, little of the past research exercised
controls over student “inputs” that would give the critical reader confidence
in the findings. One recent study addressed the effect of certification status
with a series of controls that engendered this missing confidence.
Laczko and Berliner[505]
studied the impact of certification status on student achievement in two large
urban school districts. These school districts provided information about
teachers hired for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years. Information included the school where they
were currently teaching, the grade level taught, the teacher’s certification
status, highest degree earned, date and institution where it was achieved, age,
and number of years teaching experience.
Teachers were eliminated from the sample if they taught a grade level or
subject that was not assessed (e.g., art and music) by the Stanford Nine (SAT
9) achievement test battery, the measure of achievement used in the study.
Emergency certified teachers were matched with regularly
certified teachers in the following manner: matches were first made by grade
level; secondarily, matching was based on highest degree attained; whenever
possible, matches were made within the same school, otherwise, matches were made within the same school district;
cross-district matching was not allowed.
Matching the two samples produced 23 pairs of teachers for the 1998-1999
school year and 29 pairs of teachers for the 1999-2000 school year.
Stanford Achievement Test-Version 9 scores aggregated at the
class level for the 52 matched pairs of teachers were collected. Correlated t-tests were conducted to analyze
the difference in the student achievement scores between emergency certified
and standard certified teachers. The
principal findings from the Laczko and Berliner study appear in Table 1.
Table 1
NCE Differences and Effect Sizes (ES)[506]
for 1998-1999 and 1999-2000
(After Laczko & Berliner, 2001)
SAT 9 Sub-Test 1998-1999
1999-2000 Mean ES
Reading 13.9 9.2 0.50
Math
-0.2 11.1 0.24
Language 9.4 10.7 0.44
Note. The NCE differences are between certified and
emergency teachers. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated with a standard deviation
of 23 NCE units.
Using the NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent) scale to express the
results, Laczko and Berliner found, for example, that in the 1998-’99 school
year, students taught by certified teachers outscored their counterparts taught
by uncertified teachers by almost 14 NCE points in Reading. The similar margin
in the 1999-2000 school year was greater than 9 points. Expressed as a
proportion of the standard deviation of the NCE scale, these differences
averaged across the two years yield an effect size of one-half (0.50) standard
deviation (equivalent to five months grade-equivalent units). One would expect,
based on these findings, then, that the students of certified teachers would
make an additional five months academic growth in reading when compared to the
students of uncertified teachers across an entire school year. The advantage
for students of certified teachers in mathematics and language is one-quarter
(0.25) standard deviation (about 2.5 months in grade-equivalents) and
four-tenths (0.40) a standard deviation (about four months GE), respectively.
These are, perhaps, the most convincing data yet produced by research on the
effect of teacher certification on student achievement. (It should be noted
that these differences in means expressed in standard deviation units
correspond to correlations between certification status and student achievement
of roughly 0.25, for effect sizes of 0.50, and 0.15, for effect sizes of 0.30
to 0.25.[507])
Successful Teachers of Poor Students
Poor students are disproportionately taught by less
experienced teachers who are less likely to be licensed and who leave the
profession sooner than teachers of the children of middle-class or wealthy
families. Researchers have largely ignored the question of whether there are
special characteristics of teachers who
will be successful in teaching poor children.
One of the few quantitative studies of the relationship
between teacher characteristics and student achievement for poor children is
due to Murnane and Phillips.[508] Using data collected in a study of a federal
welfare reform project in a large Midwestern city, the researchers fit
regression equations to account for the variability of vocabulary scores on the
Iowa Test of Basic Skills in terms of teacher behaviors and other
characteristics. The teachers were predominantly black, female and held Masters
degrees. The researchers concluded: “Overall, the results … suggest that
variables describing teacher behavior and variables describing teacher
characteristics are both important in predicting teacher effectiveness.”[509]
Teacher characteristics of race, prestige of the undergraduate college, whether
the teacher earned a Masters degree and verbal ability were not significantly
related to students’ achievement. However, “years of teaching experience” was
related to student achievement. This relationship for Grades 4 and 6 is
depicted in Figure 1. The relationship for Grade 1 was weaker, but still
positive, and non-existent for Grade 5. No reasonable explanation for the
interaction of the relationship with grade level exists, and a prudent
conclusion would hold that teacher experience and student achievement are
positively related in these circumstances.

Figure 1. Teacher Experience and
Student Achievement for Inner-city Children (After Murnane, 1981).
Another one of the very few attempts to address this
question was made by Martin Haberman in his book Star Teachers of Children
in Poverty.[510]
Drawing on years of interviewing hundreds of teachers in poor urban schools,
Haberman advanced a view of what makes for success for a teacher of poor
children. These successful teachers, which he named “star teachers,” display
the following characteristics: star teachers do not punish students, but
instead use “logical consequences” to direct students to learn appropriate
behaviors; star teachers believe that discipline problems are best handled by
making learning interesting, meaningful, and engrossing; star teachers are
persistent. Haberman saw these teachers dealing with the organization of the
school in a uniquely productive way. They did not attempt to undermine the
school’s administration, nor did they ignore the directives of officials;
however, they did not use bureaucratic directives as excuses to keep from
achieving their objectives in the classroom. Star teachers engaged in what
Haberman called “gentle teaching.” Gentle teaching promotes kindness in
classroom interactions; it pointedly avoids the discord that can characterize
interactions in schools that emphasize compliance with rules instead of
learning.
Haberman suggested that there may be ways to predict which
teachers will be the star teachers. Candidates for teaching positions should be
selected on the basis of criteria other than good grades and high test scores.
New teachers, if they are to develop into Haberman’s star teachers, should not be judgmental; they should be tolerant and avoid moralistic attitudes; they must
be open, understanding, and not easily shocked; and they must be capable of
open and authentic communication with their superiors and colleagues.
Haberman has produced one of the few research-based works
aimed at understanding the characteristics of teachers that make for success
with poor children, and yet, his work has been criticized as methodologically
weak.[511]
No demographic description of the group of teachers interviewed is given; no
explanation of the criteria by which the star teachers were recognized as
successful is offered. Haberman may well be right, but the path traveled to
reach his understandings is hidden from view.
The Macro-Studies
Large-scale studies that use school districts or states as
the unit of analysis and attempt with multiple regression analysis to control
for pre-existing differences among these units have addressed many of the same
concerns analyzed in the micro-studies. The first large study of this type was
Coleman’s Equality of Educational Opportunity.[512] Coleman et al. measured seven characteristics of teachers: years of
experience, highest degree attained, vocabulary test performance, ethnic group,
parents’ educational attainment, whether the teachers grew up where they were
teaching, and the teacher’s attitude toward teaching middle-class
students. These teacher
characteristics accounted for less than
1% of the variation in student achievement – meaning that a correlation of
teacher characteristics with student achievement, holding other factors
constant, would be less than +0.10.
Coleman et al.,
as well as Bowles and Levin,[513]
felt that they detected slight relationships between teachers’ verbal intelligence
and student achievement. Summers and Wolfe[514]
indicated that this relationship, though quite weak in statistical terms, was
more important in some areas of the curriculum than in others. Hanushek[515]
joined these early researchers in finding no strong relationship between
teacher characteristics and student achievement.
A pair of meta-analyses of macro-level studies arrived at
differing conclusions on the question whether teachers’ measured ability
influences student achievement. Greenwald, Hedges and Lane[516]
reviewed a number of studies of the relationship between school inputs and
student outcomes and concluded that teacher ability, teacher education, and
teacher experience appeared to be related to student achievement. Hanushek’s[517]
synthesis of research studies arrived at a contrary conclusion regarding the
relationship between teacher characteristics and student achievement. Less than a year later, Hanushek[518]
published an “update” of his 1996 article in which he reported the following
summary of studies that investigated the relationship (in terms of regression
coefficients) between student achievement and their teacher’s “years of
experience.”
Direction and Statistical Significance of
Regression Coefficients for Student Achievement
Related to Teacher Experience
(After Hanushek, 1997)
Ind. Var. # of studies + – + – ?
Teacher Exper. 207 29% 5% 30% 24% 12%
Although a statistically significant regression coefficient
for “teacher experience” was six times more likely to be positive than
negative, Hanushek nonetheless read the results of Table 2 as negative for the
effects of teacher experience on achievement. He wrote of the results: “A
higher [than class size or teacher education] proportion of estimated effects
of teacher experience are positive and statistically significant: 29%.
Importantly, however, 71% still indicate worsening performance with experience or
less confidence in any positive effect.”[519]
The logic of this conclusion is illusive. Of results that reach statistical
significance, 85% (60/70) are positive, indicating that students of more
experienced teachers achieve at higher levels. Of the statistically
non-significant results that can be determined, 55% are positive, but
fail to reach conventional levels of significance. Hanushek creates an
impression of no effect of teacher experience by lumping together the category
“indicative of worsening performance or less confidence of beneficial
performance” all significant but negative coefficients (5%), all
non-significant coefficients whether positive or negative (30% + 24%) and,
remarkably, the 12% of the coefficients that were so incompletely reported that
it could not be determined whether they were positive or negative. The treatment of these data is hardly
even-handed. By such logic, ten “positive studies,” “no negative studies” and
100 studies so poorly reported that the results could not be discerned would
lead to a conclusion of no confidence in a positive result. This author’s
reading of Table 2 is much different from Hanushek’s. The data therein can be
reasonably interpreted as evidence that regression studies have generally shown
a positive relationship between teacher experience and student achievement.
Fetler[520]
investigated the relationship between measures of mathematics teacher skill and
student achievement in California high schools. Test scores are analyzed in
relation to teacher experience and education and student demographics. The
results are consistent with the hypothesis that there is a shortage of
qualified mathematics teachers in California and that this shortage is
associated with low student scores in mathematics. After controlling for
poverty, teacher experience and preparation significantly predict test scores.
Darling-Hammond[521]
utilized data from a survey of all 50 states’ policies, the 1993-’94 Schools
and Staffing Surveys of the U.S. Department of Education, and the National Assessment
of Educational Progress to study the relationship between teacher
qualifications and student achievement. The findings suggested that policy
investments in the quality of teachers may be related to improvements in
student performance. Measures of teacher preparation and certification were the
strongest correlates of student achievement in reading and mathematics, both
before and after controlling for student poverty and language status (limited
English fluency v. full English fluency). “The most consistent highly
significant predictor of student achievement in reading and mathematics in each
year tested is the proportion of well-qualified teachers in a state: those with
full certification and a major in the field they teach (r between 0.61
and 0.80, p<0.001). The strongest, consistently negative predictors of
student achievement, also significant in almost all cases, are the proportions
of new teachers who are uncertified (r between -0.40 and -0.63,
p<0.05) and the proportions of teachers who hold less than a minor in the
field they teach (r between -0.33 and -0.56, p<0.05).” (It must be noted
that these correlation coefficients, in the area of 0.50 and above, are
calculated on state-level aggregated data and are much higher than would be
obtained if similar variables were correlated at the level of individual
teachers.) Darling-Hammond’s analyses suggest that state policies regarding
teacher education, licensing, hiring, and professional development may make an
important difference in the qualifications and capacities of teachers, and, as
a consequence, in the achievement of their students.
Implications for Personnel Selection
Correlations
and Base Rates
It is common in research on the relationship of teacher
characteristics and student achievement to express the relationship in terms of
correlation coefficients. Such coefficients have distinct disadvantages in
communicating the benefits of selecting teachers on the basis of their entry
characteristics (such as college GPA, NTE scores, scores on teacher
certification exams, Teacher Perceiver profiles and other similar measures of
potential). Correlations of beginning teacher characteristics and their
students’ eventual achievement are typically in the range of 0.15 to 0.35, as
was seen in the research reviewed above. The lay reader is frequently misled
into thinking that such relationships possess a practical benefit when the
finding is referred to as “statistically significant.” This may not and – in
the present application of psychometrics – probably is not the case.
“Statistical significance” is a quality of statistical findings that refers
only to their reliability or “inferential stability,” that is, the likelihood
that a particular finding has not arisen by chance sampling from a population
in which the two variables correlated are completely unrelated. Statistical
significance results from taking large samples, and generally means nothing
more than that the statistical finding was based on a large sample. The finding
itself could be of no practical value and still be “statistically significant.”
Persons’ heights and their IQs might correlate 0.02 in a sample of 100,000
persons and be deemed “statistically significant”; but that finding will be of
no value whatsoever.[522]
The benefits, if
there are any, of selecting teachers on the basis of such weak correlational
evidence – validity coefficients in the range of 0.35 and below – are not
clearly seen in correlation coefficients. The meaning of these relationships is
more clearly seen in statistics such as “hit rates” or measures of “false
positives” and “false negatives” – for
example, the differences in percentages of teachers who will not survive
their probationary evaluation between those who score high on some
characteristic, such as college GPA, and those who score low on that
characteristic.
Consider what will prove to be a typical situation: the
district’s assistant superintendent for personnel has available the college GPA
of all applicants for openings in elementary education. There are twice as many applicants as there
are openings, so she selects the top half of the applicants on the basis of
their GPA. Suppose further that the correlation between teaching candidates’
GPA and their students’ learning is 0.35 – a not unreasonable assumption, surely
not an underestimate. Furthermore, suppose that 5% of the probationary teachers
in this district are not rehired after two years and that the rehire decision
is based solely on their ability to engender student learning.[523]
Table 3
Hypothetical Relationship Between
Selection Criterion and Success Criterion
|
|
Re-Hired |
Not re-hired |
Totals |
|
Selected |
490 |
10 |
500 |
|
Rejected |
460 |
40 |
500 |
|
Totals |
950 |
50 |
1,000 |
The above table shows counts of teaching candidates selected
or rejected on the basis of their college GPAs and the result of the decision
to continue employment after their probationary period. The data in Table 2
correspond to a correlation of GPA and “teaching success” of approximately 0.35
with a selection rate of 50% and a success rate of 5%. Meehl and Rosen[524]
pointed out nearly 50 years ago that the utility of a correlation in predicting
an event (like success in teaching as evidenced by continuing employment)
depends on: a) the size of the
correlation, b) the costs of errors in prediction (of rejecting a person who
would succeed or accepting a person who will eventually fail), and c) the “base
rate” of the event being predicted. (Also see Wainer’s application of these
concepts to the Massachusetts Teacher Tests).[525]
The major implication of Meehl and Rosen’s argument is this: if the event being
predicted has a very low incidence of occurring (a “low base rate”), then very
large correlations of predictors with the criterion are needed or else one
makes fewer errors by using no predictor whatsoever.
One can see this phenomenon at work in the above table. If
teaching candidates are selected because they have high (top half) GPAs, 10 out
of 500 candidates will not be re-hired, and 460 out of 500 who would have
succeeded if they had been hired will never get a chance to show that they
could have succeeded. Applicants with a high GPA (and who are selected) have a
2% probability of “failing” (i.e., not
being rehired). But applicants with a low GPA (who would not have been
selected) have only an 8% probability of failing (i.e., not surviving the
probationary period). The use of the GPA in selecting new teachers represents a
gain in detecting “success” of from only 2% to 8%, but this gain comes at the
cost of rejecting 92% of new hires would eventually would prove to be
successful. In most people’s system of values, rejecting 92% of potentially
successful applicants in order to achieve a 98% success ratio in prediction is
unfair to a large number of applicants. Psychometricians say that in these
circumstances the cost of “false negatives” is too high.
Furthermore, when an administrator can control the overall
rate of “success” (say, for example, when 95% of teachers receive “merit pay”
bonuses and the discretion exists to raise that rate to 100%), it is frequently
the case that even a good predictor of that 95% will create more erroneous
decisions than declaring all 100% of teachers successful, hence using no selection
criterion at all. Validity coefficients are not sufficient for evaluating the
practical utility of a test or other selection technique: “... when the base rates of the criterion
classification deviate greatly from a 50 percent split, use of a test sign
having slight or moderate validity will result in an increase of
erroneous clinical decisions.”[526]
Between and Within District Variation
A second problem exists in translating the research on
teacher characteristics into the real world of personnel decisions. In research
studies, an effort is made to sample a full range of subjects (persons) along
the continuum of the characteristics being correlated with student learning.
But in the real world of schools, teacher applicants and students are clustered
into schools and districts that represent selected portions of these continua.
It may often be the case that a teacher characteristic that has shown modest
correlations with student achievement in research studies will have no
relationship with achievement within the particular school district
attempting to select the best teachers for its students. This possibility –
which is a highly likely circumstance – is illustrated in Figure 2.
|
|
Figure 2. Illustration of Between and Within School
District
Relationships of a Teacher Characteristic and Student
Learning
Figure 2 illustrates a hypothetical situation in which 12
teachers are measured in each of four school districts on a characteristic
(such as college GPA, for example) and on their contribution to their students’
learning. It should be noted that the degree of relationship between a teacher
characteristic and student learning depicted in Figure 2 is far greater than
anything ever demonstrated in an actual research study, but this exaggeration
will strengthen rather than vitiate the point being illustrated. Within each school district there is zero
correlation between the measured teacher characteristic and the students’
learning; however among the four districts, the teacher characteristic and
student learning are highly correlated, perhaps as high as a coefficient of
0.80. The import of this situation is significant, however. What this
arrangement of variation between and within districts implies is that the
teacher characteristic is of no use whatsoever for selecting teachers within
any one school district. And since it is within particular school districts
that administrators live and work, knowledge of the teacher characteristic is
of no value to them in selecting teachers who will enhance their students’
learning.
This point may appear to be simply argumentative and
counter-intuitive. The implication of this observation is real, however, and
not simply some statistical sleight of hand. It dampens enthusiasm for the
meager correlations that have been found; and coupled with the earlier
observation on the relationship between correlation coefficients and hit
ratios, it underlies the ultimate recommendation made here on the matter of
initial teacher selection.
Finally, one more point must be raised that will further
temper one’s expectations of finding here clear statistical evidence for
selecting teachers who can promote student learning. A proper predictive
validity study would involve randomly assigning students to groups (or some
careful matching of students across groups to ensure their initial
equivalence), then randomly assigning groups to teachers, measuring teacher
characteristics, allowing instruction to proceed for some substantial period,
measuring student learning, and then correlating the groups’ learning gains
with the teacher characteristics for many teachers. It would be crucial to
measure student learning by means of their gains in performance from
before to after instruction. Simply to correlate teacher characteristics with
students’ achievement, as has been done repeatedly in the research literature,
would not accomplish the purpose of relating teacher characteristics to student
learning. Because of the many factors that influence which teachers are
employed in which schools in the world outside the research laboratory –
teachers with higher GPAs, and measured aptitude, perhaps, are employed in
schools whose students enjoy many advantages over schools that face the
challenges of poverty and discrimination – the correlation of teacher
characteristics with (uncorrected) student achievement test scores measures
little more than the often remarked upon sorting of more able teachers into
privileged schools. Nothing like this
research has ever been published, in part because of the obvious expense, the
impracticality of arbitrarily constituting actual school classes of students
and randomly assigning them to teachers, and, perhaps, because of researchers
sense that the payoff in terms of useful predictive information would be
meager. (The “micro-teaching” studies of the 1960s and early 1970s at Stanford
University approximate this ideal design in terms of controls, but the focus
there was on teacher behaviors that promote student learning.) A thorough
literature review in the preparation of the current work revealed a single
study that even approached the conditions stated above for a proper study, and
that study[527] was
published more than 50 years ago.
Summary and Recommendations
The early promise of psychometric techniques for the initial
selection of teachers seems to have all but disappeared from the agenda of
researchers; it may never have held a prominent place in the actual practice of
educators.[528] Though
rare exceptions can be found (e.g., the Montgomery County, Va., schools in the
1980s, as described by Wise et al.[529]),
actual selection of teachers in America’s schools is today based on
interviews and personal interactions that reveal evidence of the candidate’s
appearance, enthusiasm, personal style and similar attributes. Measurement of
ability, past achievements, or the candidate’s ability to produce learning
gains for students plays virtually no role in the selection of new teachers.
This is not to say that the current practice is to be disapproved of. Current
practice in teacher selection probably reflects an understanding that the
cohesiveness of a school’s staff is more critical to the success of the school
and its students than is the level of teachers’ performance on paper-and-pencil
tests of dubious validity.
The customary procedure for selecting new teachers is based
more often on first-hand experience with the candidate’s teaching than it is on
psychometric evidence in the form of test scores, GPAs or other evidence of
personal characteristics believed to be predictive of successful teaching.[530]
Schools often choose their new teachers from among interns and student teachers
for whom the teaching staff has direct knowledge of their teaching abilities.
Alternatively, substitute teachers are observed and evaluated as potential
candidates. The arguments marshaled here against psychometric selection of new
teachers, because of low correlations of teacher characteristics with student
learning and very low base rates of releasing probationary teachers, have
already worked their way into the existing system of evaluating candidates for
new hires. The need is not for better instruments to measure initial teachers’
aptitudes and dispositions, but for better methods of evaluating more directly
the ability of probationary teachers to foster learning in their students.
The measurement of the direct contribution that a teacher
makes to the learning of his or her students is an enormously difficult
technical problem that, in the opinion of the author, has no adequate solution
that can be applied with confidence under real world conditions. The attempt to
base teachers’ rewards (salary increases, for example) on measured student
progress is even more problematic,[531]
as is noted elsewhere in this report.
The claim that psychometric measures of teacher
characteristics are not useful for initial teacher selection implies that
candidates be selected by other means – staff interviews, recommendations by
peers or past supervisors, and the like. Some might think that this approach is
an abrogation of responsibility; but instead, it is a realization of the limits
of psychometric approaches to personnel selection. The true abrogation of
responsibility is when professional educators – whether they are tenured
teachers, administrators or professors engaged in pre-service education of
teachers – fail to conduct adequate evaluations of pre-service and in-service
teachers who are practicing their profession under the supervision of their
superiors.
These findings, then, yield the following recommendations:
·
Paper-and-pencil tests are not useful predictors of teaching
candidates’ potential to teach successfully and should not be used as such.
·
Teaching candidates’ academic record (e.g., GPA) is not a
useful predictor of their eventual success as teachers. A candidate’s record of
success in pre-service (undergraduate) technical courses (mathematics and
science, for example) may contain useful information about that candidate’s
success in teaching secondary school mathematics and science.
·
Other things equal, 1) students of regularly licensed
teachers achieve at higher levels than students of emergency certified
teachers; and 2) more experienced teachers produce higher student achievement
than less experienced teachers. Teacher selection policies should reflect these
facts.
·
The selection of teaches who will best contribute to their
students’ academic achievement should focus on peer and supervisor evaluation
of interns, student teachers, substitute teachers and teachers during their
probationary period.
9:
Converging Findings on Classroom Instruction
Executive
Summary
Summary
of Research Findings
The past 30 years have seen major advances in
research on cognitive processing; in studies of teachers whose classes made the
highest achievement gains compared to other classes; and in research on helping
students learn and apply cognitive strategies in their learning. The research
on cognitive processing underlies a major goal of education: helping students
develop well-organized knowledge structures. A number of strategies have been
found that consistently help students effectively acquire strong knowledge
structures.
Recommendations
·
Present new material in small steps to that the working
memory does not become overloaded.
·
Help students develop an organization for the new material.
·
Guide student practice by supporting students during initial
practice, and providing for extensive student processing.
·
When teaching higher-level tasks, support students by
providing them with cognitive strategies.
·
Help students learn to use the cognitive strategies by
providing them with procedural prompts and modeling the use of these procedural
prompts.
·
Provide for extensive student practice.
9:
Converging Findings on Classroom Instruction
University
of Illinois at Urbana
The past
30 years have seen three major advances in research on instruction and teacher
behavior. These advancements are:
1.) research on cognitive
processing,
2.) studies of teachers whose
classes made the highest achievement gain compared to other classes, and
3.) research on helping students
learn and apply cognitive strategies in their learning.
This report examines the impact
that teacher behavior can have on the achievement of students, particularly of
students living in poverty.
Classroom Instruction ResearchCognitive Processing:
The Importance of Well-Connected Knowledge Structures
A major area of research, one with
important implications for teaching, has been the research on cognitive
processing, research on how information is stored and retrieved. It is
currently thought that the information in our long-term memory is stored in
interconnected networks called knowledge structures. The size of these knowledge structures, the number of connections
between pieces of knowledge, the strength of the connections, and the
organization and richness of the relationships are all important for processing
information and solving problems.
There is no underestimating the
importance of background knowledge.
Simon and Hayes wrote that “there is no substitute for having the
prerequisite knowledge if one is to solve a problem.”[532]
In discussing how expertise is acquired, Chase and Chi wrote:
The most obvious answer is practice, thousands of hours of
practice. For the most part, practice is by far the best predictor of
performance. Practice can produce two
kinds of knowledge ... a storage of patterns and a set of strategies or
procedures that can act on the patterns.[533]
It is easier to learn new
information and easier to solve new problems when one has 1.) a rich,
well-connected knowledge structure and 2.) stronger ties between the
connections, When the knowledge structure on a particular topic is large and
well-connected, new information is more readily acquired and prior knowledge is
more readily available for use. When
information is “meaningful” to students, they have more points in their
knowledge structures to which they can attach new information. Education is a process of developing,
enlarging, expanding, and refining our students’ knowledge structures.[534]
Helping students to organize
information into well-connected patterns has another advantage. When a pattern is unified, it only occupies
a few bits in the working memory. Thus,
having larger and better-connected patterns frees space in our working
memory. This available space can be
used for reflecting on new information and for problem solving. For example, when U.S. history is organized
into well-connected patterns, these patterns occupy less space in the working
memory and the learner has additional space in the working memory to use to
consider, assimilate, and manipulate new information. A major difference between an expert and a novice is that the
expert’s knowledge structure has a larger number of knowledge items, the expert
has more connections between the items, the links between the connections are
stronger, and the structure is better organized. A novice, on the other hand, is unable to see these patterns, and
often ignores them. This development of
well-connected patterns and the concomitant freeing of space in the working
memory is one of the hallmarks of an expert in a field.[535]
To summarize, well-connected and
elaborate knowledge structures are important because they allow for easier
retrieval of old material; they permit more information to be carried in a
single chunk, and they facilitate the understanding and integration of new
information.
Helping
Students Develop Background Knowledge
What can be done to help students
develop well-connected bodies of knowledge?
One important instructional procedure is providing for extensive
reading, review, practice, and discussion.
These activities serve to help students increase the number of pieces of
information that are the long-term memory, organize those pieces, and increase
the strength and number of these interconnections. The more one rehearses and reviews information, the stronger
these interconnections become. Thus, the
research on cognitive processing supports the need for a teacher to assist
students by providing for extensive reading of a variety of materials, frequent
review, testing, and discussion and application activities.
Providing
for Student Processing
New material is stored in the
long-term memory when one processes it.
The quality of storage can depend on the “level of processing.” For example, the quality of storage is stronger
when we read a passage and focus on its meaning than it would be if we read to
find a single word answer. Similarly,
the quality of storage would be stronger if one summarized or compared the
material in the passage, rehearsed, reviewed, and drew connections. The connections would be weaker if one
hurriedly skimmed the material.
Thus, the research on cognitive
processing supports the importance of a teacher initiating activities that
require students to process and apply new information. Such processing strengthens the knowledge
network that the student is developing.
Classroom discussion and projects that require students to organize
information, summarize information, or compare new material with prior material
are all activities that should help students develop and strengthen their
cognitive structures. In addition, Palincsar
and Brown wrote:
Understanding is more likely to occur when a child is
required to explain, elaborate, or defend his position to others; the burden of
explanation is often the push needed to make him or her evaluate, integrate,
and elaborate knowledge in new ways.[536]
Other examples of such processing
activities include asking students to do any of the following: read a variety
of materials; explain the new material to someone else; compare material from
different sources; justify their conclusions; write papers and engage in
inquiry; or write daily summaries.
Helping
Students Organize Knowledge
Information is organized into
knowledge structures. Without these
structures, new knowledge tends to be fragmented and not readily available for
recall and use. However, students
frequently lack these knowledge structures when they are learning new material.
Without direction, there is the danger that students will develop a fragmented,
incomplete, or erroneous knowledge structure.
Graphic organizers.
One way of helping students expand
their knowledge structures in content areas and also allowing for a check on
misconceptions is to teach students to
use graphic organizers and develop concept maps. These structures allow a student to show connections between
concepts. An outline is an example of such an organizer; concept maps are
another example. These structures help students organize the elements of the
new learning and such organization can serve to facilitate retrieval. In addition, having such organizers can
enable the student to devote more working memory to the content.
Another approach is to teach
students how to develop their own graphic organizers for new material. Providing students with a variety of
structures that they can use to construct their own graphic organizers
facilitates this process. When teaching
students to develop a graphic organizer, it is useful for the teacher to model
the process and also provide models of thinking and thinking aloud while
constructing the maps.
When students are encouraged to
construct ideas and develop conclusions, there is also a danger they will
develop misconceptions. Research shows we sometimes develop misconceptions in
an effort to make sense of our environment.[537]
(A notorious example is the belief that the sun is closer to the Earth during
summer.) Allowing students to work independently before they are ready
increases the danger that they may develop misconceptions. Therefore, teachers
need to supervise students when they are working independently and to check
their understanding before they begin independent work.
In summary, the research on
cognitive processing has identified the importance of developing well-connected
knowledge structures. Encouraging extensive reading and practice might develop
such structures, student processing of new information, and helping students
organize their new knowledge.
Research
on Teacher Effects
A second important body of
research is the teacher effects studies.
This line of research, which took place in the 1960’s and 1970’s, used
extensive classroom observation in an attempt to identify those teacher
behaviors that were most related to student achievement gain.
Design of the studies. There were three parts to the
design of these studies. The first part
consisted of systematic observation of the instructional behaviors of teachers
and students. Observers sat in a number
of existing classrooms, usually 20 to 30 classrooms, and observed and recorded
the with which those teachers used a variety of instructional behaviors such as
the cause, frequency, and type of praise, the cause frequency and type of
criticism, the number and type of questions that were asked, the quality of the
student answers, and the responses of a teacher to a student's answers. Many
investigators also recorded how much time was spent in activities such as
review, presentation, guided practice, and supervising seatwork. Others recorded how the teachers prepared
students for seatwork and homework, and the attention-level during teacher-led
discussion and during seatwork.
At the end of the observation
period or at the end of the semester, each class took a posttest in the subject
that was observed, usually reading or mathematics. These class posttest scores were then statistically adjusted, using
a variety of regression techniques, for initial or pretest scores of these
students. That is, the pretest was used
as the independent variable in the analysis, and was used to statistically
adjust the posttest scores, the dependent variables, for initial standing. In
the final step, each of the observed teacher and student behaviors, in each
classroom were then, correlated with the adjusted posttest scores.
In effect, these are studies of master
teachers. That is, based on the test
scores, the investigators were able to identify those teachers whose classrooms
made the greatest adjusted achievement gain during the semester, and those
teachers whose classrooms made the least adjusted gain during the
semester. The investigators were able
to take the results of their systematic observation and use this to identify
the instructional procedures that the master teachers used and compare these
instructional procedures with those procedures used by the less-effective
teachers. The significant results are
described later in this section.
Usually 20-30 classrooms were in each study, although
the study by Stallings and Kascovitz[538]
involved 108 first grade and 58 third grade classrooms, and studies by Robert
Soar and Ruth Soar involved 55 middle grade classrooms,[539]
59 fifth grade classrooms,[540]
and 289 Follow Through and comparison classrooms.[541]
Although a number of studies of this type were
conducted as early as 1948 by Barr,[542]
the two most famous studies that initiated the teacher-effects research were those
by Flanders[543] and by
Medley and Mitzel.[544]
The best known of the later studies were those by Stallings and Kascovitz[545]
in Follow Through classrooms, Good and
Grouws [546] in
fourth-grade mathematics, and Brophy and Evertson[547]
in first grade reading.
These correlational studies were frequently followed
by experimental studies in which one group of teachers – the experimental group
– was taught to use the findings of the correlational studies in their teaching
and another group of similar teachers continued to teach in their usual
manner. By and large, these studies
were successful in that the teachers in the experimental groups used more of
the new behaviors and the posttest scores of their classrooms – adjusted by
regression for their initial scores – were significantly higher than scores in
classrooms taught by the control teachers.
Rosenshine summarized the earliest studies in 1971.[548]
The correlational studies and the experimental studies in this tradition are
described in detail by Brophy and Good,[549]
and the experimental studies are also described by Gage and Needles.[550]
Validity.
One argument for the validity of these findings is that the
correlational results were replicated in subsequent correlational studies.
These studies represented cumulative research. Second, the correlational results were also replicated in a number
of experimental studies. Finally, the
instructional findings that emerged from this research also appear in an
independent line of research, that of cognitive strategy instruction, a topic
which will be covered later.
Rosenshine and Stevens concluded that those teachers
whose classrooms made the greatest gains in reading or mathematics usually used
the following procedures:[551]
·
Begin a lesson with a short review of previous learning.
·
Begin a lesson with a short statement of goals.
·
Present new material in small steps, providing for student
practice after each step.
·
Give clear and detailed instructions and explanations.
·
Provide a high level of active practice for all students.
·
Ask a large number of questions, check for student
understanding, and obtain responses from all students.
·
Guide students during initial practice.
·
Provide systematic feedback and corrections.
·
Provide explicit instruction and practice for individual
exercises and, where necessary, monitor students during their individual work.
Rosenshine and Stevens further
grouped these instructional procedures under six teaching “functions” as shown
in Table 1.[552]
Table 1
Functions for Teaching Well-Structured Tasks
1. Review
a)
Review homework
b)
Review relevant previous learning
c)
Review prerequisite skills and knowledge for the lesson
2. Presentation
a)
State lesson goals or provide outline
b)
Present new material in small steps
c)
Model procedures
d)
Provide positive and negative examples
e)
Use clear language
f)
Check for student understanding
g)
Avoid digressions
3. Guided Practice
a)
Spend more time on guided practice
b)
High frequency of questions
c)
All students respond and receive feedback
d)
High success rate
e)
Continue practice until students are fluent
4. Corrections and Feedback
a)
Provide process feedback when answers are correct but
hesitant
b)
Provide sustaining feedback, clues, or re-teaching when
answers are incorrect
c)
Re-teach material when necessary
5. Independent practice
a)
Students receive overview and/or help during initial steps
b)
Practice continues until students are automatic (where
relevant)
c)
Teacher provides active supervision (where possible)
d)
Routines are used to provide help for slower students
6. Weekly and monthly reviews
Small Steps, Practice, and Success
Four strategies that are
particularly relevant to teaching are:
1.)
teaching in “small steps,”
2.)
guiding student practice,
3.)
ensuring a high student success rate, and
4.)
providing extensive practice.
Present
New Material in Small Steps
When the most effective teachers
in these studies taught new material, they taught it in “small steps.” That is, they only presented small parts of
new material at a single time, and then guided students in practicing this material. In contrast, the least effective
teachers in these studies would present an entire lesson, and then pass out
worksheets and tell students to work the problems.
The importance of teaching in
small steps fits well with the findings from cognitive psychology on the
limitations of our working memory. Our
working memory, the place where we process information, is small. It can only handle a few bits of information
at once – too much information swamps our working memory. The procedure of
first teaching in small steps and then guiding student practice represents an
appropriate way of dealing with the limitation of our working memory.
Guide
Student Practice
A second major finding from the
teacher effects literature was the importance of guided practice.[553]
As noted, the most effective
teachers presented only small amounts of material at a time. After this short
presenting, these teachers then guided
student practice. This guidance often
consisted of the teacher working a few problems at the board and discussing the
steps out loud. This instruction served
as a model for the students. This
guidance also included asking students to come to the board, work problems, and
discuss their procedures. Through this
process the students at their seats would see additional models.
In contrast, the least effective
teachers would present an entire lesson, and then pass out worksheets and tell
the students to work the problems. When
this happened, it was observed that many students were confused and made errors
on the worksheets and the teachers would be seen going from student to student
and explaining the material. In this
case, the amount of material that was presented was too large, and swamped the
working memory.
The process of guiding practice
also includes checking the answers of the entire class in order to see whether
some students need additional instruction.
Guided practice has also included asking students to work together, in
pairs or in groups, to quiz and explain the material to each other. Guided practice may occur when a teacher
questions and helps a class with their work before assigning independent
practice.
Guiding practice also fits the
cognitive processing findings on the need to provide for student processing. Guided practice is the place where the
students – working alone, with other students, or with the teacher – engage in
the cognitive processing activities of organizing, reviewing, rehearsing, summarizing, comparing, and
contrasting. However, it is important
that all students engage in these activities.
The least effective teachers often asked a question, called on one
student to answer, and then assumed that everyone had learned this point. In contrast, the most effective teachers
attempted to check the understanding of all students and to provide for
processing by all students.
Another reason for the importance
of guided practice comes from the fact that we construct and reconstruct
knowledge. We cannot simply repeat what
we hear word for word. Rather, we
connect our understanding of the new information to our existing concepts or
“schema,” and we then construct a mental summary: “the gist” of what we have
heard. However, when left on their own,
many students make errors in the process of constructing this mental
summary. These errors occur,
particularly, when the information is new and the student does not have
adequate or well-formed background knowledge.
These constructions are not errors so much as attempts by the students
to be logical in an area where their background knowledge is weak. These errors are so common that there is a
literature on the development and correction of student misconceptions in
science. Providing guided practice
after teaching small amounts of new material, and checking for student
understanding, can help limit the development of misconceptions.
Provide
for Extensive Practice
The most effective teachers also
provided for extensive and successful practice. As noted in the cognitive
processing research, students need extensive practice in order to develop
well-connected networks. The most
effective teachers made sure that such practice took place after there has been
sufficient guided practice, so that students were not practicing errors and misconceptions.
Provide
For a High Success Rate
In two of the major
teacher-effects studies the investigators found that students in classrooms of
the more effective teachers had a higher success rate as judged by the quality
of their oral responses and their individual work. The need for a high success rate follows from the previous
research on the need to provide extensive and successful practice.
Yet, teachers often struggle to
obtain a high success rate, particularly when they are teaching whole-class to
heterogeneous students. One solution is the above-mentioned “teaching in small
steps.” Another solution is for students to meet in heterogeneous
groups during the independent practice and work problems together. In these settings, students who have learned
the material re-explain the material to the other students.
Other schools have dealt with this
problem by regrouping students, by achievement, across classrooms, for reading
and for mathematics. In such settings,
it is easier for the teachers to explain, supervise, and re-teach to the entire
class because all the students in this setting are at similar levels.
The need for a high success rate,
and the need for students to master one step before they proceed to the next
step is the major idea behind Mastery Learning. In Mastery Learning there is
explicit provision for bringing all students to mastery on one section of the
material before they proceed to the next section.
Teaching Cognitive Strategies
The third, major instructional
advance has been the development and teaching of cognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies are guides that support
learners as they develop new internal procedures, procedures that enable them
to perform higher-level operations in areas such as reading comprehension and
scientific problem solving.
Until the late 1970’s, students
were seldom provided with any help in reading comprehension. Durkin[554]
observed 4,469 minutes of reading instruction in fourth-grade classrooms and
noted that only 20 minutes of this total was spent in comprehension
instruction. Durkin found that teachers
spent almost all of the instructional time asking questions, but spent little
time teaching students comprehension strategies they could use to answer the
questions. Duffy and Roehler[555]
noted a similar lack of comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms:
There is little evidence of instruction of any kind.
Teachers spend most of their time assigning activities, monitoring to be sure
the pupils are on task, directing recitation sessions to assess how well
children are doing and providing corrective feedback in response to pupil
errors. Seldom does one observe
teaching in which a teacher presents a skill, a strategy, or a process to
pupils, shows them how to do it, provides assistance as they initiate attempts
to perform the task and assures that they can be successful.[556]
As a result of these astonishing
findings, and as a result of emerging research on cognition and information
processing, investigators began to develop and validate cognitive strategies
that could help students. For example,
one approach that has been used successfully to help students improve their
reading comprehension has been to teach students to ask themselves questions
about their reading. In these studies
students would read passages and use prompts such as “who” and “why” to ask
questions about the passage. And, as a
result of this practice, comprehension improved when the students were tested
on new passages.
What happened? Asking oneself a question, obviously, does
not lead directly to improved comprehension on new passages. Rather, it is
believed that the process of asking questions changed the way students read –
it led them to search the text and combine information – and it was this change
in processing that led to improved comprehension on new passages.
Throughout the 1980’s,
investigators began to develop and teach students specific cognitive strategies
such as question-generation and summarization that could be applied to reading
comprehension.[557] Cognitive
strategy procedures have also been developed and taught in mathematics problem
solving,[558] physics
problem solving,[559]
and in writing.[560]
These intervention studies, in reading, writing, mathematics, and science,
together with a description of the cognitive strategies and the instructional
procedures were used, has been assembled in an excellent volume by Pressley et
al.[561]
The concept of cognitive
strategies provides a general approach that can be applied to the teaching of
higher-order tasks in the content areas.
The profession has made much progress.
In place of Durkin’s observation that there was little evidence of
cognitive strategy instruction in reading, there are now studies that have
succeeded in providing instruction in cognitive strategies in a number of
content areas.
Instructional
Elements in Teaching of Cognitive Strategies
The process of teaching students
cognitive strategies is distinctive in that the investigators used a variety of
supports, or scaffolds, to teach students to use the strategies. Many of these instructional elements had not
appeared in the teacher-effects literature.
These elements – which are described in this section – can now be used
by teachers, profitability, to help students not only in the learning of
cognitive strategies, but also in variety of other learning situations.
Scaffolds
Cognitive strategies are taught by
providing students with cognitive supports or scaffolds.[562]
A scaffold is a temporary support that is used to assist a learner during
initial learning. Scaffolds operate to
reduce the complexities of the problems and break them down into manageable
chunks that the child has a real chance of solving.[563]
Scaffolds help students bridge the gap between their current abilities and the
goal. The scaffolds are gradually withdrawn as learners become more
independent, although some students may continue to rely on scaffolds when they
encounter particularly difficult problems. Scaffolds include simplified
problems, modeling of the procedures by the teacher, thinking aloud by the
teacher as he or she solves the problem, prompts, suggestions, and guidance as
students work problems. Scaffolds may also be tools, such as cue cards or
checklists, or a model of the completed task against which students can compare
their work.[564]
Collins, Brown, and Neuman
originated the term Cognitive Apprenticeship to refer to the entire process of
teaching cognitive strategies and providing scaffolds to aid students. [565]
Students are learning strategies during this apprenticeship that will enable
them to become competent readers, writers, and problem solvers. They are aided by a Master who models,
coaches, provides supports, and withdraws the supports and scaffolds as the
students become independent.
A number of these supports and
scaffolds, drawn from the research, are presented here.
1. Provide Procedural Prompts That Can Guide Student
Processing.
In these studies, the first step
in teaching a cognitive strategy was the development of a procedural prompt.[566]
Procedural prompts are concrete aids that supply the students with specific
procedures or suggestions that facilitate the completion of the task. Learners can temporarily rely on these hints
and suggestions until they create their own internal structures.[567]
As noted, the words “who,” “what”
“why” “where” “when” and “how” are procedural prompts that help students learn
the cognitive strategy of asking questions about the material they have read.[568]
These prompts are concrete references on which students can rely for support as
they learn to apply the cognitive strategy.
Another example of procedural
prompts comes from a study by King,[569]
who also taught students to generate questions. In her studies, however, she
provided students with a list of question stems:
How are _____ and _____ alike?
What is the main idea of __________?
What do you think would happen if __________?
What are the strengths and weakness of __________ ?
In what way is _____ related to ______ ?
What do you think causes __________?
How does _____ tie in with what we have learned before?
What do I (you) still not understand about . . .?
Students practiced in groups,
using these stems to ask each other questions about passages. King found that students who practiced using
these prompts were superior to control students in comprehension of new
material. Apparently, using these stems
to develop and answer questions led the students to develop new internal
approaches to reading text, and these approaches helped them when they now read
new material.
A wide variety of excellent
procedural prompts have been developed for reading comprehension, for writing,
and for vocabulary. Investigators have also
developed a number of “concept maps” and “graphic organizers” that have been
shown to help students learn from text.
Twenty-four or these procedural prompts and details on their use –
mostly derived from successful studies – have been assembled in a useful book
published by the Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction.[570]
2. Demonstrate use of the prompt through modeling and
thinking aloud.
On one hand, demonstration of use
of the procedural prompts is similar to
traditional demonstrations by a teacher.
What is new is the addition of two cognitive supports: modeling of the
cognitive strategy, and “thinking aloud” that provides an insight into how
experts solve problems. These supports
would seem useful in a variety of instructional situations.
Provide Models of the Appropriate Responses. The literature on cognitive
strategies has introduced us to the concept of a teacher modeling appropriate
responses. Excellent teachers have
undoubtedly modeled difficult learning for centuries, but it was the cognitive
strategy literature that highlighted this important instructional procedure.
As noted, prompts were “who,”
“what” and “where,” then a teacher would model questions starting with those
words. This modeling occurred at the
start of the lessons and also during the lesson when students were having
problems developing questions.[571]
Modeling is particularly
appropriate when using prompts for writing essays or arguments. The author once
watched a class where the teacher spent the entire period modeling and leading
the class as he completed an essay prompt using material from the play Macbeth,
which the class had read and discussed.
The next day, he led the class as they completed the prompt using a
second argument. The third day, he supervised the students as they used worked
alone and used the prompt to develop a third argument.
Think
Aloud, as Choices are Being Made. Another scaffold, similar to
modeling, is thinking aloud: literally vocalizing the internal thought
processes one goes through when using the cognitive strategy. A teacher might think aloud while
summarizing a paragraph – illustrating
the thought processes that occur as one first determines the topic of the
paragraph then uses the topic to
generate a summary sentence.
Thinking aloud by the teacher and
more capable students provides novice learners with a way to observe “expert
thinking” that is usually hidden from
the student. Garcia and Pearson (1990)
refer to this process as the teacher “sharing the reading secrets” by making them
overt.[572] Indeed, identifying the hidden strategies of
experts so that they can become available to learners has become a useful area
of research.[573]
Anderson[574]
worked with adolescent readers who were competent decoders but poor in
comprehension. These readers were
reluctant to identify or to attempt to solve problems that occurred during
their reading. The students met in
groups, read somewhat difficult passages, and attempted to make sense of the
passages. Anderson illustrated the
procedure she was trying to teach by modeling how one might attempt to clarify
a difficult passage:
I don’t get this.
It says that things that are dark look smaller. I know that a white dog looks smaller than
a black elephant, so this rule must only work for things that are about the
same size. Maybe black shoes would
make your feet look smaller than white ones would.
Anderson also modeled how they
might summarize important information:
I’ll summarize this part of the article. So far, it tells where the Spanish started
in North America and what parts they explored. Since the title is “The Spanish in California,” the part about
California must be important. I’d sum
up by saying that Spanish explorers from Mexico discovered California. They didn’t stay in California, but lived
in other parts of America. These are
the most important ideas so far.
3. Guide Initial Practice through Techniques That
Reduce the Difficulty of the Task.
Typically, after the modeling, the
teacher guided students during their initial practice. As they worked through text, the teacher gave hints, reminders of the
prompts, reminders of what was overlooked, and suggestions of how something
could be improved.[575]
Much of this guided practice is
similar to the guided practice that emerged from the teacher effects research.[576]
Now, however, the guided practice is being applied to the learning of higher-level tasks. A number of investigators also developed
procedures that facilitate practice by reducing the initial demands on the
students. These procedures, described
next, would seem useful for teaching a variety of skills, strategies, and
concepts, not just those illustrated here.
Regulate
the difficulty of the task. One approach
to guiding practice has been to regulate the difficulty of the material by
having the students begin with simpler material and then gradually move to more
complex materials. For example, when
Palincsar taught students to generate questions, the teacher first modeled how
to generate questions about a single sentence.[577]
This was followed by class practice.
Next, the teacher modeled and provided practice on asking questions
after reading a paragraph. Finally, the
teacher modeled and then the class practiced generating questions after reading
an entire passage. Similar procedures
were used by other investigators.[578]
The same simple to complex
procedure were used to teach the strategy of summarizing.[579]
Students first learned to write summaries of single paragraphs, and then
progressed, with guidance and modeling from the teacher, to producing a summary
of longer passages.
In another study where
summarization was taught, the initial difficulty was reduced by starting the
practice with material that was one or two grade levels below the students’
reading level.[580] In a study by Blaha,[581]
the teacher divided up the strategy.
She first taught a part of a strategy, then guided student practice in
first identifying and then applying the strategy. After that, the teacher taught next part of the strategy, and
guided student practice. Finally, the
parts of the strategy were combined. In many of these studies, the prompts were
diminished after students had learned the task. In all these examples, the
initial difficulty of the higher-level task was reduced by beginning with
simpler materials or by teaching the strategy in small steps.
Anticipate
and Discuss Potential Difficulties. One
characteristic of experienced teachers is their ability to anticipate student
errors prior to instruction and then focus instruction around these potential
problems. This practice occurred in
some of these studies. For example, in a study by Palincsar the teacher
anticipated the inappropriate questions that students might generate.[582] After the students had read a
paragraph, the students were shown a
question that was too narrow, that focused only on a small detail, and the
students discussed why it was a poor question. The teacher then showed the students a question that could not
be answered by the information provided in the paragraph, and the students
discussed why it was a poor question. They continued through the exercise
discussing whether each question was too narrow, too broad, or
appropriate.
Provide a
cue card when appropriate. Another
support used in these studies was providing a cue card containing the
procedural prompt. A cue card might
support a student during initial learning by reducing the strain upon the
working memory. In a number of studies,
the students were given cards that contained the procedural prompts. In all these studies, the investigators
modeled the use of the cue card.
4. Provide
Feedback and Self-Checking Procedures.
Teacher feedback and corrections
occurred during the guided practice as students attempted to generate
questions. Feedback typically took the
form of hints, questions, and suggestions.
Provide
and Teach a Checklist. In some of
the studies, students were taught to use another scaffold, a self-evaluation
checklist. In a study by Davey and
McBride[583] a
self-evaluation checklist was introduced in the fourth of five instructional
sessions. The checklist listed the
following questions:
How well did I identify important information?
How well did I link information together?
How well could I answer my questions?
Did my “think questions” use different language from the
text?
Did I use good signal words?
In another study[584]
the students were taught specific rules to discriminate a question from a non-question and a good
question from a poor one:
A good question starts with a question word.
A good question can be answered by the story.
A good question asks about an important detail of the story.
Provide
models of expert work. In some studies, students would view an expert’s
model after they had completed their own work.[585]
The intent of this model was to enable the students to compare their efforts
with that of an expert.[586]
Suggest
fix-up strategies. Fix-up
strategies are strategies students learn to use when their writing or reading
or project is not going well. In two
studies, student reading comprehension improved when they were taught fix-up
strategies.[587] Some of
the fix-up strategies that were taught included:
Re-read the difficult portion of the text.
Read ahead to see if the problems clear up.
Formulate the difficulty as a problem.
These strategies came from studies
of expert readers, and teaching these strategies resulted in improved
comprehension.
Feedback
in groups. Another form of guided practice occurred when students met
in small groups of two to six, without the teacher, and practiced asking,
revising, and correcting questions and provided support and feedback to each
other.[588] Such
groupings allow for more support when revising questions and for more practice
than can be obtained in a whole-class setting.
Nolte and Singer applied the concept of diminishing support to the
organization of groups.[589]
Students first spent three days working in groups of five or six, followed by
three days working in pairs, and then began to work alone.
5. Provide
Independent Practice with New Examples
Extensive and successful
independent practice is required for learning cognitive strategies. Such practice can lead to “automatic
responding,” which means that the students use the strategy automatically and
do not have to stop to recall it.
Another result of extensive practice is “unitization” of the strategy,
that is, the blending of elements of the strategy into a unified whole. This
extensive practice, and practice with a variety of material, also frees the
learning from its original limited context so that it can be applied easily and
unconsciously to various situations.[590]
One can also practice transfer during independent practice. For example, in a study by Dermody[591]
the last phase of the study involved application of cognitive strategy to a
different content area than was used for the original instruction.
Increase
Student Responsibilities. As students become more competent during guided practice
and independent practice, the teacher diminishes the use of models and prompts
and other scaffolds, and also diminishes the support offered by other students.
The responsibilities of the individual student and the complexity and
difficulty of the material are gradually increased. In reading, for example, one begins with well-organized,
reader-friendly material and then increases the difficulty of the
material. That way, students receive
practice and support in applying their strategies to the more difficult
material they can expect to encounter in their regular reading.
Assess
Student Mastery. After guided practice and independent practice, some
of the studies assessed whether students had achieved a mastery level, and
provided for additional instruction if that level had not been reached. On the 5th and final day of instruction,
Davey and McBride required students to generate three acceptable questions for
each of three passages and re-teaching was provided.[592] Smith stated that student questions at the
end of a story were compared to model questions, and re-teaching took place
when necessary.[593] Wong, Wong, Perry, and Sawatsky required
that students achieve mastery in applying the self-questioning steps; students
had to continue doing the exercises, with assistance, until they achieved
mastery.[594] Unfortunately, the other studies cited in
this review did not report the level of mastery students achieved in generating
questions.
Table 2
Instructional
Elements in Teaching Cognitive Strategies.
1. Provide
procedural prompts that can guide student processing.
2. Demonstrate the
use of the prompts through modeling and thinking aloud.
a)
Model the use of the prompt.
b)
Think aloud as choices are being made.
3. Guide initial
practice.
a)
Regulate the difficulty of the task.
b)
Anticipate and discuss potential difficulties.
c)
Provide a cue card when appropriate.
4. Provide feedback
and self-checking procedures.
a)
Provide and teach a checklist.
b)
Suggest fix-up strategies.
c)
Arrange for feedback in groups.
5. Provide independent
practice with new examples.
a)
Increase student responsibility.
b)
Assess student mastery
Recommendations
Since the publication of the first
Handbook of Research on Teaching[595]
nearly 40 years ago, and with the investment of public and private funds in
research, we have undertaken an extensive program of research and development
in education. The profession has come a long way. How might the results from these three areas of research fit
together?
The research on cognitive
processing underlies a major goal of education: helping students develop
well-organized knowledge structures. In well-organized structures the parts are
well-organized, the pieces are well-connected, and the bonds between the
connections are strong.
We also know something about how
to help students acquire these structures.
·
Present new material in small steps to that the working
memory does not become overloaded.
·
Help students develop an organization for the new material.
·
Guide student practice by supporting students during initial
practice, and providing for extensive student processing.
·
When teaching higher-level tasks, support students by
providing them with cognitive strategies.
·
Help students learn to use the cognitive strategies by
providing them with procedural prompts and modeling the use of these procedural
prompts.
·
Provide for extensive student practice.
10:
Teacher Unions And Student Achievement
Executive
Summary
Research findings
While only 17 prominent studies have
looked at the teacher union-achievement link, the evidence suggests that
unionism raises achievement modestly for most students in public schools. These favorable patterns on unionism include
higher math and verbal standardized test scores, and very possibly, an
increased likelihood of high school graduation. Although most studies were conducted on high-school students,
favorable union effects were also found at the elementary level. At the same time, a union presence was
harmful for the very lowest- and highest-achieving students. Research to date is only suggestive as to
why unions may improve achievement for most students. Two promising explanations include the possibility that unions
standardize programs, instruction, and curricula in a way that benefits
middle-range (most) students, and that unions “shock” schools into
restructuring for greater effectiveness by improving connections and
communication among district administrators, principals and teachers.
Recommendations
·
Policy-makers should view teacher unions more as
collaborators than as adversaries.
·
Policy-makers and school districts should reconsider current
union proposals for educational improvement.
Given the empirical evidence, unions have a solid track record of
supporting policies that boost achievement for most students.
·
In unionized school districts, policy-makers should direct
particular attention to programs for very low- and high-achieving students, and
should ensure that appropriate resources and specialized curricula are
available.
10:
Teacher Unions And Student Achievement
Indiana
University
One of the most dramatic events in education over the past
few decades has been the rise of teacher unions. Until the early 1960s, virtually no teachers were unionized,
i.e., covered by collective bargaining agreements. Today, the National Education Association (NEA) claims 2.5
million members, and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) another 1
million.[596] Given the extensive growth and influence of
teacher unions, observers often wonder if unionism affects students’ academic
performance. Unlike most other topics
in this Report, unionism is not typically considered a key factor in promoting
greater achievement. In fact, public opinion is split as to whether teacher
unionism is harmful or helpful to educational outcomes.[597] Considering
both this general perception and the considerable rhetoric from both critics
and supporters of unions, it is surprising that so little research exists on
the unionism-achievement link. Still,
the overall pattern in the research is increasingly clear; teacher unionism
favorably influences achievement for most students in public schools.
Teacher
Unionism Research
Development Of Teacher Unions
The vast majority of unionized teachers are members of
either the NEA or the AFT. The NEA traces its roots to 1857. The NEA, or National Teachers’ Association
as it was originally known, was formed to provide a collective voice for
educators who were concerned about the movement toward centralization in public
schools.[598] At its onset, the NEA was led not by
classroom teachers, but a cadre of educational elites, primarily
administrators, who pressed for the increased professionalization of teachers.
In contrast, the AFT was formed in 1916 by rank-and-file teachers with a
mindset not unlike that found in industrial unions.[599] The AFT was granted an American Federation
of Labor (AFL) charter membership in 1917, and stayed with the AFL after its merger
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations in 1955. Despite interest by their members, it was
not until the early 1960s that teachers engaged in collective bargaining. The
AFT embraced the concept more quickly than the NEA. At first, NEA leadership
held that collective bargaining was incompatible with professionalism. The NEA
was compelled to alter its position on collective bargaining, however, when it
began losing ground to the AFT in the mid-1960s. Due to possible conflicts of interest, administrators were pushed
out of the NEA with the onset of collective bargaining. Although serious merger talks began as early
as the late 1960s, the two unions have maintained their separate identities.
The proliferation of teacher unions is even more impressive
against a backdrop of overall union decline in the United States since the
1960s.[600] Membership gains were especially strong for
teacher unions during the initial expansion of collective bargaining in the
1960s and 1970s. Since the 1980s,
membership growth has continued at a more moderate yet steady pace. The
expansion of teacher unionism has not been uniform across all regions of the
country. Teacher unionization in the South has noticeably lagged that in other
regions. Weaker unionization is reflected
in state laws on union rights,[601]
as well as in the proportion of teachers covered under collective bargaining
agreements.[602] This weakness for teacher unions in the
South parallels that of industrial unions in this region.[603]
Why Unionism Might Decrease Achievement
In considering whether teacher unions affect achievement, it
is helpful to examine why they might do so.
There are compelling cases made both against and for unions. Many of these arguments mirror those put
forth regarding unions in general.
Whether these differences actually influence student achievement as the
arguments assert is an empirical question requiring further exploration.
Critics of unions argue that efforts to improve compensation
and working conditions for teachers compromise student achievement. Some common
arguments against teacher unionism include: [604]
·
Unions raise the costs of education, thereby draining
resources away from inputs that raise achievement
·
Unions remove incentives for teachers to improve instruction
– for example, by shielding ineffective teachers from dismissal and by tying
salaries to seniority rather than merit.
·
Increased formalization as a result of unionization hampers
principals’ ability to manage their schools.
·
Unions encourage distrustful relationships between teachers
and principals.
·
Due to their political clout, teacher unions can block
promising educational reforms that threaten union interests.
·
Teacher union strikes, or even their threat, disrupt
instruction, lower morale, and damage community relations.
Some of the differences suggested above between unionized
schools and their non-unionized counterparts have been documented. For example, that teacher unions raise the
costs of education, especially teacher salaries, is well established.[605] Some studies have reported that unionism
made it more difficult for principals to remove ineffective teachers.[606] And in some studies, unionism was linked to
more conflicted relationships among teachers, principals, and district
administrators.[607]
Why Unionism Might Boost
Achievement
While the higher costs associated with teacher unionism are
confirmed, supporters of unions assert that these additional costs are a
worthwhile investment, i.e., educational gains are worth the higher costs. Several of these arguments assume that
unions ultimately enhance teacher instruction.
Teacher interests and educational needs of children are not viewed as incompatible,
but in fact, intertwined. Others hold
that unions should make schools more effective organizations. Some common
arguments for teacher unionism include: [608]
·
The higher salaries and benefits associated with unionism
attract and retain superior teachers.
·
Unions offer teachers a greater sense of professionalism and
dignity.
·
Unions provide teachers with a collective “voice” to express
ideas and concerns.[609]
·
Unions enhance teacher morale and job satisfaction
·
Unions support practices purported to boost student
achievement, e.g., smaller class sizes and designated instructional planning
time.
·
Unions “shock” management, schools, or both, into more
effective organizations.
As with arguments against unionism, some of the differences
suggested above between unionized schools and their non-unionized counterparts
are documented. For example, teacher
unions have attained many of their bread-and-butter goals such as greater
compensation and security.[610] Evidence suggests that school structures
become more formalized after unionization.[611] Several studies show that unionized schools
tend to have smaller class sizes[612]
and teachers who engage in more instructional preparation time.[613]
Research on Achievement
Despite the considerable scrutiny of teacher unions, and
speculation on why they might affect student achievement, few empirical studies
exist. While the studies scrutinized
here may not reflect the entire population of empirical work, the 17 selected
have been the most widely cited. In
contrast, consider that there are literally hundreds of studies on some of the
other factors covered in other chapters in this report. Still, despite the
relatively small research base, there is an emerging consensus in the
literature that teacher unionism favorably influences achievement for most
students, as measured by a variety of standardized tests. These patterns hold at both the elementary
and high school levels. Fewer
researchers have looked at whether unionism affects the probability of
graduation from high school – while the findings are somewhat mixed, the bulk
of the evidence points toward a small positive impact of unions. In addition, some studies have examined
unions’ impact on educational attainment, as measured by high school graduation or drop-out. Despite the overall pattern of favorable
union impacts, five studies have reported that unionism depresses educational
outcomes. As will be seen in the next
section, several of these studies reach questionable conclusions given their
analyses.
Research:
Unions Decrease Achievement
Two of the three studies with negative union findings
attempted to explain the decline of college entrance scores from the 1960s
until 1980. Teacher unions seemed a
plausible culprit due to their rapid development over this same period. Accordingly, Kurth tested whether several
factors were responsible for changes in state Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT)
scores between 1972 and 1983.[614] He concluded that unionism was more
responsible than any other factor for declines in state SAT scores (both math
and verbal). Kurth’s work did not go
unchallenged. Nelson and Gould of the AFT, citing measurement and
methodological problems in Kurth’s analysis, reanalyzed the same data and
concluded just the opposite – that greater state unionism led to higher SAT
scores.[615] As others have pointed out, this research
debate is inconclusive.[616]
Peltzman conducted a similar study on state SAT and ACT
(American College Test) scores from 1972 to 1989.[617] Curiously, he analyzed the NEA and AFT
memberships separately – in essence, testing not a general effect of unionism,
but particular union effects.
Summarizing his findings, Peltzman reported: “I found that the growth of
teacher unions has contributed to the student test score decline.”[618] Indeed, Peltzman’s study is often cited as
one that found harmful union effects.
Upon closer inspection, however, Peltzman’s results are more mixed than
he suggested. As noted by others,[619]
Peltzman’s analysis finds that greater NEA strength boosted scores from
1972 to 1981, while greater AFT strength contributed to declines in
scores. Given that the NEA had a much
larger share of teachers under collective bargaining than the AFT, the overall
union effect over this period should be considered mixed or even positive. During the period from 1981 to 1989,
Peltzman found that stronger NEA and AFT unionization lowered scores. Peltzman’s work has been further criticized
on methodological grounds,[620]
such as whether he included appropriate statistical adjustments, especially
measures of family background that are strongly linked to achievement.[621]
The two studies discussed so far focused on academically
superior students – those who took college entrance exams. To gain insight into how unionism might
affect students of lower achievement, Peltzman conducted a second study. [622] Specifically, he studied applicants to the
United States military who completed the standardized Armed Forces Qualifying
Test (AFQT) – most of whom never attend college. He tested whether changes in state unionization from 1971 to 1991
led to changes in state scores.
Peltzman concluded that increased unionization decreased state
scores. In addition, the negative
effects of unionization held for two particular student populations:
African-Americans and those who scored in the lowest quartile. As in Peltzman’s
earlier work involving college entrance exams, these findings are more mixed
than he concluded. In particular,
stronger unionization was not associated with lower test scores over half of
the period (the 1970s). However, increased unionization was
associated with lower scores during the 1980s, but even then, not for all
measures of unionization examined.
Fuller, Mitchell, and Hartmann examined trends in the
Milwaukee Public School District from 1964 to 1996.[623] Milwaukee’s teachers first unionized in
1964, and the authors attempted to link the union’s presence to subsequently
disappointing student achievement.
Unlike other studies on the unionism-achievement link discussed in this
chapter, this one does not control for possible confounding factors. The switch to unionism certainly was not the
only change in the district over the 32-year period that might have affected
achievement. For instance, changes in student demographics alone might have
been responsible for the disappointing test scores. The authors themselves noted
that the proportion of disadvantaged students served by the district increased
dramatically over the period. The
authors are unable to make a compelling argument that unionism was responsible
for declining achievement during the period.
While Fuller and associates looked at test scores, Caroline
Hoxby’s research covered high school drop-outs. Hoxby found that unionized districts had higher drop-out rates
than non-unionized districts from 1970 to 1990.[624] Of the five
studies examined in this section, Hoxby’s may offer the strongest evidence,
although like the others, it too can be challenged on methodological
grounds. In
particular, Hoxby reported that she analyzed 10,509 school districts, and
asserted that her sample constituted 95% of all districts in the
United States in 1990. Given that there
were 15,552 school districts in 1990,[625] Hoxby’s
research only covered 68% of the districts, not the 95% that she reported. It is not clear why nearly one in three
districts were lost. More important,
the missing districts were likely fiscally dependent districts, the bulk of
which are located in strongly unionized Northeastern states. This is a potentially critical omission that
may completely change her findings, particularly given the small gap in
drop-out rates that she found. Albert
Shanker, the late President of the AFT, asserted this very critique of Hoxby’s
study in the Wall Street Journal.[626] In her response, Hoxby offered rebuttals to nearly
all of his points, but did not offer a clarification on the missing districts.[627]
Research:
Unions Boost Achievement
The studies mentioned in the prior section focused on
achievement at either the state or district level. For example, Kurth looked at state SAT scores, while Hoxby
examined district drop-out rates. Some
have argued that state-level analyses are appropriate since this is where
educational policy originates, including laws on collective bargaining.[628] Others have used the district level as a
“natural” unit of analysis. Still
others have argued that the impact of unions should be measured precisely where
learning occurs – at the student level.
Indeed, studies of unionism at the state or district level clearly have
merit. However, if studies using highly
aggregated levels of analysis are not conducted carefully, they are more prone
to erroneous conclusions about student achievement than studies conducted at
the student level.[629] Many of the studies that find favorable
effects of unionism are conducted at the student level.
In contrast to the five studies that find harmful effects of
unionism, 12 prominent studies (including Nelson and Gould) report generally
beneficial effects of unionism. In general, the studies that report beneficial
effects of unionism are more methodologically sound than those that report
negative findings. In particular,
studies that report beneficial effects tend to employ more extensive
statistical controls, thereby increasing our confidence that the findings are
real.
These studies are organized below as to whether they were
conducted at the student or state level.
Each study is summarized to provide insights into the issues, student
outcomes, and notable findings.
Student-Level Research
In their pioneering study, Eberts and Stone looked at the
improvement in standardized math test scores of fourth-graders over a school
year in both unionized and non-unionized schools.[630] Overall, they found that students in
unionized schools improved more than counterparts in non-unionized
schools. Others have reported similarly
favorable findings for unionism at the student-level: 1.) Milkman on high
school sophomores into their senior year on a standardized math test;[631]
2.) Grimes and Register on high school seniors on the SAT;[632] 3.) Grimes and Register on high school
seniors on the Test of Economic Literacy, a standardized test of mastery of
economics;[633]
4.) Zigarelli on high school sophomores’ improvement on a composite
standardized test (vocabulary, reading, writing, and math) into their senior
year;[634]
and 5.) Argys and Rees on eighth-graders’ improvement through their sophomore
year in high school on a standardized math test.[635]
Others have considered whether unionism has favorable
effects for all types of students.
Eberts and Stone found that unionism had different impacts on students
depending on their achievement level (as measured by a pretest).[636] For middle-range fourth-graders, unionized
schools raised scores higher than in non-unionized schools. However, the very lowest and the very
highest achievers actually fared worse in unionized schools than in
non-unionized ones. This pattern was
corroborated by two studies at higher grades on test improvements in math: 1.)
Milkman on high school sophomores into seniors,[637] and 2.)
Argys and Rees on eighth-graders’ into high school sophomores.[638]
Researchers have begun to examine other student
characteristics that might lead to differential unionism impacts, such as race
and sex. For example, Grimes and
Register found that African-American seniors in unionized schools scored higher
on the SAT than comparable African-Americans in non-unionized schools.[639] In another study that focused on race,
Milkman analyzed gains in standardized math scores for minority students
between the sophomore and senior years in high school.[640] He reported that minority students overall
had larger gains in unionized schools than in non-unionized schools. Among schools with mostly minority students,
minority students showed higher gains in unionized schools. In contrast, among schools with mostly
majority students, minority students showed smaller gains in unionized
schools. In contrast, Zwerling and
Thomason tested if unionism had the same impact on women’s and men’s
probabilities of dropping out of high school after the sophomore year.[641] While unionization lowered the probability
of dropping out for men, it did not offer similar protection for women.
State-Level Research
In a study that covered similar territory as those by Kurth
and Peltzman, Kliner and Petree found that increases in state unionization from
1972 to 1982 generally led to increases in state SAT and ACT scores.[642] They measured unionization in two ways; one
measure led to higher SAT scores, but another was unrelated. Unlike Hoxby, the authors found that
unionization led to improved high school graduation rates. However, like Kurth and Peltzman, it is not
clear if or how the authors adjusted raw state scores for the participation
rate, i.e., the proportion of students in a state who took the exam. Powell and Steelman demonstrated that using
raw SAT or ACT scores for interstate comparisons can result in misleading
conclusions.[643] States vary widely in their student
participation rates. For example, SAT
participation rates ranged from a low of 4% (Mississippi
and North Dakota) to a high of 81% (Connecticut
and New Jersey) in 2000.[644] And when increasing numbers of students take
the SAT in a state, that state’s score generally drops. This occurs because increasing numbers of
lower-achieving students now contribute to the score. Thus, states with low participation rates likely have
artificially high raw SAT scores, and vice versa. Adjusting for each state’s participation rate accounts for the
bulk of state differences in SAT scores.[645] Others have reported that using raw SAT
scores underestimates the union effect on SATs;[646] the union
effects on SATs reported by Kliner and Petree may then be understated.
In the most recent study at the state level, Steelman,
Powell, and Carini found favorable linkages between unionization and state SAT
scores in 1993, and ACT scores in 1994.[647] They also found that greater unionization
led to higher eighth-grade NAEP math scores.
Like Kliner and Petree, they reported lower drop-out rates with greater
unionization. To a greater extent than
other studies, the authors measured unionization in several ways, and found the
same patterns regardless of the measure used.
Interestingly, they reported that weak unionization in the South
explained much of why the South lagged other regions on the SAT and ACT. However, the authors acknowledged the
difficulties of making conclusions based on single point in time. Nelson and Rosen found similar results in a
state-by-state analysis on SAT and ACT scores.[648] In addition, this study found that greater
unionization was associated with higher NAEP scores for fourth-graders.
Research: Why Unions Boost
Achievement
While there are relatively few studies on the
unionism-achievement link, there are even fewer that have systematically
examined why unionism appears to boost achievement. Indeed, unions may raise achievement by
their association with other factors discussed in this report, such as reduced
class size. The most promising
explanations to date for unionization’s positive effects are: 1.)
standardization of the school environment, and 2.) more tightly-coupled
schools.
Standardization
of Schools
There is accumulating evidence that teacher unions do, as is
generally assumed, produce more standardized work environments.[649] We focus our attention on how
standardization might directly affect the character of instruction students
receive. Eberts and Stone find that
unionism tends to standardize math instruction, and math programs for
fourth-graders.[650] Specifically, students spend less time
learning math with specialists, tutors, or in independent study programs in
unionized schools. Standardization in
the classroom tends to enhance the performance of middle-range students.[651] Standardization may also lead to the
funneling of resources away from specialized programs and techniques that would
benefit the lowest- or highest-achieving students. The upshot is that, while standardization may boost achievement
of middle-range students in unionized environments, similar gains do not accrue
to those outside the middle-range. In
fact, the achievement gains of the many may come at the expense of the lowest
and highest achievers. Given that
disadvantaged students are disproportionately represented among the lowest-achieving
students, unionization will likely have disproportionately harmful effects for
these students.
Stone has suggested that the differential impacts of
unionism by student achievement-level unifies much of the research to date.[652] In particular, it is consistent with the
findings that unionism boosts average standardized test scores when students of
all abilities are grouped together.
Further, Stone has argued that Hoxby’s finding that unionism led to
higher drop-out rates is not necessarily inconsistent with research documenting
favorable union effects. The argument
is that, with a focus on high school drop-outs, Hoxby essentially limited the
scope of her study to lower-achieving students. In any case, three other
studies discussed previously have reported that unionism did not increase
drop-out rates.[653] Stone’s proposed explanation also appears
consistent with Peltzman’s findings that unionism wields negative effects on
those who scored in the lowest quartile on the AFQT exam. We might expect that Stone’s findings should
hold for high-achievers, e.g., those who take college entrance exams. Yet, several studies using college entrance
exams (Kliner and Petree, Steelman et al., and Nelson and Rosen) do not find
negative impacts of unionism. Stone may
still be correct on high-achieving students – given the increased number of
students attending college since the 1960s, the average achievement level of
the test-taking pool dropped accordingly.
Researchers might find that unionism lowers college entrance test scores
if test-takers with only the highest achievement-levels were examined.
More
Tightly-Coupled Schools
Some scholars have characterized schools as loosely-coupled
organizations.[654] In other words, interactions between
principals and teachers are infrequent on a day-to-day basis. Compared to many types of employees in other
workplaces, teachers enjoy considerable autonomy and discretion within the
classroom. Direct supervision and
evaluation by principals is relatively infrequent. The overall quantity and quality of communication may suffer in
such an environment. In particular, it
may be difficult for principals to communicate and enforce goals with few
formal organizational ties. By
definition, interdependency is reduced among loosely-coupled school
personnel. The exact meaning of
coupling may seem diffuse – at this point, there is not complete agreement on
exactly what constitutes coupling, or how it should be measured empirically.[655]
One argument discussed earlier was that unions might “shock” schools into becoming more effective
organizations. Schools might become
more effective if unionization results in tightened couplings, that is,
increased connections and interdependencies between district administrators,
principals, and teachers. Zigarelli
found that compared with non-unionized schools, unionized schools had tighter
couplings.[656] Moreover, tighter coupling helped explain
why unionized schools had higher test scores in Zigarelli’s study.
In a similar vein, Eberts and Stone found that the time a
principal spent on instructional leadership had different impacts on
achievement in unionized and non-unionized schools.[657] Specifically, increased time spent on
instructional leadership (defined here as curriculum design, program needs evaluation,
and program planning and assessment), led to higher test scores in unionized
schools, but lower scores in non-unionized schools. It was not that principals in unionized
schools devoted more time to instructional leadership. Rather, the time invested resulted in a much
greater payoff (positive versus negative) in test scores in unionized
schools. Eberts and Stone speculated
that greater leadership productivity stemmed from the collective voice function
of unions.[658] In other words, teachers could communicate
their views via formal channels to their principals. Principals, in turn, may have used this feedback to tailor future
leadership activities. Clearly, Eberts
and Stone’s finding and proposed explanation on instructional leadership are
also consistent with the idea of a more tightly-coupled organization.
Union Contracts and
Administrative Flexibility
Even though the effect of teacher unions appears positive
overall, there might be aspects of unions that contribute to lower achievement
for most students. In particular,
provisions of union contracts may reduce administrators’ flexibility to make
key decisions – perhaps to the point that effectiveness is compromised.[659] For example, provisions on greater teacher
participation in decision-making, reduction-in-force (RIF) procedures,
involuntary transfer scenarios, guidelines for teacher removal, and maximum
class size may well decrease administrative discretion in the allocation of
resources, the shaping of the personnel mix, and in rendering policy
decisions. A decrease in administrative
flexibility may prove especially problematic in rapidly changing environments
that require adaptation. Overall, the
evidence suggests that union contracts often constrain the flexibility of
principals.[660] However, decreased flexibility does not
necessarily mean that principals’ effectiveness is also curtailed.
Considerable evidence suggests that union contracts
constrain principals’ autonomy to manage their corps of teachers. In particular, it is difficult for
principals to remove incompetent teachers under union contracts.[661] The procedural hurdles to remove a teacher
can be very extensive. Further, unions
are bound by law to defend members against procedural violations of their
contract.[662] Even successful attempts to remove teachers
are typically long and drawn-out processes.[663] Ironically, the protection of incompetent
teachers is considered an obstacle to the professionalization of unions by some
teachers.[664] In addition, principals often express
frustration with RIF and involuntary transfer procedures that protect teachers
with seniority, instead of those who are most effective.[665]
At the same time, these decreases in flexibility do not
necessarily hamper the ability of principals to effectively manage their schools. To the contrary, these decreases in
flexibility may provide an impetus to greater efficiency. For example, McDonnell and Pascal report
that:
Truly effective principals usually accept collective
bargaining and use the contract both to manage their building more
systematically and to increase teacher participation in school
decision-making. Less effective
principals may view the contract as an obstacle to a well-run school and then
use it as an excuse for poor management.[666]
The particular approach that principals adopt appears to
shape their effectiveness in unionized environments. Effective principals are likely those who can capitalize on the
tighter coupling that follows union contracts.[667] Ironically, while the contract decreases
discretion of principals, it simultaneously may strengthen their authority
through its emphasis on the application and enforcement of rules.[668]
The extent to which superintendents are affected by union
contracts is less clear. Some suggest
that many superintendents are reluctant to oppose contract provisions for fear
of losing their job.[669] Others argue that the authority of
superintendents may increase with unionization.[670] Union contracts tend to centralize relations
within districts, which generally enhance superintendents’ ability to enforce
rules. In some cases, superintendents
may use union rules to strengthen their control over principals.[671]
Union contracts also shape the allocation of financial
resources, both within and without schools.
Eberts and Stone find that contract provisions have a cumulative effect
in lowering administrative discretion.[672] In other words, administrators may be able
to compensate for a loss in flexibility in one area by increasing their use of
discretion in other areas not limited by the contract. However, as the number of contract
provisions increases, administrators will be less able to compensate as they
lose flexibility in complementary
areas. The number of contract
provisions may be interpreted as a measure of contract strength; administrators
tend to lose more financial flexibility as the contracts strengthen. With increasing numbers of provisions,
administrators direct more money toward instruction, teacher salaries and
benefits, and away from other budgetary considerations.[673] In addition to shaping the within-school
allocation of resources, an increasing number of contract provisions generally
lead to larger school budgets, thereby impacting the allocation of resources
within communities as well.
Summary of Findings
The often negative perception of teacher unionism on
achievement is misplaced – unionism does not appear to lower student
achievement for most students in public education. Instead, the evidence suggests that unionism leads to modestly
higher standardized achievement test scores, and possibly enhanced prospects of
graduation from high school. Further,
favorable student outcomes hold for students from the fourth-grade level
through high school. It is not known if
unionism has similar impacts for the very youngest children. However, the favorable effects of unionism
do not extend to all types of students.
In particular, very low- or very high-achieving students fare worse on standard
tests in unionized schools.
Disadvantaged children are disproportionately represented among the
lowest-achieving students, and may be among those least served by
unionism. There is evidence to suggest
that unions exert different effects depending on the student’s race and sex. But given the small number of studies
involved, it is too early to draw conclusions.
There is little research on why unions enhance the scores of
most students. Two promising
explanations exist, however. First,
there is evidence to suggest that unionism standardizes instruction and
curricula and directs the flow of resources away from specialized
programs. Increased standardization
helps students of middle-range achievement, but lowers the achievement of
students with distinct needs – the lowest and highest achievers. This standardization mechanism explains two
consistent research findings: 1.) unionism leads to higher standardized test
scores for students overall because it helps most students, and 2.) unionism
decreases scores of the lowest and highest achievers. Further, unionization may transform schools from loosely-coupled
environments into more effective, tightly-coupled organizations.
Clearly, unions are not antithetical to student
achievement. Yet considerable work
remains so as to better inform policy decisions. First, until the mechanisms by which unions raise achievement are
better understood, it is difficult to know precisely where to focus policy
efforts. Second, as is the case with
all school reforms, there is the issue of whether the gains from unionism are
worth the associated costs. As always,
there are other promising vehicles to higher achievement to choose from – as
evidenced by other chapters in this report.
In fact, future collaboration with teacher unions should enable
policy-makers to better evaluate other reform proposals.
The foregoing research points to the following policy
recommendations:
·
Policy-makers should view teacher unions more as
collaborators than as adversaries.
·
Policy-makers and school districts should reconsider current
union proposals for educational improvement.
Given the empirical evidence, unions have a solid track record of
supporting policies that boost achievement for most students.
·
In unionized school districts, policy-makers should direct
particular attention to programs for very low- and high-achieving students, and
should ensure that appropriate resources and specialized curricula are
available.
11: Value-Added Assessment of
Teachers
Executive Summary
Research Findings
The
Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) employs a sophisticated
statistical methodology to estimate the aggregated yearly growth in student
learning, as reflected in changes in test scores in five tested academic
subjects. It assumes that changes in test scores from one year to the next
accurately reflect student progress in learning. By tracking progress and
linking it to schools and teachers, the model asserts that the educational
effects of these schools and teachers can be evaluated. Estimates of aggregated
gains are used as indicators of how effective teachers and schools have been in
raising student performance. Yet, the model’s empirical base is weak and fails
to document adequately its efficacy as a teacher evaluation instrument. It
remains unclear how other variables that may affect achievement as much as
teacher effectiveness will determine the evaluation results. Much more research
is needed in order to rationally judge the system’s strength and weaknesses.
Recommendations
·
Develop and implement a program evaluation plan to define
and monitor value-added assessment program outcomes. Program evaluation
oversight should be maintained by the state and developed and implemented by an
independent contractor.
·
In order to support and provide guidance for the development
and implementation of the program evaluation plan, the state should establish
an independent technical panel of experts in measurement, statistics, and
educational research methodology.
·
The TVAAS database should be made available, along with all
technical documentation pertaining to the operations of the TVASS model, to
interested researchers.
·
National standards and mechanisms should be developed for
the approval of statistical procedures and models to be used in high-stakes
accountability systems. Such standards should have the force of a professional
code. The task of developing them should be led by the American Education
Research Association (AERA).
11: Value-Added Assessment of
Teachers:
The Empirical Evidence
University of Colorado at Boulder
The evaluation of teaching has been a major concern in
attempts to improve education because “[a] conceptually sound and properly
implemented evaluation system for teachers is a vital component of an effective
school.”[674]
Efforts to develop and implement useful and trustworthy systems of teacher
evaluation, however, have frustrated education leaders and policy makers,
especially when the evaluation attempted to measure teacher performance by
assessing what students have learnt. Shrinkfield and Stuffelbeam went so far as
to declare that “there is no topic on which opinion varies so markedly as that
of the validity of basing teacher effectiveness on student learning.”[675]
Various proposals for outcome-based teacher evaluations have been examined
under the headings of “process/product” research, school effectiveness
research, merit pay and career ladder schemes, public education accountability
programs, and private-sector performance contracting.[676] Still,
persistent substantive and methodological shortcomings of the proposed systems
have contributed to “teacher skepticism and growing criticism of attempts to
link learning gains to teacher work.”[677]
Recent efforts to reform American education by emphasizing
student testing, coupled with significant developments in the statistical
modeling and analysis of longitudinal test score data, have sparked a renewed
interest in the notion of basing teacher evaluations on measured outcomes of
student learning. Whereas traditional school and teacher performance indicator
systems have relied on measures of the current level of student achievement,
the new systems have shifted their focus to the assessment of year-to-year
progress in measured achievement. The assessment of growth is typically achieved
by using some variant of an emerging family of statistical models, collectively
known as “value-added assessment.”[678] The most
visible among these contemporary approaches is the Tennessee Value-Added
Assessment System (TVAAS), developed in the late 1980s by Dr. William L.
Sanders at the University of Tennessee and implemented as the keystone of the
Tennessee Education Improvement Act in 1992.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the TVAAS
approach to teacher evaluation and to offer a critical review of the empirical
research base that addresses the validity of estimates of teacher
effectiveness. It concludes with a set of recommendations intended to
strengthen the empirical base of TVAAS and similar programs.
Value-Added Assessment Research
An overview of TVAAS
TVAAS is the centerpiece of an ambitious educational reform
effort implemented by the Tennessee Education Improvement Act of 1992.
Inequalities in school funding, followed by a lawsuit brought against the state
by a coalition of small rural districts, led to a comprehensive reform of the
Tennessee educational system. Under pressure from business, the legislature
adopted a strong accountability model that required schools to show concrete
evidence of satisfactory year-to-year improvements in student achievement,
measured down to the classroom level. Relying on pilot studies that Sanders and
his colleagues conducted on the value-added model during the 1980s, the
Tennessee legislature embraced the model as its methodology of choice for
measuring the performance of students, teachers, schools, and school systems.
The legislation defines TVAAS as a “statistical system for educational outcome
assessment which uses measures of student learning to enable the estimation of
teacher, school, and school district statistical distributions,” and requires
that the “system will use available and appropriate data as input to account
for differences in prior student attainment, such that the impact which the
teacher, school and school district have on the educational progress of
students may be estimated on a student attainment constant basis.”[679]
The TVAAS model, referred to as “the Sanders model’ in some
sections of the legislation, employs a sophisticated statistical methodology to
estimate the aggregated yearly growth in student learning, as reflected in
changes in test scores in five tested academic subjects. Estimates of average
student achievement progress are calculated for each school and teacher for
each of Tennessee’s school systems. The results are then summarized in a series
of reports that show the estimated growth in student achievement attributed to
each school system, each school, and each individual teacher in Tennessee.
System and school report cards are made public while teacher reports are only shared
with their supervisors.
The details of the statistical calculations are too complex
to describe in this chapter,[680]
but the idea behind value-added assessment is straightforward. It assumes that
changes in test scores from one year to the next accurately reflect student
progress in learning. By keeping track of this progress across several years
and linking it to the particular schools and teachers who taught the student
during that period, the model asserts that the educational effects of these
schools and teachers can be evaluated. The larger the aggregated gains
attributed to a school or a teacher, the more “value” is said to have been
added by them to their students’ learning. Estimates of aggregated gains are
used as indicators of how effective teachers and schools have been in raising
student performance.
The statistical “mixed model” methodology employed in TVASS
offers several important advantages over competing methods. First, it ensures
that all available data will be used in the calculations; other techniques
often include in the analysis only students for whom complete records exist.
The statistical calculations take into account the correlation among each
student scores across different subjects and across grade levels to provide
improved estimates of growth in measured achievement. In addition, the
estimation of teacher effects takes into account the amount of data available
so that teachers with less data (implying less accurate estimation) are assumed
to perform at their system level until more data become available. The model is
quite flexible and can be expanded to include different outcome measures and
input variables.
Using annual data from the norm-referenced tests that make
up the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP), schools and school
systems are expected to demonstrate progress at the level of the national norm
gain (as determined by a national sample of students who took the same tests)
in five academic subject areas: math, science, social studies, reading, and
language arts. Beginning in 1993, reports have been issued to educators and the
public on the effectiveness of every school and school system in Tennessee.
Teacher reports are not part of the public record; rather, value-added
assessment of teacher effectiveness has been provided only to teachers and
their administrators.
TVAAS and
Teacher Evaluation
Value-added methodology is increasingly becoming a prominent
component in emerging educational accountability systems. The shift in
attention from assessing current level of performance to showing systematic
progress in learning has enriched and refined the way in which policy makers
conceptualize educational outcomes. Consequently, many systems now require
schools and teachers to exhibit adequate yearly growth for their students,
regardless of how strong or weak the current level of incoming student
performance is. TVAAS represents a pioneering effort to implement a
comprehensive statewide value-added assessment system to determine the merit of
every school system, school, and teacher in fostering student achievement.
Since its inception, TVASS’s advocates have made remarkable claims asserting
its effectiveness as an educational accountability tool for teacher evaluation
and have promised that TVASS can
provide precise and fair quantitative estimates of the impact of any particular
teacher on the academic growth of their students. The system developers have
consistently argued that these claims are supported by a strong research base,
relying on the massive TVAAS data base containing millions of merged
longitudinal records of student achievement.
Three major assertions have been offered in support of the
TVASS methodology as a teacher evaluation instrument. In the next section, we
will examine the empirical evidence supporting these assertions:
1.)
Teacher effectiveness is by far the most important factor in
determining the outcomes of the learning process and TVAAS estimates of teacher
effects provide accurate indicators of teacher effectiveness.
2.)
TVAAS estimates of teacher effects measure the independent
and unique contribution a particular teacher makes to his or her students’
growth, regardless of a student’s background.
3.)
TVAAS teacher effects are independent of students’ prior
ability; therefore teacher effectiveness does not depend on the student’s
aptitude for learning.
It is clear that any teacher evaluation program possessing
these attributes would, indeed, be able to gauge the precise contributions
teachers make to students’ academic progress – the “value added.” In doing so, such an evaluation program would
represent a revolution in accountability. After decades of heroic efforts to
disentangle the effects of schooling from the social context in which it is
inevitably embedded, the TVASS system promises to do exactly that. Moreover, it
proposes to do so without measuring any of the background variables that have
persistently frustrated generations of researchers and policy makers –
variables that led sociologist James Coleman to dismiss the effects of
schooling relative to broader social influences more than 30 year ago.[681]
In short, the TVASS claims that by simply using the student’s past achievement
record as a starting point from which to measure progress, and then by keeping
track of who teaches the student what, all of the possible influences on this
student’s learning – except for those of the teacher, the school, and the
school system – can be filtered out or taken into account. No other educational
assessment system has ever made such a bold claim. As Education Week’s Jeff
Archer noted: “In the current craze for accountability in education, that's
like inventing a state-of-the art mining tool during a gold rush.”[682] This
report now turns to examine the scientific basis that has been offered to
validate the above claims.
TVAAS and Peer-Reviewed Research
The scientist’s prime communication tool is the
peer-reviewed journal article. Through published articles, innovative
methodologies or applications are subjected to rigorous and independent
examination by others in the research community. For example, the application
of multi-level modeling to the study of school effectiveness (a methodology
sharing much in common with TVAAS) has been discussed in countless articles
published in educational research journals. Frequently, preliminary findings
from the early stages of program development will be presented and discussed in
less formal venues. Occasional research reports, working papers, and
presentations in workshops or scientific conferences are useful intermediary
means to facilitate discussion and to obtain timely feedback. But ultimately,
the rigor of the peer-review process is universally accepted in the scientific
community (in both the natural and social sciences) as the public forum for the
examination of scientific claims. Prominent methodologists Lee Cronbach and
Paul Meehl have concluded: “A claim is unsubstantiated unless the evidence for
the claim is public, so that other scientists may review the evidence,
criticize the conclusions, and offer alternative explanations. Reference to
something ‘observed by the writer in many clinical cases’ is worthless as
evidence.”[683]
Clearly, the more radical the claim, the more rigorous should be the public
examination of evidence, interpretations, and conclusions.
Given the revolutionary nature of the claims advanced by
TVAAS developers, it is surprising to find that research findings from TVAAS
that specifically pertain to claims regarding teacher effectiveness have been
discussed in only three peer-reviewed journal articles, two book chapters, and
three unpublished research reports, all of them authored by TVASS staff.
Moreover, out of these, only one journal article and two unpublished reports
actually present findings from original empirical studies. Other publications,
as well as numerous presentations and newspaper interviews with Sanders and
other TVASS staff, typically repeat these findings and their implications or
provide general descriptions of the statistical methodology, program operations,
and the variety of reports produced by the system.
The only independent investigations of TVAAS claims and
supporting evidence come from two external evaluations of the system. In 1995,
teacher concerns about the imminent release of individual teacher reports
prompted the Office of Educational Accountability to commission an evaluation
study, which indicated several problematic aspects of TVAAS.[684]
A second external evaluation was initiated in response to the first evaluation
and resulted in a report by researchers D. Bock and D. Wolfe[685]
dealing with statistical issues, and a companion report by assessment expert T.
Fisher addressing implementation and policy issues. The Bock and Wolfe report
contains some limited empirical investigations. In addition, two unpublished
dissertation studies, one by a former TVASS staff member and the other by one
of the authors of the 1995 evaluation, provide additional analyses.
A note on publications related to the statistical
mixed-model methodology employed in the TVAAS is in order here. The theory of
mixed-models and related techniques have been among the most productive areas
in statistics and have been successfully applied to many practical problems
across diverse substantive areas. A vast volume of theoretical expositions and
applied research reports documents the validity and utility of mixed-model
methodology. The Tennessee Educational Improvement Act makes specific reference
to six such publications, furnished by Sanders as support for the TVAAS model.[686]
No one knowledgeable about the issues doubts the soundness of the statistical
theory of mixed models, although debate continues about issues such as the
efficiency of calculations or estimation algorithms.
The critical point, however, is the validation of any
particular application of the general statistical theory. In this regard,
reference to the general statistical literature offers no relief. Over the last
two decades more and more educational applications have developed that employ
variants of mixed-models methodology, each having to show public evidence for
the specific claims, interpretations, and conclusions submitted for
consideration. The following section examines the public empirical record
concerning TVAAS claims.
TVAAS Research findings
This section describes the empirical studies that have been
offered to support the three key claims of TVAAS as a system of teacher
evaluation, as presented above.
Claim No. 1: Teachers are by far the most important
factor determining the outcomes of the learning process, and TVAAS teacher
effects provide accurate estimates of teacher effectiveness.
One of the most visible TVAAS findings comes from a 1996
study conducted by Sanders and Rivers[687] in two
large Tennessee metropolitan school systems. Results were summarized in an unpublished
research progress report. The researchers used longitudinal test scores in
mathematics from a cohort of students who started as second graders in 1991-92
and were followed through their fifth grade in 1994-95. Using a simplified
version of the full TVAAS model, Sanders and Rivers calculated teacher effects
for Grades 3-5 and then arbitrarily grouped teachers into five effectiveness
levels according to their relative ranking among their peers. Each group
comprised 20% of the teacher sample (referred to by statisticians as
“quintiles”). This classification scheme resulted in 125 possible teacher
sequences across the three grades – from low-low-low to high-high-high. Fifth
grade scores were then used to compare the cumulative effects of seven of these
sequences, controlling for second-grade scores. This analysis revealed that the
average scores of fifth graders who were assigned the two extreme teacher
sequences (low-low-low and high-high-high) differed by about 50 percentile
points. Furthermore, for students with comparable teachers in the fifth grade,
differences in previous grades’ teacher sequences were still apparent. For
example, the differences between the low-low-high and the high-high-high
sequences were around 20 percentile points. The researchers concluded that the
effects of teachers on student achievement are additive and cumulative, with
little evidence for any compensatory effects.”[688]
A dissertation study by J. Rivers, one of the authors of the
previous study, used a similar analytic strategy. Rivers used fourth-grade math
scores and TVAAS teacher effects in Grades 5-8 to predict ninth-grade math
competency scores. Although no exact number of students included in the analysis was given, computer
outputs presented in the dissertation suggest that the sample size was 2,612.
Analyses indicated that teacher effects from Grades 5 to 8 had significant
impact on ninth-grade math achievement. In addition a significant interaction
effect indicated stronger fifth- and sixth-grade teacher effects on ninth-grade achievement for students with
lower prior achievement. These findings held for the original scale scores on
the ninth-grade math competency test and on passing probabilities calculated
using a number of different cut scores.[689]
In a separate study of a sample of third-, fourth-, and
fifth-grade student gains in five subject areas (math, reading, language,
social studies, and science) from 1994 to 1995, several context effects were
examined in addition to teacher effects: intra-classroom heterogeneity, student
achievement level, and class size.[690] Using a
simplified version of the TVAAS model, the researchers examined data from 54
school systems in Tennessee. The study addressed classroom context effects. For
each grade and subject area, the researchers employed a model that predicted
student gains from 12 different factors including school system, classroom
heterogeneity, student achievement level (the average of the 1994 and 1995
scores), class size, and various interactions among these terms. The result was
a series of 30 separate analyses, one for each grade and subject combination.
After comparing the levels of statistical significance of the different effects
in the model, the researchers concluded that “the two most important factors
impacting student gain are the teacher and the achievement level for the
student.”[691] Teacher
effects were found to have the largest effect size in two-thirds of the
different analyses.[692]
Claim No. 2: TVAAS teacher effects measure the
independent and unique contribution a particular teacher makes to his or her
students’ growth, regardless of student socioeconomic or ethnic background.
In an article summarizing research findings from TVASS,
Sanders and Horn[693]
reported that “the cumulative gains for schools across the entire state have
been found to be unrelated to the racial composition of schools, the percentage
of students receiving free and reduced-price lunches, or the mean achievement
level of the school.” No source or further details were provided to support
this statement. The same assertion has been repeated numerous times in reports
and presentations by TVAAS staff, as well as in media coverage of the system.
These alleged results have been taken to verify “the contention that by
allowing each student to serve as his or her own control (the longitudinal
aspect of TVAAS) the inclusion of exogenous co-variables to ensure fairness in
the estimates of system, school, and teacher effects is not necessary.”[694]
This contention distinguishes TVAAS from other similar
methodologies, as no other contemporary value-added system has reached the same
conclusion. Accordingly, such systems typically include an explicit statistical
adjustment for competing factors that may influence student progress (over and
above their influence on student current level of achievement). In an
exposition of value-added indicators of school performance, Robert Meyer
explains:
The key
idea is to isolate statistically the contribution of schools from other sources
of student achievement. This is particularly important in light of the fact
that differences in student and family characteristics account for far more of
the variation in student achievement than school-related factors. Failure to
account for differences across schools in student, family, and community
characteristics could result in highly contaminated indicators of school
performance.[695]
The contention that merely by including in the analysis the student’s
previous test scores, the system is able to control adequately for all
exogenous influences – without actually measuring them – is a radical departure
from the conclusions reached by other researchers, as well as from basic
intuitions about schooling. It is counter-intuitive for most educators to
assume that student, family, or community resources will have only negligible
impact on a student’s rate of progress, even after prior achievement has been
accounted for. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Such a
radical assertion requires reliable and strong empirical evidence if it is to
be trusted to serve as a working assumption for school or teacher evaluations.
The only evidence that has been offered to date to support this contention,
however, comes from an unpublished report circulated by the University of
Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.[696] The
document, whose authors are unidentified, displays scatter plots of the
percentage of minority students in each of some 1,000 Tennessee schools against
the three-year cumulative average gains in each school for the five TCAP-tested
subjects, as calculated by TVAAS. The report does not provide any formal
statistical analysis of these patterns, leaving the reader to evaluate its
conclusions by eyeballing the scatter plots. The report concludes that “the
graphs show that the effectiveness of a school cannot be predicted from a
knowledge of the racial composition.”[697] Yet a
closer inspection of the graphs reveal that while they do not display a clear
downward trend, schools with more than 90% minority enrollment seem to exhibit
lower cumulative average gains. For example, about 70% of the schools with high
minority enrollment showed gains that were below the national norm; comparable
patterns can be observed for reading, language, and social studies. Similar
graphs for school systems reveal an even stronger relations between average
system gains and percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch, despite the authors’ claim to the contrary.
The Sanders and Rivers 1996 report provides further indirect
evidence for the role family background factors may play in influencing student
progress. Table 3 of the report gives the frequency with which white and black
students, respectively, were assigned to teachers in each effectiveness level.
Generally, white students were more often assigned to more effective teachers
than were black students. Of white third-grade students in one of the school
systems, 15.9% were assigned to teachers in the lowest effectiveness group,
compared with 26.7% of the black students who were assigned to similar
teachers. In contrast, 22.4% of the white students, and 14.4% of the black
students, were assigned to teachers in the highest effectiveness level. These
findings echo the well-documented severe inequalities in resources and
opportunities characteristic of the American educational system.[698] The link between teacher effectiveness, as
measured by TVAAS, and student ethnicity further underscores the fragility of
the contention that value-added indicators are unrelated to the racial
composition of the student body.
Another dissertation study provides additional demonstration
of the relationships between TVAAS value-added scores and exogenous factors. Hu
has documented substantial and significant correlations at the school level
between per-pupil expenditure, percent minority students, and percent of
reduced-price/free lunch students with average TVAAS value-added scores in both
math and reading.[699] Taken
together, these variables explained a sizable proportion of the variability in
the value-added three-year average gains.
Claim No. 3: TVAAS teacher effects are independent of
student prior ability; therefore teacher effectiveness does not depend on students’
aptitude for learning.
There is a growing recognition that “[e]ffective instruction
begins with what learners bring to the setting.”[700] Students
bring powerful general and domain-specific ideas, knowledge and skills to the
classroom environment. These initial knowledge and skills are resources for
further learning and are ingrained in internal mental representations and
dispositions, but also in socially determined patterns of participation, within
and outside of school. Prior knowledge and conceptions, both formal and
informal, play an important role in student performance and later development.
The study of the relationship between teacher effectiveness
and student abilities as determinants of student academic progress faces two
major challenges. The first concerns the question of clarifying what role each
of these two influences plays in the progress of any individual student. The
second concerns the potential confusion that may arise when certain teachers
are consistently assigned lower- or higher-ability students. The studies
described above show a rather consistent pattern in which higher-ability
students tended to achieve lower gains, regardless of teacher effectiveness
level as estimated by TVAAS. This phenomenon has been labeled “a shed pattern,” raising concerns about lack of adequate
instructional support for high-ability students. TVAAS presentations also
describe different patterns, labeled “reverse shed” (whereby higher gains are
made by higher-ability students) and “tee-pee” (whereby higher gains are made
by students of average ability). No study to date has examined the relative
prominence of these different patterns of growth and initial achievement across
classrooms and schools.
Some empirical evidence that illustrates the difficulty of
isolating the role of teacher effectiveness from that of student prior
achievement comes from data presented in the Sanders and Rivers report.
Kupermintz, Shepard, and Linn[701]
re-analyzed data from Table 1 of the report to demonstrate a sizable
correlation between estimates of teacher effectiveness and student prior
ability. Among students who hadn’t done well in the past, nearly one-third were
then assigned to teachers who were later rated to be the least effective, while
among the highest-achieving students, more than one-half were assigned to
teachers later found to be “highly effective.” These findings suggest that
higher-ability students were assigned to teachers that TVASS analysis
identified as more effective, thereby complicating the claims attributing student
progress solely to the teacher.
Similarly, independent analyses conducted by Bock and Wolfe
for their evaluation report examined the correlations between students’ average
score levels and their average gains in a sample of the Tennessee data.[702] Bock and
Wolfe have commented:
“Although the magnitude of all of the
correlations is less than 0.3, a good number of them are large enough to have
implications for the comparison of gains between teachers whose students differ
in average achievement level… [A]djustments for expected gain as a function of
student score level should be included when the magnitude of the correlation
exceeds, say 0.15.”[703]
When students with higher or lower prior achievement are
likely to differ systematically in the amount of progress they can demonstrate
relative to their peers due to factors outside of the teacher’s control, a
potential for biased teacher evaluations exists if some teachers consistently
get lower- or higher-achieving students. Under such circumstances, it becomes
increasingly difficult to differentiate between learning gains that should be
attributable to the teachers and those that reflect the superior aptitude of
their students.
A Critical Examination of the Evidence
An examination of the empirical record to date reveals a
number of issues in methodology and interpretation that call into question the
validity of the major TVAAS claims. The available empirical base consistently
documents considerable variations among teachers in estimated TVASS teacher
effects. The studies reviewed in this chapter convincingly demonstrate that
students of certain teachers show substantially greater or lower gains on
average than the students of other certain teachers. The analyses, however,
fail to explain clearly and conclusively why such differences exist.
The causal attribution of student gains to teacher
effectiveness, as well as the conclusion that teacher effects are additive,
cumulative, and largely irreversible, cannot be dismissed as a plausible
hypothesis to explain average achievement gain differentials among teachers.
Other untested hypotheses remain equally plausible, however. If observed
patterns of academic progress are a function of complex interactions between
instructional practices, student readiness to learn, and school and community
context factors, then teacher effectiveness should be seen as one component of
estimated teacher effects. Because there have been no studies that credibly
isolate teacher effects from these other factors, however, the question remains
open. The current TVAAS model, by default, attributes to the teacher all
the effects of the possible factors, which in reality are probably
confounded with or interacting with teaching practices.
At least two studies have documented the importance of student
ability on academic progress and suggested more complex interactions with
teacher effects than has been acknowledged by the authors. The issue of the
relationships between student aptitude, student actual achievement and academic
progress is a complicated one. “Shed patterns,” for example, indicate that
students with higher prior achievement tend to exhibit smaller gains. Such
patterns may result from inefficient instruction for these students, but they
may also reflect statistical artifacts like “ceiling effects” (high ability
students scoring at the highest levels of the measurement scale, leaving little
room for observed improvement) or “regression to the mean” (the statistical
tendency of extreme scores to converge to the mean in subsequent measurements).
It is unclear to what extent such artifacts may affect the TVASS model. A
contrasting growth pattern will be expected if students lacking in aptitude
also tend to make lower gains. Because of the high correlation between aptitude
and achievement these trends would result in contradictory findings.
Furthermore, potential systematic inequalities in the assignment of teachers to
students would complicate the problem further if teachers are systematically
assigned to students with different potential to show progress, regardless of a
teacher’s efforts. To date, no systematic analysis addresses this crucially
important question. Indeed, TVASS has shown inconsistent results in this
regard. It is not sufficient to insist that in any case the pattern of gains
exhibited by students differing in ability reflects the efficacy of teachers in
addressing low- or high-achieving students. Rival hypotheses remain competent
contenders. An informative validation would document teacher practices to
determine how well they address students with different abilities, and the
extent to which TVAAS estimates reflect these practices.
A major source of confusion appears to be the circular
nature of the line of argumentation that attempts to define teacher
effectiveness in terms of estimated teacher effects. This has been noted by
other researchers.[704]
Statements like “differences in teacher effectiveness were found to be the
dominant factor affecting student academic gain”[705] are
highly misleading. It leaves the reader with the impression that “teacher
effectiveness” and “student academic gain” are two different variables and that
the former predicts the latter. If fact, teacher effectiveness is defined
by student academic gain. The only defensible interpretation of the various
findings is that teachers vary as to the extent of their students’ average
academic gain. Causal attribution, almost by default, of this variability to
“teacher effectiveness” has to remain suspect until further validation studies
become available. At a minimum, such studies should employ independent measures
of teacher effectiveness, such as teaching practices, supervisor evaluations,
scores from teacher tests, and so on.
Summary and Recommendations
The idea of evaluating schools and teachers on the basis of the
“value added” to students’ education each year has wide appeal for policy
makers. Instead of ranking schools or teachers from best to worst, the
intention is to monitor the amount of gain in student achievement from one
grade to the next. This approach has obvious advantages over the traditional
alternatives when coupled with a sophisticated statistical modeling apparatus
capable of handling massive cumulative longitudinal data. Technical and
methodological sophistication, however, are only part of the full array of
considerations that form a comprehensive evaluative judgment. Ultimately, the
value of any proposed methodology and the information it produces heavily
depend on the soundness of the claims made by the system’s advocates. A
validity argument assembles and organizes the empirical evidence as well as the
logical line of reasoning linking the evidence to favored inferences and
conclusions. A useful and valid model must begin with a sound theory.
Learning and development are arguably the most complex and
intriguing phenomena explored by social science. An emerging learning science
has started to make tentative inroads into understanding the many facets of the
interactions of teaching and learning. Providing effective teaching to support
and cultivate learning is therefore the most complex design problem facing
educators. Yet the TVAAS model represents an overly simplistic description of
teaching and learning. It is in stark contrast to a very rich body of research
on learning and teaching that has demonstrated the enormous importance of
student learning histories and contextual factors on the rate of academic
progress. It seems to ascribe to the teacher an unrealistic responsibility for
student learning. No doubt, teachers can make a critical difference in student
academic growth, but so can student preparation, the support they receive
outside of school (tutoring and summer school are obvious examples), the school
context, and the community context – that is, the resources available to the
school. Not measuring these factors does not mean they don’t have important
effects, only that their effects don’t get a chance to show through. Unmeasured
factors could potentially bias the evaluation results to the extent they play a
role in determining learning outcomes. Teachers who operate in a supportive
environment at the school and community levels, where students have access to a
wealth of resources and enriched learning experiences, will likely be evaluated
more favorably than their similarly able counterparts who struggle with harsher
conditions. The TVASS model controls only for prior student achievement, yet
empirical evidence is lacking to document the assertion that prior achievement
may serve as a reasonable proxy for all the other factors that matter to
student learning.
The simplicity of the TVAAS model poses an interesting
policy paradox. An implicit assumption of the model is that teachers, not
students, are responsible for learning and that teachers hold the
responsibility to produce measurable progress in learning outcomes. This is a
common theme in interpreting TVAAS results. This assumption contradicts an
opposite emphasis on student accountability. If indeed, as TVAAS has purported
to show, “teachers are the single most
important factor affecting student growth,” then a student’s failure to pass a
gateway or graduation exam is mainly the responsibility of the teacher. This
passive view of students seems unrealistic and may send conflicting messages to
teachers and students.
An examination of the TVASS model’s empirical base shows
that much more research is needed in order to arrive at a rational judgment of
the system’s strength and weaknesses. Currently, only a few sketchy empirical
studies have been relied upon to substantiate strong claims of the system’s
merits. In light of this weakness, the recommendations below are intended to
establish proper mechanisms to ensure the validity and usefulness of current
and future educational accountability systems that use the TVAAS model.
·
Develop and implement a program evaluation plan to define
and monitor value-added assessment program outcomes. The plan should specify
the intended goals for the program and how they will be measured. Periodic
program evaluation reports should be required to monitor program performance.
The plan should also include specifications of potential unintended
consequences and a mechanism to ensure that they are kept at an acceptable
minimum. Program evaluation oversight should be maintained by the state and
developed and implemented by an independent contractor.
·
In order to support and provide guidance for the development
and implementation of the program evaluation plan, the state should establish a
technical panel of experts in measurement, statistics, and educational research
methodology. The panel would be asked to provide routine input into the
evaluation process and help policy makers with the technical issues. The panel
should also be actively involved in the design and analysis of the various
studies and data analyses performed by the independent contractor.
·
The TVAAS database should be made available, along with all
technical documentation pertaining to the operations of the TVASS model, to
interested researchers. The state should seek proposals from independent
researchers for studies that address the validity of the major claims advanced
by TVAAS developers. The technical panel can provide input as to the merit of
the various proposals and suggest improvements.
·
National standards and mechanisms should be developed for the
approval of statistical procedures and models to be used in high-stakes
accountability systems. Such standards should have the force of a professional
code. The task of developing them should be led by the American Education
Research Association (AERA).
12:
Professional Development
Executive
Summary
Summary of Research Findings
Current predominant staff development practice is
limited, fragmented, and marginalized. The complexity of teaching and learning
is incompatible with the narrow focus of much of traditional staff development.
Evidence abounds of the significance of the relationship between the content of
staff development, the quality of the staff development, and student
achievement, so long as staff development adheres to certain principles that
emphasize school-level control, focus on student learning and instruction, a
commitment of time and resources to implement development over an extended
period of time, and the development of professional development styles that
engage teachers collaboratively rather than focusing on them as individuals.
Effective professional development requires that continuous inquiry be embedded
in the daily life of the school.
Recommendations
·
Professional development should be viewed as an on-going
part of the daily life of the school.
·
More time and resources should be devoted to professional
development.
·
When a specific curricular or instructional initiative is
being implemented in a school, training should be supplemented by coaching and
the initiative should be the subject of the on-going inquiry in the school.
·
The perceived relationship between professional development
of any sort and teacher growth should not be left to chance. The relationship
between professional development initiatives and teacher growth should be
clearly articulated.
·
Schools should be cognizant of the relationships between
professional development initiatives and other parts of the system. Time
schedules, curricular goals, student and teacher evaluation, curricular
materials, and expectations must all be brought in line with the focus of
professional development initiative.
·
State laws mandating schools’ curriculum content and school
time and governing school financing should be revised to accommodate more
extensive and sophisticated professional development efforts.
·
Principals should be prepared to be instructional leaders
not only through traditional practices such as teaching them about teacher
supervision and evaluation and curricular alignment, but also by preparing them
to initiate and facilitate the development cultures of inquiry in their
schools.
12:Professional
Development
University
of North Carolina at Greensboro
Professional
development can be thought of as “processes and activities designed to enhance
the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes of educators so that they
might, in turn, improve the learning of students.”[706] The
definition implies that staff development consists of a broad range of
processes and activities that contribute to the learning of educators. However, when most educators hear the words
“staff development” they associate them much more narrowly with only workshops
and in-services.[707]
Unfortunately, the narrow conceptions many educators have of staff development[708]
mirror staff development practices in most schools and districts in the United
States.
Current predominant staff
development practice is limited, fragmented, one-shot or short term and
pre-packaged. It occurs on the margins and is focused on “training over problem
solving.”[709] Specifically, most educators participate in
a very limited amount of staff development.
They may attend a workshop or two during the year, as well as
participating in their school district’s one or two annual staff development
days. In all likelihood, the focus of
the workshops and the staff development days are unconnected to each
other. The staff development days
likely are centrally-planned and either do not match the needs of most schools
in the district, or consist of a smorgasbord of brief, one-hour “sit and get”
presentations. The effect of such staff
development efforts on teacher practice and student achievement reflects the
financial and mental investment in them – minimal, at best. Judith Warren Little, the author of a number
of significant staff development studies, concludes that most traditional staff
development “communicates a relatively impoverished view of teachers, teaching,
and teacher development.”[710]
Recent research on teaching and
learning has established that teaching and learning is not a simple cause and
effect relationship, but rather a complex process in which learning is
co-constructed by teachers and students in a specific classroom context
with instruction at any point in time reflecting the teacher’s analysis of the
various elements in play at that moment[711] – what
Brown has called the “nowness” of teaching.[712] The complexity of teaching and learning is
incompatible with the narrow, short-term, episodic, special-project focus of
much of traditional staff development.
Additionally, Little argues that the complexity of current reforms
(e.g., authentic instruction and assessment, curricular integration, achieving
equity) often do not lend themselves to simple skill training, but rather
require professional growth cultures in schools that permit teachers to
function a intellectuals rather than technicians.[713]
The focus of this literature
review is to examine what are the various “processes and activities” that might
“enhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes of educators” and to
explore their impact on teaching practice and student achievement.
Professional
Development Research
Types of Professional Development
There are many forms that
professional development may take.
“Training” is the traditional, and still dominant, form and includes
workshops, presentations, and other types of in-service activities. Training typically includes a direct
instruction/lecture component, skill demonstration and modeling, and may also
include simulated skill practice, and even workplace coaching and consultation.
Opportunities to learn that are
“embedded” in the work setting are a second form of professional
development. Embedded professional
development includes processes such as inquiry, discussion, evaluation,
consultation, collaboration, and problem solving. It may be stimulated by new roles for teachers (e.g., teacher
leader, peer coach, teacher researchers), new structures (e.g., problem-solving
groups, decision making teams, common planning periods, self-contained teams),
or new tasks (leading an in-house workshop, journal writing, collaborative case
analysis, grant writing, curriculum writing, school improvement team
membership).
Networks are a third, recently
emerging form of professional development. Networks are collections of
educators from across different schools who interact regularly to discuss and
share practices around a particular focus or philosophy of schooling (e.g., new
math standards; authentic instruction).
They are held together by a typically loose organizational structure
that facilitates their interaction across schools. They interact via such means as in-person sharing meetings,
cross-school or cross-classroom visitations, professional institutes, critical
friends groups, and electronic forms of communication. Pennell and Firestone found that networks
were effective in helping teachers get students more actively involved in
learning,[714]
and Lieberman and Grolnick found networks to have a number of positive effects
on the professional development of teachers.[715]
Professional Development Schools
are a fourth, also fairly recent, form of professional development. Professional Development Schools (PDS) are
schools in which university faculty, PDS teachers, and student teachers work
collaboratively to enhance the student teaching experience and to improve the
professional development of the PDS teachers and staff. These goals are met through active
involvement of the university faculty in the school, formal professional
development experiences (e.g., teacher study groups, curriculum writing, peer
observation, case conferences, workshops)[716] and through
school-based collaborative research.
Outcomes of Staff Development
There are several outcome areas
that are potentially affected by professional development. These include:
·
teacher knowledge,
·
teacher attitudes and beliefs,
·
teaching practice,
·
school-level practice, and
·
student achievement.
Professional development’s impact
on teacher knowledge and skill includes imparting knowledge about
content or content standards and skills in instruction, classroom management,
or assessment. Developing teacher knowledge and skill, however, is about more
than acquiring existing skills and knowledge; it also includes enabling
teachers to reflect critically on their practice and fashion new knowledge and
beliefs about content, pedagogy, and learners.[717] Smylie[718]
notes, “In order to change practice in significant and worthwhile ways,
teachers must not only learn new subject matter and new instructional
techniques, but they must alter their beliefs and conceptions of
practice, their ‘theories of action’”[719] Guskey
argues that change in beliefs and attitudes occurs subsequent to change
in practice, and results from teachers’ observing the impact of changes in
their practice on student outcomes.[720] Finally, the impact of professional
development on student achievement should not be limited to an
examination of only standardized test scores.
Other measures of student achievement include teacher made exams and
quizzes, students’ attendance, involvement in class sessions, student
motivation for learning, attitudes toward school & learning,[721] authentic assessment of student work,
homework completion rates, and classroom behaviors.[722]
Challenges in Studying
Professional Development and Student Achievement
Although a great deal has been
written on the topic of professional development, the empirical literature on
the topic is much less extensive. This
is particularly so when only studies that link professional development and
student achievement are considered (see related discussion below). Indeed, much of the research empirically
linking professional development to specific outcomes has not appeared in the
major refereed scholarly journals, but has, as often as not, appeared in ERIC
research reports, or in reports produced by school districts, foundations, or
other organizations. The conceptual and
theoretical work on professional development that has appeared in the major
academic journals is typically thoughtfully argued and pulls from a variety of
sources and bodies of knowledge (e.g., from research on adult learning) to
develop arguments for specific forms of professional development.
Although the ultimate objective of
professional development is improving student achievement as a result of
increased teacher learning, testing the relationship between professional
development and student achievement is problematic. Due to a variety of confounding variables, there is great
difficulty in establishing a direct relationship between professional
development activities, improvements in teaching, and increases in student
achievement.[723]
This is particularly problematic when there are a variety of other “new”
programs, materials, or interventions occurring simultaneously with
professional development activities (which is essentially all the time in most
schools). Further increasing the
difficulty of testing the professional development-student achievement
relationship are forms of professional development that go beyond the
traditional training workshop format and are embedded in the daily life of the
school (see subsequent discussion).
Guskey and Sparks observe that to explore the professional
development-student achievement relationship, the content (“what?”), process
(“how?”), and context (“who, when, where, why?”) of professional development
need to be considered in the study.[724] Given that each one of these factors is likely
to include multiple variables, empirically testing this relationship becomes
extremely unwieldy.
Linking
Staff Development and Student Achievement
Theoretically, enhancing the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes of teachers should translate into improved
teaching practices, which, in turn, should improve student achievement. Dennis Sparks and Stephanie Hirsh, the
executive directors of the National Staff Development Council, note that “a
growing body of research shows that improving teacher knowledge and teaching
skills is essential to raising student performance.”[725] Indeed, in
a study of 900 school districts, Ferguson found that teacher expertise
accounted for 40% of the difference in student achievement in reading and math.[726] A second study found that differences in
teacher qualifications accounted for more than 90% of the variance in student
achievement in a large urban district.[727]
It should be noted, however, that
the relationship between professional development and student achievement is a
function of both the quality of the professional development processes and
activities, and the efficacy of the substance of the professional
development (i.e., the content, skills,
or attitudes that the professional development is attempting to
influence). That is, professional
development’s impact can improve student achievement only to the extent to
which its content focus can do so.
The relationship might be portrayed as follows:
Quality of
content/skill/disposition to be learned + Quality of staff development
processes & activities à Degree of change in practice à Impact on student
achievement
A study by Shymanksy, Yore, and
Anderson provides an illustrative example.[728] Shymanksy and colleagues studied the impact
of a high-quality science professional development program on teaching practice
and student achievement. The
professional development program included an initial problem-centered workshop,
development and subsequent field-testing of science materials in participating
teachers’ classrooms, follow-up workshops, and sharing with colleagues – a
total of 110 hours of in-service over a four-year period. While teachers changed their teaching to
more regularly use the methods and objectives the professional development
program advocated, student achievement in science did not improve subsequent to
the professional development initiative.[729] This suggests that it is not professional
development processes and activities alone that influence student
achievement. Rather, it is the content
and methods being advocated in the professional development program in
combination with the quality of the professional development processes and
activities that influence student achievement. An alternative explanation in this case may be that the student
achievement assessment strategy that was used may not have been congruent with
the content and methods being advocated in the staff development program. Although some evidence exists to the
contrary,[730]
it is reasonable to assume that a staff development program advocating authentic
means of instruction may not show an impact on student achievement when the
student achievement measure being used is scores on standardized tests – which
typically do not focus on testing the types of higher-level thought processes
that result from authentic teaching and other constructivist-oriented learning
processes.[731]
In any case, perhaps the single
most comprehensive source of evidence for the significance of the relationship
between the content of staff development, the quality of the staff development,
and student achievement is found in Student Achievement through Staff
Development, by Joyce and Showers.[732] The book
reviews, synthesizes, and interprets research from a variety of sources: some
empirical, some theoretical, and some conceptual. Joyce and Showers devote an
entire chapter to exploring practices that have been empirically documented to
be effective and that might serve as sources for staff development efforts
geared toward improving student achievement.
What Works in Professional Development
Professional development does make
a difference in the quality of teaching in schools and in the achievement of
students. Even given the paucity of
much current professional development practice, in a national survey almost
two-thirds of teachers report that professional development activities have
caused them to change their teaching.[733] A second
national survey found that teachers who participated in professional
development focused on standards were more likely to describe teaching in ways
consistent with the standards than teachers who did not participate in the
professional development activities.[734] Similarly,
Cohen and Hill found that professional development that was carefully focused
on particular objectives resulted in more teaching practices consistent with
the objectives. Additionally, they
found that the greater the amount of professional development, the more
practice was influenced.[735] In a study of a long-term professional
development effort, the researchers found a significant correlation between
teachers’ level of use of the strategies promoted by the professional
development effort and students’ cognitive gain (as measured by a cognitive
assessment instrument).[736] Cognitive gain was also directly linked to
subsequent gain in academic achievement.[737] Finally,
Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine found that there is a greater increase in student
achievement for money spent on professional development than for money spent on
reducing class size or raising teachers’ salaries.[738]
Professional
Development Implications of Other Research
Research focused on other aspects
of education has also produced findings with a bearing on professional
development.
Professional Development and Effective Class-Size
Reduction:
Wisconsin’s SAGE Program
In an evaluation of a reduced
class size initiative in Wisconsin, Molnar, Smith, Zahorik, Palmer, Halbach,
and Ehrle found that reduced class size resulted in improved student
achievement.[739] In order to analyze changes in teaching that
occurred as a result of reduced class sizes, they interviewed 28 teachers who
participated in the reduced-class-size initiative. The teachers noted that as a result of lower class sizes they
were able to know and understand their students better, spend less time on
discipline, individualize instruction more to meet the needs of individual
students, and increase the amount of student-centered instruction. Student-centered instruction included more
hands-on activities, more enrichment activities, more interest centers, and
more cooperative groups. The
researchers concluded that the teachers did not necessarily adopt totally new
teaching practices as a result of the smaller class sizes, but rather that the
lower class sizes permitted then to more frequently use the teaching practices
that they had always wanted to use.
Seemingly, the addition of professional development would be fruitful
for these teachers since large class size would not be a factor that prohibits
them from implementing newly learned practices. Indeed, many of the interviewed teachers expressed a desire for
more in-service.
Professional Development and Teacher Quality:
The Wenglinski Study
Correlating achievement data from
over 7000 eighth graders who took the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) Mathematics and Science exams with data from accompanying
surveys completed by their teachers, resulted in a number of significant
findings in a study conducted by Wenglinski.[740] Survey data measured three types of teacher
quality: teacher inputs (such as education levels and years of experience);
classroom practices (such as use of small-group instruction or hands-on
learning); and professional development (such as training to support classroom
practices). Wenglinski’s study yielded
the following findings.
In
Mathematics:
·
Of the six professional development topics in math, students
whose teachers received professional development – in working with different
student populations and in higher-order thinking skills – outperformed students
whose teachers lacked such professional development. Students whose teachers received professional development in
ongoing forms of assessment performed worse than students of teachers who did
not receive such professional development (the three topics which did not have
an influence in math included classroom management, cooperative learning, and
interdisciplinary instruction).
·
Teachers with more professional development were more likely
to engage students in hands-on learning activities. Students who frequently engaged in hands-on learning activities
as well as students who were frequently engaged in activities that required
higher-order thinking skills outperformed students who spent less time in such
activities.
In Science:
·
Of the eight professional development topics in science,
students whose teachers received professional development in laboratory skills
outperformed students whose teachers lacked such professional development. Students whose teachers received professional
development in classroom management performed worse than students of teachers
who did not receive such professional development (the 6 topics which did not have an influence in science included
cooperative learning, working with different student populations, higher-order
thinking skills, on-going forms of assessment, interdisciplinary instruction,
and integrating science instruction).
·
As in math, students who frequently engaged in hands-on
learning activities outperformed students who spent less time in such
activities.
·
As in math, teachers with more professional development were
more likely to engage students in hands-on learning activities.
Overall, although the study found
that student socioeconomic status was the single most influential measure that
impacted student achievement, when the influential measures of teacher quality
(i.e., professional development factors and classroom practices) were added
together, they outweighed the influence of socioeconomic status (0.76 for SES,
0.86 for teacher quality inputs).
Related Findings
A study by Dunne, Nave, and Lewis[741]
found that the teaching of teachers who participated in critical friends groups
became more student-centered. If
hands-on learning is an aspect of student-centered teaching, then an indirect
link could be argued to exist between critical friends groups as a form of
professional development and student achievement. (Critical Friends Groups consist of a small group of teachers who
get together to “identify student learning goals that make sense in their
schools, look reflectively at practices intended to achieve those goals, and
collaboratively examine teacher and student work in order to meet their
objectives.”[742] A national
Critical Friends Group initiative is being conducted by the National School
Reform Faculty of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform.)
Sanders and Rivers, cited in
Wenglinski,[743] found that
the top 20% of teachers boosted the scores of low-achieving students over a one
year period by an average of 53 percentile points, which was 39 percentile
points higher than the 14-percentile point gain experienced by students
assigned to the bottom 20% of teachers.[744]
Although the research indicates
that professional development can make a difference in changing teaching
practice and in improving student achievement, the research is clear that these
effects are more likely to occur when professional development is characterized
by certain principles. The remainder of
this review will discuss eight principles that emerge from the professional
development literature as key to effective professional development. These
principles reflect an overwhelming consensus that is found in the literature on
the subject. While only a limited amount of the work on professional
development is based on empirical research, most of the remaining work is
nonetheless research-based[745]
– the work of noted scholars who have grounded their findings in a broad
synthesis and thoughtful consideration of large quantities of research and
research-based literature on a variety of related topics and from a variety of
fields. In the absence of more empirical research, it is the best available
literature on the topic, and is well grounded in its own right.
Principle
1: Decisions about
professional development should be made within schools rather than at the
district level.[746]
There is a broad consensus in the
organizational theory literature that planning that is solely top-down
alienates teachers.[747] Additionally, as Little observes, there is little
value in the one-size-fits-all model of staff development that exposes teachers
with different backgrounds and from different schools to the same material.[748] Thus, professional development initiatives
should reflect participant input.[749] Sparks,
however, cautions that professional development should not be based only on the
perceptions of educators regarding their needs, but rather should begin with an
assessment of student needs and learning outcomes and work backwards to what
the results of that assessment mean for staff development.[750] Little echoes this sentiment, noting that
professional development must make connections between students’ experiences,
teachers’ classroom practice, and school-wide structures and cultures.[751] Professional development has been found to
be most effective when it is based on student learning goals that reflect the
challenges and uniqueness of the particular school whose staff is participating
in the professional development.[752]
It should be driven by a “clear, coherent strategic plan” rather than being a
“fragmented, piecemeal improvement effort…with no thought given to follow-up or
to how the new technique fits in with those that were taught in previous
years.”[753]
Totally bottom-up planning,
however, is also not advisable. Such
planning is unlikely to engender the support of district leadership.[754]
District backing is important for a number of reasons, including that research
has found a degree of correlation between district backing and teachers’
willingness to undertake an initiative.[755] Thus,
decisions about professional development should be made within schools rather
than at the district level, but planning should include participation from the
district level.
Principle
2: Professional
development must be focused on instruction and student learning.[756]
Joyce, Wolf, and Calhoun[757]
note that they did not find a single instance in the literature on professional
development and school improvement initiatives “where student learning
increased but had not been a central goal.”[758] Sparks
argues that staff development must begin not with teacher or district needs and
desires, but rather “with a clear sense of what students need to learn and be
able to do,”[759]
and recommends that staff development be connected to assessable student learning
outcomes.[760]
As Elmore and Burney note: “It’s about instruction…and only about instruction.”[761]
To be about instruction, staff
development must focus on both deeper forms of content knowledge and on
the most effective instructional strategies in a discipline.[762]
In the National Plan for Improving Staff Development published by the
National Staff Development Council, Sparks and Stephanie Hirsh note that
effective staff development must result in teachers being “deeply immersed” in
subject matter and teaching methods[763] and must be
curriculum-centered and standards-based.
Providing empirical support, Cohen & Hill found that there were
higher average student standardized test scores in schools where staff
development was specifically focused on the objectives of the school
improvement initiative effort (in this case, the California Mathematics
Framework), and where staff development linked curriculum with assessment.[764] Using data from a 1994 survey of California
elementary school teachers and the 1994 California Learning Assessment System,
they found that student achievement on standardized tests improves when
teachers’ learning opportunities are grounded in the curriculum students study,
deal with the connections between multiple elements of the instructional system
(e.g., curriculum, instruction, and assessment), and occur over an
extended time period.
Principle
3: Professional
development initiatives must take place over an extended period of time.[765]
As we know from research and
practice, change is a long, slow process.[766] If the
objective of professional development is change in teaching practice, then it
is clear that professional development must be sustained over time if change is
to be realized. Sparks and Hirsh note
that professional development should be “sustained, rigorous, and cumulative.”[767]
The importance of professional development extending over a period of time is
also supported by empirical research.
The National Center for Education Statistics found that teachers who
participated in staff development programs that lasted eight hours or more were
three to five times more likely to report that the staff development had
significantly improved their teaching than teachers who participated for lesser
amounts of time.[768]
Cohen and Hill found that there were higher average student standardized test
scores in schools where teachers received a greater amount of staff development
than in schools where teachers received a lesser amount of professional
development.[769]
Principle
4: Professional
development activities should model effective pedagogy.[770]
Little observes that professional
development must offer “meaningful intellectual, social, and emotional
engagement with ideas, with materials, and with colleagues…”[771]
This, in a nutshell, summarizes effective pedagogy. More specifically, modeling effective pedagogy in professional
development includes two primary components: professional development must be
consistent with what we know about constructivist teaching and learning, and
professional development must follow the principles of adult learning. Constructivism holds that learners connect
new information to their existing knowledge in order to create new knowledge.[772] This is in contrast to merely having
knowledge transmitted from someone else to them. Constructivist staff development might encompass activities such
as “action research, conversations with peers about the beliefs and assumptions
that guide their instruction, and reflective practices (e.g., journal
keeping).”[773]
Principles of adult learning include learning in varied settings and
circumstances; problem-oriented learning that relates to the adult learners’
lives; adult learners playing an active role in their own learning; and
connecting new learning to the adults’ existing knowledge, skills, and beliefs
from past experiences (also a key aspect of constructivism).[774]
Principle
5: Professional
development workshops must be supported by modeling and coaching in order to
attain a higher degree of effectiveness.[775]
Implementation of practices
advocated in staff development workshops is most effective when professional
development includes both staff training activities and staff support
activities. Guskey notes that few
teachers can go from workshop to practice without experimentation,
classroom-based modeling, and other follow up support. [776]
Additionally, teachers must be helped to endure and persist past the anxiety of
initial failures.[777]
Research has found that when they
were well-conducted, workshops combined with coaching and related follow-up
support produced sustained student achievement gains and teacher adherence to
project methods and objectives. By
contrast, training alone produced only short-term achievement gains, there was
less fidelity in implementation to project objectives, and adherence to project
methods did not persist. The types of
related follow-up support that led to desirable outcomes included local
resource personnel to assist teachers with project implementation, outside
consultants, and regular project meetings that included teachers, were
collaborative, and focused on collective problem-solving and sharing of
expertise.[778]
Joyce and Showers found that a
“dramatic increase of transfer in training…occurs when in-class coaching is added
to an initial training experience comprised of theory explanation,
demonstration, and practice with feedback.”[779] They found
that acquiring new skills requires understanding the theoretical base of the
skill, viewing numerous demonstrations (they suggest about 20), practicing the
skills with feedback, and receiving on-the-job coaching.[780] Similarly,
Joyce, Wolfe, and Calhoun, assessing several bodies of research as well as
their own extensive experience as staff developers, argue that staff
development initiatives require 10 to 15 days of training (rather than the one
or two days of training that are typically provided), about 20 demonstrations
of the strategies to be learned, workshop opportunities to practice, and a
redesigned workplace that supports the new initiative, in order to be
effective.[781]
Principle
6: Professional
development should focus on communities of practice rather than on individual
teachers.[782]
Traditionally staff development
efforts are an individual endeavor.
Often, a teacher uses a professional day to attend a workshop in which
she or he is interested while teacher colleagues remain at the school to
fulfill teaching responsibilities.
Where a workshop is offered to an entire school, each teacher typically
retreats to his or her classroom afterward to implement the new practices in
isolation. Unfortunately, teachers,
over time, have tended to think in terms of only their classrooms and their
students. Such traditional perspectives
and professional development practices fail to recognize the significance of
collective and interdependent effort and effect.[783] Sparks,
drawing conclusions from his long experience as director of the National
Council of Staff Development and as editor of the Journal of Staff
Development, notes that a paradigm shift is needed in staff development
that requires a movement from individual development to individual development and
organizational development.[784]
He argues that the success of students depends not only on the learning of
individual adults in the school, but also on the capacity of the school “to
solve problems and renew itself.”[785]
Arguing largely from case studies
(which, given the complexity of studying the impact of professional
development, may often be the more appropriate methodology than more quantitative
research), Little and colleagues echo this sentiment, asserting the necessity
of considering professional development in school-wide institutional terms.[786] Similarly, Elmore and Burney observe that,
“Deep and sustained change requires that people feel a personal commitment to
each other” and that instructional improvement as a result of professional
development is not “a collection of management principles” but rather the
development of “a culture based on norms of commitment, mutual care, and concern.”[787]
Research supports the opportunity
to work together and learn from each other as one of the most effective forms
of professional development.[788]
For example, Stein observed that in the New York City schools professional
development effort she studied, teachers returned to their school after
collectively attending an off-site workshop, engaged in conversations with
other teachers about the practices on which the workshop focused, and observed
each other teaching using the practices. The result, she found, created a
“community-based expectation that they would implement the newly-learned
practices in their daily work.”[789]
Stevens found that of six professional development strategies, teachers cited
collaboration and networking as the most helpful to their professional
development, noting that this permitted them to share their best practices and
benefit from those of others.[790] Although the study did not prove a direct
empirical link, test scores improved in the schools that were subjected to the
professional development strategies. By
contrast, participants in school renewal work in New York City’s District 2
cited isolation as “the enemy of instructional change.”[791] Little found that working collaboratively is
important not just in training, but also in implementing new initiatives.[792] In a study of two schools, each of which
experienced a similar, highly-rated staff development program, the difference
between the school that effectively implemented the initiative and the school
that was unsuccessful in doing so was that the successful school continued to
work collaboratively during the implementation process, while in the less
successful school teachers worked individually during the implementation
process. The successful school
committed to a three-year implementation process, rather than simply to five to
eight days of training, and developed habits of shared work and problem-solving
during the implementation process.
Additionally, the principal became a fully involved, proactive change
agent, rather than simply permitting or approving the change.
Principle
7: Effective
professional development requires that continuous inquiry be embedded in the
daily life of the school.[793]
This principle, perhaps more than
any other, reflects the paradigm shift that is necessary (and is occurring in
some quarters) in professional development.
The paradigm shift requires a move away from the traditional staff
development “adult pull-out” model in which staff development is an “event”
that occurs primarily at a site away from teachers’ workplace (usually in a
workshop), to thinking of professional development as something that is
embedded in multiple ways in the daily life of the school (e.g., through action
research, school-based study groups, peer observation, coaching, journaling,
involvement in school improvement processes, joint lesson planning, collective
problem-solving, collaborative critiquing of students’ work, or collective
student-oriented case conferences).[794] Sparks and
Hirsh note: “In a learning school, all staff members are engaged in sustained,
intellectually rigorous study of what they teach and how they teach it.”[795]
Smylie observes that schools will not improve “until we acknowledge the
importance of schools not only as places for teachers to work but also as
places for teachers to learn.”[796]
Research indicates that school
cultures in which inquiry is prevalent are characterized by norms of
collegiality, openness, and trust; opportunities and time for disciplined inquiry;
reconstruction of leadership roles; and networking and collaboration.[797]
Shared work, shared problem-solving, mutual assistance, and teacher leadership
in curriculum and instruction are the cornerstones for building such a culture
of inquiry in a school.[798]
Indeed, Deborah Meier, former director of the highly-acclaimed Central Park
East Secondary School in New York City, observes in writing about the school,
“continuing dialogue, face to face, over and over, is a powerful educative
force. It is our primary form of staff
development.” [799]
Collaborative, school-wide forms
of inquiry-oriented professional development increase teacher learning and
change schools more than simply attending workshops or in-services.[800]
Little found that when teachers observed each other in classrooms, had time to
talk about their teaching, and worked collaboratively to find solutions for
problems, their professional lives were “transformed.”[801]
(Little’s study was based on
interviews with 105 teachers and 14 administrators and included extensive
operation of both average-achieving and “high success” schools. The latter, she
found, were characterized by a norm of collegiality that encompassed an
expectation for shared discussion and shared work among teachers. High success schools were also characterized
by a norm of experimentation in which continuous improvement as a result of
analysis, evaluation, and experimentation was an expectation. In the high success schools, teachers
engaged in frequent and continuous talk about teaching practice, in frequent
and mutual observation and critique of teaching, evaluated teaching materials
together, and taught each other how to be better teachers through such
practices as being instructors for school-based in-services.)
Little later concluded that the
power of professional development lies less in the opportunities it provides
teachers to consume research and knowledge and more in the capacity it
develops for teachers to “generate knowledge and to assess the
knowledge claimed by others.” [802]
In a study of 78 schools,
Rosenholtz found that in the 13 schools classified as effective and
progressing, teachers learned from one another as well as from outside sources.[803] Improvement in teaching was “a collective
rather than individual enterprise, and…analysis, evaluation, and
experimentation in concert with colleagues are conditions under which teachers
improve.”[804]
Among specific inquiry-oriented
practices, Larson et al. found that action research was an effective,
but time-consuming, form of professional development that resulted in teachers
generating new knowledge in their self-selected area of inquiry, and changing
their teaching practices.[805] Dunne and Honts reported that participants
in critical friends groups cited their participation in the groups as
the most powerful form of professional development they had ever experienced.[806] The groups consisted of faculty and
administrators working collaboratively toward agreed upon student learning
goals and meeting at least once a month for two hours. During the meetings they discussed teaching
practices that would help them move closer to their goals, examined curriculum
and student work, and identified school culture issues that could affect
student achievement. In still another
study, 52% of teachers who participated in weekly common planning sessions
subsequent to professional development workshops believed the staff development
significantly improved their teaching, while only 13% of the teachers who
occasionally participated in collaborative planning sessions reported staff
development as significantly improving their teaching.[807]
In summary, a school wide “press”
for daily learning and on-going inquiry is important for teachers to access the
potential power of professional development to impact their practice and
improve student achievement.
Principle
8: Principals and
other school leaders must provide proactive support for professional
development and the initiatives upon which it is focused.[808]
Many of the decisions and structures
that create support for professional development are within the control of
school leaders.[809] The norms and expectations that are held for
professional growth and the extent to which a culture of inquiry develops in a
school are directly related to the words, actions, and decisions of principals
and to the structures they develop in the school. Reitzug and O’ Hair, for example, found that even actions such as
the structures principals create for teachers to share with colleagues the
substance of workshops that they have attended affects the culture of inquiry
that develops in a school.[810] Additionally, they found that when
principals went beyond simply letting teachers participate in a professional
development initiative to actually being proactive supporters of the
initiative, the initiative was much more likely to be successfully implemented
in the school. Stein describes the
practices of three principals who created supportive structures to facilitate
cross-grade collaboration.[811] The principals’ actions included creating
multi-grade classrooms; hiring a resource teacher to identify
interdisciplinary, cross-grade curricular themes; and initiating cross-grade
curriculum articulation conferences.
Supportive school structures
should focus on providing ways for teachers to get feedback on their
performance, to communicate with colleagues, and to move outside the isolation
of their classrooms to share practices, observe other teachers, and communicate
with professional colleagues.[812]
Little found that the successful schools in her study created support
structures (e.g., teaming, schedules, room assignments, faculty meeting
agendas, governance structures) that provided teachers with common space and
time and permitted them to work with each other.[813] Cross-school networks, mentioned previously,
are one increasingly popular structure that facilitates these practices
intentionally across schools and unintentionally within schools.
Recommendations
In addition to the self-evident
policy recommendations suggested by the principles of professional development
discussed in this review, the following policy recommendations are implied by
the research that has been reviewed.
·
Professional development should be viewed as an an-going
part of the daily life of the school, whether or not a specific initiative is
being implemented.
·
More time and resources should be devoted to professional
development. Current school structures
and schedules include little time for in-school collaboration, inquiry, and
discourse.
·
When a specific curricular or instructional initiative is
being implemented in a school, training should be supplemented by coaching and
the initiative should be the subject of the on-going inquiry in the school.
·
The perceived relationship between professional development
of any sort and teacher growth should not be left to chance. The biggest motivation for teachers to
participate in and implement professional development initiatives is their
perception that they will grow professionally and that their students will
benefit.[814]
Consequently, the relationship between professional development initiatives and
teacher growth should be clearly articulated.
·
Schools should be cognizant of the relationships between
professional development initiatives and other parts of the system.[815]
Time schedules, curricular goals, student and teacher evaluation, curricular
materials, and expectations must all be brought in line with the focus of
professional development initiative,[816] and the
initiative should be consistent with the school’s values and beliefs. For
example, professional development focused on constructivist teaching makes
little sense if there is concurrent pressure to teach-to-the-test as a result
of a high-stakes testing environment.
·
State laws mandating schools’ curriculum content and school
time and governing school financing should be revised to accommodate more
extensive and sophisticated professional development efforts.
·
Principals should be prepared to be instructional leaders not
only through traditional practices such as teaching them about teacher
supervision and evaluation and curricular alignment, but also by preparing them
to initiate and facilitate the development cultures of inquiry in their
schools.
13:Charter
Schools, Vouchers, and EMOs
Executive Summary
Research
Findings
Of three proffered approaches to privatizing public education – charter
schools, private school vouchers, or private management of public schools or
charter schools – none has yet uncovered or established any factors that can be
systematically applied to increase children’s achievement. Privatization
alternatives have shown little accountability, despite promises to do so, and
achievement data that have been reported have been inconsistent at best and
suspect at worst.
Recommendations
·
No existing charter
school or private school voucher program funded by public money should be
expanded. The existing evidence fails to support such expansion.
·
Policy makers seeking to implement or expand voucher or
charter school experiments should first design and implement rigorous
evaluation programs that comprehensively examine the impact of such programs
both on the students who participate in them and on the larger school districts
in which they are operating.
·
School districts and state legislatures should institute
monitoring systems to ensure that for-profit Education Management Organizations
fulfill the obligations they undertake when they contract to manage local
public schools, including conventional public schools as well as charter
schools, and should rigorously enforce contract compliance.
13:Charter
Schools, Vouchers, and EMOs
Independent
Researcher
The years since A Nation At
Risk appeared in 1983 have seen an unprecedented level of effort at school
reform. “Risk” urged public schools do more: more rigorous courses, more hours
in the day, more days in the school year.
Other reforms, though, are aimed at fundamentally changing the nature of
how schools are funded or how they operate.
Among the most popular of these attempts are charter schools, vouchers
funded either by public funds or private charity, and the management of schools
or parts of schools by private, mostly for-profit businesses referred to as Educational
Management Organizations, or EMOs.
This chapter examines what research has found about the ability of each
of these three proposed reforms to increase student achievement, particularly
the achievement of students in schools with high concentrations of poverty.
School
Privatization Research
Charter Schools
The
concept of a “charter school” was first put forth by Massachusetts teacher Ray
Budde in the 1970s[817]
and was adopted and popularized by Albert Shanker, President of the American
Federation of Teachers in the 1980s.[818]
In return for a charter freeing a school from many of the rules and
regulations that applied to regular public school, the charter school would
promise to raise achievement. If it
failed, it would lose its charter. The
change is often referred to as shifting from accountability by compliance to
accountability by performance. The
charter idea quickly became popular and advocates saw it as a way of
stimulating education. Charter advocate
Joe Nathan’s 1996 book Charter Schools described the idea this way:
Charter schools are public, non-sectarian schools that do
not have admissions tests but that operate under a written contract, or charter,
from a school board or some other organization, such as a state school
board. These contracts specify how the
school will be held accountable for improved student achievement, in exchange
for a waivers of most rules and regulations governing how they operate. Charter schools that improve achievement have
their contracts renewed. Charter schools
that do not improve student achievement over the contract’s period are closed.[819]
Charter
Schools and Accountability
Although Nathan’s exposition
presents accountability as a simple consequence of achievement, the concepts of
accountability and of achievement have proven to be much more complex in
practice. Early on, charter-school advocates Chester E. Finn, Jr., and
colleagues acknowledged that they had “yet to see a single state with a
thoughtful and well-formed plan for evaluating its charter school program.” [820] Earlier, Jeffrey Henig of the George
Washington University observed that charter schools “show few signs of interest
in systematic empirical research that is ultimately needed if we are going to
be able to separate bold claim from proven performance. Premature claims of success, reliance on
anecdotal and unreliable evidence are still the rule of the day.”[821]
By 1999, the situation had not
improved much, which Finn’s Colleague Manno attributed to the newness of the
charter strategy, and the consequent absence of data; underdeveloped charter
accountability systems; and the failure of
charter authorizers and operators to embrace detailed and rigorous
accountability systems.[822]
Meanwhile, other charter advocates have already complained, in the words of
one, about “the ever-growing load of regulatory and reporting requirements”
charter operators face. [823] Moreover,
charter advocates at the Center for Education Reform, in rating states’ charter
schools laws, consider the “strongest” to be those with the fewest regulations
and requirements.[824]
Finn, Manno, and Gregg Vanourek
prescribe an accountability procedure that they call “Accountability Via
Transparency – a regimen where so much
is visible in each school that its watchers and constituents routinely
‘regulate’ it through market-style mechanisms, rather than command-and-control
structures.”[825] These authors adapt the Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles from the private sector into what they propose as the
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in Education. Yet the system they
propose appears to call for more information than either traditional public or
charter schools produce currently in the form of routine, timely and complete
disclosure of details about their programs, performance, organizations and
finances – requiring so much information and efforts to disseminate the
information as to raise the question of whether it eviscerates the concept of
charter school.
Some who have attempted to
evaluate charter schools have not always found the schools responsive to
inquiries on what data do exist, even when such data fall under the provisions
of various states’ Freedom of Information Acts.[826] The lack of responsiveness seems stronger in
charter schools that are operated by Educational Management Organizations.
Others have found that charter
school operators challenge the validity of data even when the data is routinely
published at the state level. For
instance, charter schools in Ohio spend a great deal more on administration and
operating costs and less on instruction than do public schools. Charter defenders claimed that charter
schools define categories of spending differently than do public schools.[827]
The charter schools themselves
have not taken the lead in becoming “transparent.” The Fourth Year Report on the Condition of Charter Schools from
the U. S. Department of Education found that only 37.3% of charters sent a
progress report to the chartering agency.
Some 60.9% did send a report to the school governing board, but only
41.2% sent one to the students’ parents and only 25.3% sent one to the
community.[828]
Without a great deal of technical
assistance from outside agencies, the quality of reports is unlikely to be
high. In Massachusetts, for instance,
the State Department of Education (SDE) specifies what the charter schools’
annual reports must contain. It is
probably the clearest and most extensive set of specifications in any state. The Massachusetts SDE, though, does not
specify the reports’ format. As a
consequence, the same information appears in quite different places in reports
from different schools and, in fact, not all of the required data are present
in all reports. For example, City on a
Hill Charter School’s 1999-2000 annual report was 68 pages long and cast mostly
in narrative form. It did not report
teacher experience. Murdoch Middle
School’s annual report was 28 pages long and provided a brief biography of its
teachers, but no summary tabulations.
Other charters provide teacher experience in tabular form.
Charters
and Achievement
In the absence of much data about
achievement, little can be said about whether or not charter schools increase
student achievement. The most typical evaluation has been a comparison of test
scores in charters and those in traditional public schools. Some of those
comparisons have not favored charters.[829]
These comparisons are not conclusive and might be misleading, however. Many charter schools are established to
educate “at risk” or special-needs students who, by definition, are not scoring
well on tests or may not be taking them at all. A simple charter-public comparison cannot determine whether or
not the charter school is instructionally deficient or if it has selected a more
difficult student population. To be
more definitive, a comparison would need to have test scores for charter school
students before they entered the charter school or, alternatively, would need
to study growth in achievement over time in comparison to demographically
similar public schools.
On occasion, press releases
generated by charter advocates have been accepted uncritically or without
sufficient care to what the reports actually said. For instance, of an evaluation of Pennsylvania charter schools, USA
Today wrote that “Western Michigan University researchers found that
Pennsylvania charter public schools posted gains on state assessments of more
than 100 points in just two years, outpacing the gains of their host school
districts by 86 points over the same period of time. The study examined 48 of the state’s 65 charter schools.”[830]
This statement is virtually a verbatim quote from a press release from the
Pennsylvania Secretary of Education, an advocate of both charters and
vouchers. In fact, the two-year data
came from only four of the 48 schools examined and, overall, charters scored
lower than their host districts.[831]
Evaluations of charter school
achievement at the state level have been conducted in Arizona,[832]
Michigan,[833]
California,[834] and
Pennsylvania.[835] A similar evaluation in Connecticut is near
completion and an evaluation has been conducted on charter schools in the
District of Columbia.[836]
Arizona
In March, 2001, the Center for Market-Based Education at the
Goldwater Institute in Phoenix released a study purporting to show larger test
score gains in reading for Arizona students who stayed in charter schools two
or three years compared to those who remained in traditional public schools for
two or three years.[837]
Gains in mathematics were not significantly different. The study takes advantage of the Arizona
student database, which can track a student over the years as long as the
student is somewhere in the Arizona public school system. The test used to
measure gains was the Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition (SAT9). The
gains are measured in percentile ranks. However, Gene V Glass, Associate Dean
of Research at Arizona State University, and Douglas Harris, an economist at
the Economic Policy Institute, both have indicated that the methods used in
reaching the report’s conclusions are too unclear to be independently assessed.[838]
Moreover, the gains, if we accept them, are relatively
small, and, in fact, leave the charter students still scoring below traditional
public school students at the end of three years.
The Goldwater researchers also analyzed changes in test
scores for students who moved between the two types of schools, reporting that
students do better when they start in a charter and move to a traditional
public school than when they spend two years in a traditional public school or
start in a traditional public school and then move to a charter.[839]
Their report, however, obscures the fact that the test scores of students who
moved from a charter school to a traditional public school increased the year
after transition, while the test scores of those who moved from a traditional
school to a charter school declined the year after the transition. They also
ignore other, equally plausible, interpretations for changes at a very small
scale – one or two percentile ranks. Those include the possibility that in
moving back to traditional schools, charter students might simply have been
more comfortable in their old school and
among old friends. There is also
substantial question about a standardized, norm-referenced test such as the
SAT9 to measure growth.[840] Finally, the drop in scores for students who
enter charters does not accord with the results claimed for other choice
experiments. These studies (of private
voucher programs, which will be discussed later in this report) make
contradictory claims: that either no change occurs until several years have
passed,[841] or that
positive outcomes resulted after a single year.[842]
Furthermore the variety of reasons for which Arizona charter schools were
started would suggest that judging them as a single category of “charter
schools” and evaluating them with a single instrument, the SAT9, lacks any
sound rationale.
California
The first evaluation of charters
in California found there was too little information to report on student
outcomes. found that accountability goals were often vague, ill-defined, and
difficult or impossible to assess.[843]
Another evaluation, by Amy Wells and colleagues at UCLA, found that, contrary
to claims that charter schools would be more efficient and produce more
achievement with fewer resources, that they required more resources and relied
on private charity as well as public funds to survive.[844]
An evaluation of 13 Los Angeles
Unified School District charters by West Ed, although hampered by disruptions
in the state testing program, found more positive results, concluding that
“charter schools maintain or slightly improve their performance over time with
respect to students in a comparison group of non-charter schools, with a few
exceptions.”[845]
Michigan
Michigan differs from most states
in that 71% of its charter schools, which account for 75% of charter schools
students, are operated by private Educational Management Organizations, almost
all of which are for-profits.[846] Teams conducting two separate evaluations –
one (PSC) of charters in Detroit, Flint, and Lansing [847]
and the other (WMU) of suburban and rural charters[848]
– agreed that scores from the Michigan
Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) were not appropriate for evaluating the
achievement of all charter schools because, as in California, some charters’
goals were not related to changes in test scores. Both evaluations, though, acknowledged the importance of MEAP in
public thinking about schools and, therefore, analyzed MEAP data.
PSC found gains somewhat higher
for charters than for comparison public schools. Eighty-three percent of the charters made satisfactory progress
in math compared to 58% of the public comparison schools. In reading the figure was 63% and 46%,
respectively. Seventy-one percent of
the charters had larger gains than the comparison school in math, but only half
has larger gains in reading. The study
did not address possible factors that may have given charters an advantage,
including reliance on drills that can improve elementary mathematics skills in
the short term, and the fact that most charter schools are small and have small
classes.
In their 2000 evaluation, Horn and
Miron found charters did not score as high on MEAP as regular public schools in
their districts, but noted that such comparisons are not always appropriate
because some charters serve at-risk students.[849] Passing rates for charters fell from 1995-96
to 1996-97, rose the next year, the fell again. Over the same period of time, regular publics showed a gain in
passing rates from 49.4% to 68%.[850]
Horn and Miron concluded that state charter schools produced “few and limited
innovations”, that most lacked comprehensive accountability plans, and that
increased EMO involvement was moving decision-making far from the school level.[851]
Bettinger, found charter school
students scored no higher on average, and may be doing worse, than students in
public schools with similar characteristics.[852]
Bettinger also found that scores of students in public schools near charter
schools declined. Because the charters drew students with lower scores
initially, their leaving the public schools would have been expected to raise
the public schools’ scores.[853]
Eberts and Hollenbeck’s
conclusions were consistent with the other evaluations, finding that charter
school students scored lower on reading, math, science and writing tests. The
researchers used a model that controlled for characteristics of school
districts, buildings, and students.[854]
A contrary finding came from Hoxby, who concluded that Michigan
public schools were more productive in districts where they had to compete with
charter schools.[855] She calculates productivity by dividing a
statewide test scores for a school by its per-pupil spending.[856]
Some may question whether such a measure of productivity captures the
complexity of a school, however. Hoxby also included untested assumptions, such
as that “charter schools were likely to form in districts that had unproductive
public schools.”[857]
Pennsylvania
In their study of Pennsylvania
charter schools, Miron and Nelson reported that the newness of the state’s
charters, along with a lack of data from charters and on student achievement
rates before they began attending charter schools, precluded “conclusive
statements about charter schools’ impacts on student learning...”[858]
Despite that they reported that charter schools typically scored lower than
their host districts on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment.[859] Meanwhile, high attrition rates may thwart
the collection of more definitive data from Pennsylvania: In a “non-random”
survey of charter schools, of those reporting lost an average of 38% of their
students.[860]
Washington, D.C.
As with the other evaluations, the
authors of the analysis of Washington, D. C. charter schools caution that the
data from charters is not strictly comparable to data from other D. C. public
schools (hereafter, DCPS) because charters typically serve a lower income
population.[861] They note,
though, that in spite of this the D. C. charter schools have fewer special
education students. Nonetheless, comparisons of Stanford Achievement Test
Series, Ninth Edition (SAT9), scores showed large differences in favor of DCPS
students, even when schools are grouped by categories including percent of
students from low-income homes, percent with language needs and percent in
special education. Only the outcome for schools with 10-15% special education
students are comparable, and only for reading.
For this same group of schools, 33.6% of the DCPS students scored below
basic in math, compared with 66.8% of the charter students.[862]
Differences were generally larger
for mathematics than for reading. For
instance, in schools with 75% or more students low income, 26.6% of the DCPS students
scored below basic in reading and 52.8% score below basic in math. For charter students, the figures are 52.8%
and 78.4%, respectively.[863]
Similar results were found at the “Proficient” and “Advanced” levels. Authors
of the study suggest that teacher turnover due to longer school days and school
years in charters than in DCPS created an additional barrier to student
achievement.[864]
Vouchers
The arguments for school vouchers are
very similar to those for charter schools: that giving parents the ability to
choose alternatives to conventional public schools will encourage greater
innovation and spur schools to achieve higher standards and better student
outcomes.
Publicly
Funded Vouchers
To date, most voucher programs have been small experiments
in low-income urban areas. As such, the
results, no matter how positive, cannot be generalized to the larger
system. Some who favor vouchers
acknowledge that limitation.[865]
Some, however, argue for allowing voucher programs to operate in ways that
would likely make attempts to draw universal conclusions nearly impossible.
Paul E. Peterson of Harvard[866]
has suggested that voucher schools in Milwaukee (which are required to choose
students randomly) should have been allowed to select those students who seemed
most compatible with the school’s instructional program.[867]
His complaint reflects an intractable conflict between those who advocate
vouchers and those who research the impact of vouchers. Researchers favor
random assignment whenever it is possible to ensure that there is no selection
bias. (In his use of random assignment
in his later studies, Peterson appears to have abandoned this objection.)
Milwaukee
“The Milwaukee case” is the oldest
of the voucher experiments and its results are among the most contentious. The Wisconsin legislature created the
Milwaukee voucher program in 1990, permitting 1% of the children in Milwaukee’s
low-income schools to attend private schools that would accept the
voucher. The cap his been raised to 15%
and the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declared that it is constitutional for the
vouchers to be used at sectarian schools (the U. S. Supreme Court declined to
hear the case).
John Witte of the University of
Wisconsin conducted an evaluation for each of the first five years of the
program. Witte and his co-authors
concluded in the fifth-year evaluation that public school students and voucher
students did not differ on measures of achievement.[868]
Peterson challenged these conclusions; his reanalysis found differences in both
reading and mathematics favoring the voucher students.[869]
Economist Cecilia Rouse of Princeton also reanalyzed the data using different
assumptions about how it should be treated statistically. She found voucher students scored higher in
mathematics, but not reading.[870] Rouse’s treatment is the most complete in
terms of testing alternative assumptions about sampling and missing data. Most
of the difference occurred from declining scores of public school students, not
increases by voucher students. Rouse
has since suggested that the voucher students benefited from having smaller
classes.[871]
Cleveland
A second well-known voucher
program was developed in 1995 in Cleveland through the initiative of then-Ohio
governor George Voinovich. The Ohio
legislature approved the use of state funds for vouchers and permitted them to
be used at sectarian as well as secular schools. The program is currently
before the US Supreme Court, while students in the program at the time of a
lower court ruling striking down the program have been permitted to continue.
Greene, Peterson and Howell
examined tests administered in the fall of 1996 and the spring of 1997 and
concluded that the voucher students had gained 5.6 percentile ranks in reading
and 11.6 in math.[872] This study was criticized for using
fall-to-spring testing, which can be misleading for a variety of reasons,
including that phenomenon of “summer loss” – when fall-to-spring gains have
disappeared by the following fall, appears to be particularly strong for
low-income students. The Greene, Peterson, and Howell study was also criticized
for only studying students in two of the schools, two Hope schools that had
been newly created by Ohio entrepreneur, David Brennan.[873]
A second test, again of only two Hope schools, by Peterson and colleagues in
the fall of 1998 found smaller, but still statistically significant, gains in
math and reading, and an insignificant decline in language scores.[874]
A separate evaluation of the
Cleveland program by researchers at Indiana University found “no significant
differences” in achievement between voucher and public school students.[875]
Peterson, Howell and Greene criticized the Indiana study on a number of
methodological grounds. For one thing,
the Indiana group had tried to control for prior achievement by factoring in
the students’ performance in the second grade.
Peterson, Greene and Howell found these scores implausible because they
were much higher than comparable percentile ranks in the third grade (the
second grade tests had been administered by Cleveland Public Schools, while the
Indiana researchers had overseen the third grade test administration). In addition, the second grade tests had low
correlations with family background characteristics, an unusual result.[876]
Peterson and colleagues reanalyzed
the data once excluding second-grade scores as a control variable, and once
with those scores incorporated. With
the second-grade scores excluded, statistically significant results were found
in reading, mathematics, language skills, social studies and science. With the second grade scores included,
effects were smaller and only those for language skills and science were
statistically significant.[877]
Metcalf subsequently rebutted Peterson and colleagues,[878]
who rebutted Metcalf in turn,[879]
each defending their research and impugning the other’s.
Other publicly funded programs
No large-scale voucher experiment
exists in the United States. Proposals for
such in Michigan and California were defeated in the 2000 election by wide
margins.
A potentially statewide program
exists in Florida, but it has only 55 students. Florida’s program allows
students to enroll in private schools at public expense if their public schools
are graded F (the bottom rank on a letter grade scale) by the State of Florida
for two years in a row. In 1999, two
schools received their second F’s and their students were given voucher
eligibility, with 55 enrolling in private schools. Jay P. Greene analyzed data
from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Tests (FCAT) for two years, for
public schools that received the various grades In general, schools with lower
grades in the first year showed larger gains in the second, with D and F schools
showing especially large gains.[880] Greene also compared schools in the
upper-scoring half of all schools receiving F’s in the first year with schools
in the lower-scoring half of all schools receiving D’s in the first year. These
two groups of schools had similar performance characteristics, but the D
schools were not at risk of losing students even if they received an F in the
second year. The lower-half D schools
showed less gain than the upper-half F schools. The effect sizes Greene derived from this analysis he called the
“voucher effect.” The effect was small
for reading (0.12), and larger for mathematics (0.31), and writing (0.41). The effect sizes of all schools compared to
F schools are much larger, ranging from 0.80 to 2.23.[881]
Gregory Camilli and Katrina
Bulkley of Rutgers University critiqued Greene’s analysis,[882]
arguing that much of the effect size was due to the sample that Greene used,
the phenomenon of regression to the mean, and the level of aggregation.[883] Regardless of its accuracy, the Greene
analysis does not address the question of whether standardized test scores
indicate general improvements in achievement.
Privately
funded Vouchers
The previous examples of voucher
programs have all been of programs where public funds sponsored children to go
to private schools. There are also
programs in which private individuals or organizations provide the
funding.
Indianapolis
The oldest private voucher program
is run by the Educational Choice Charitable Trust in Indianapolis. An evaluation by David Weinschrott and Sally
Kilgore found that public school students showed a decline in reading, language
arts and math test scores in Grades 6 and 8 while voucher schools did not.[884] However, they based their conclusions on a
small number of voucher students enrolled in a smaller number of voucher
schools. In addition, they did not
control for demographic differences in students or the test scores of the
students before they entered the voucher program, leaving their results
inconclusive.
Milwaukee
One large voucher program, Parents Advancing Values in
Education in Milwaukee, has been in existence since 1992, but only one
evaluation attempted to examine the program’s effect on achievement. It
appeared to show that students attending private schools for their entire
school careers scored higher than those who transferred in from public
schools. No controls were in place to
match the samples. This and other
methodological problems prevent any firm conclusions.
New York, Dayton, and Washington, D.C.
These three privately-funded
programs are treated together because the evaluation teams have all included
Paul Peterson and William Howell of Harvard, who have also written about them
jointly.[885] The first-year evaluation of the New York
City program included David Myers, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy
Research in Princeton. After the
release of the first-year evaluation, Myers disavowed Peterson’s
characterization of the results.[886]
The researchers contend that these
three studies are superior to most others because the scholarships are awarded
by lottery, thus those offered a scholarship should not differ from those who
are not. They do not investigate the possibility that those who actually use a
scholarship might constitute a different group, or the likelihood that those
continuing with the program will evolve into a non-comparable group. For example, in the Milwaukee program, those
who left private schools had lower test scores than those who continued to
participate.[887]
The New York evaluation by
Peterson and Mathematica compared test scores of 750 students who used vouchers
with the achievement of 960 students whose families sought vouchers but were
unsuccessful. The first year evaluation in New York examined scores on the ITBS
by grade.[888] Of the
eight comparisons (four grades by two subjects – reading and mathematics), five
were insignificant, and two were significant at the 0.10 level. Most social
science researchers do not report 0.10 as indicating significance, using a more
stringent 0.05 or 0.01 level. The
remaining comparison, fourth-grade mathematics was significant at the 0.01
level. Combining all grades led to
significance at the 0.05 level for mathematics and 0.10 for reading. Given the large sample sizes of 300 to 400
students per grade, the lack of significant findings seems significant itself –
the larger the sample size the greater the likelihood of obtaining significant
results.
When the evaluators examined the
second year of the New York results, along with the first- and second-year
results from Dayton and Washington, they categorized the data by ethnicity, not
by grade.[889] Positive results only occurred for African
American-students.[890]
After one year, only mathematics had been significant and then only at the
not-often-used 0.10 level. After two
years, the mathematics gain was significant at the 0.05 level, the reading at
the 0.10.
For other ethnic groups combined,
the scores show a decline in both subjects for voucher students, but neither
the reading nor mathematics decline attains statistical significance. The
relatively weak and inconsistent findings and questions about how experimental
and control groups were constituted contradict the authors’ assertion that
their outcomes are comparable to those found in Tennessee’s Project STAR
(Student Teacher Achievement Ratio) class-size reduction experiment.[891]
In considering possible
explanations for their results, Peterson, Howell, Wolf and Campbell reject the
contention that private schools have better facilities and smaller classes.[892]
San Antonio
San Antonio has two privately
funded voucher programs. The Children’s Educational Opportunity Foundation
(usually referred to as CEO America) funded both. One program, which began in
1992, provided scholarships for half of the tuition costs for private schools
up to a maximum of $750, reflecting the foundation’s philosophy that parents
who contributed a share of the tuition would be more involved and push their
children harder to succeed.
Researchers from the University of
North Texas concluded that students choosing private schools had “marginal
improvements in standardized reading scores and marginal declines in math,”[893]
while students remaining in the public schools declined in both subjects in
every year from third grade through ninth grade.
The research team found that the
parents of voucher-using students were more involved in their children’s
education before the program began, but participation in the voucher
program did not increase involvement.
The voucher program had a 50% dropout rate with lack of money and/or
lack of transportation being the two most frequently given reasons.[894] This outcome illustrates a continuing
difficulty in comparing voucher students with public school peers: When a large
proportion of the voucher families leave the program, then that program is
likely losing its poorest families.
Thus, even if the charter and public school students were comparable
when the experiment began, they will likely differ because of this
poverty-induced attrition.
A second study examining a private
voucher program enrolling 847 students and paying up to 100% of private-school
costs in the Edgewood School District, in San Antonio[895]
concluded that “unlike the strong positive effects of the scholarship program
on parent satisfaction [of parents whose children went to private schools with
vouchers], its effects on education practices and student achievement in the
Edgewood public schools were negligible at best.”[896]
The authors attribute Edgewood’s lack of responsiveness to long-standing
“machine politics” and the small financial losses thus far occasioned by the
program. Edgewood students did gain on
the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills tests, but Greene and Myers dismiss
this as a voucher effect because comparable gains were made in demographically
similar nearby districts that had no voucher programs. They do not address
another possibility: that magnet schools Edgewood opened in 1998 represented an
effective reform program before the voucher became available,[897]and
that the school district might be unresponsive to other changes because of its
commitment to that program.
Private
and Public Schools
Discussions of voucher efficacy often involve discussions on
public vs. private schools in general.
Public school critics often contend that private schools produce higher
achievement than do the publics. The
difficulty with this assertion, though, is that publics and privates often
differ on demographic characteristics that are known to affect achievement. In
such a case, one can’t determine if the private schools produce higher
achievers or if they simply started with higher achievers.[898]
In a different vein, Rothstein, Carnoy and Benveniste examined six common
allegations about the superior accountability, rigor, discipline, efficiency at
teacher selection and retention, academic achievement, and innovation of
private schools and found that the type of school mattered much less than the
area in which it was located. Affluent
public schools resembled affluent private schools. Low-income public schools resembled low-income private schools. Affluent and low-income schools differed.[899]
Privatization
Privatization efforts in schooling
in the United States take three forms.
First there are private, non-profit schools such as those in the
National Association of Independent Schools.
Second there are private for-profit schools such as those represented in
the National Independent Private Schools Association or private corporations
such as Nobel Learning Communities, Inc., and Knowledge Universe. The third form, which is the principal
subject of attention here, is through the management of public schools either
through charters or through management contracts by firms often known as
Educational Management Organizations, or EMOs.[900] The contracts might be for a limited range
of services or for the entire operation of a school or schools.
A contract with Education
Alternatives Inc. to manage schools in Baltimore was evaluated by the American
Federation of Teachers and the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC).[901]
The UMBC study found that, contrary to earlier claims from EAI, test scores in
the EAI schools had not risen since 1991-92, the year before the contract
began. The evaluation also found that
EAI teachers spent more time teaching in small groups and a great deal more
time preparing students to take standardized tests. EAI, which reorganized and
changed its name to TesseracT, now appears to be out of business.[902]
Evaluations of Edison Schools,
Inc., which manages charter schools and contracts to manage some public
schools, have been conducted by the
American Federation of Teachers,[903]
Western Michigan University,[904] and researchers at Columbia University.[905]
The AFT concluded that Edison schools “mostly do as well as or poorer than
comparable [public] schools; occasionally they do better.”[906]
The union suggested that the company selectively reported data and did not
compile all data in one place. Miron and Applegate, in an intensive study of 10
older Edison schools, reached similar conclusions.[907]
The Columbia University study looked at the academic climate and classroom
culture of six schools, two each in California, Colorado and Michigan. In general, the study praised the academic
climate of Edison schools but noted that most had trouble implementing Edison’s
design “because of its complexity.”[908]
The study included praise of Edison’s operation of a charter elementary school
in San Francisco,[909]
but subsequent journalistic accounts have painted a more dire picture,[910] and on June 28,2001, the San Francisco Board
of Education voted to sever its ties to the school, which Edison continues to
manage through a charter with the California State Board of Education.[911]
Boston-based Advantage Schools
Inc. showed large gains on standardized test scores in its internally prepared
annual report issued March 2001, but those gains were limited to grades K-2 and
the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test. Scores at Grades 3 and higher on the SAT9
were much smaller. Unlike Education Alternatives or Edison, Advantage has never
been evaluated by an external organization. Advantage has since been acquired
by another EMO corporation, Mosaica.
Inferences And Conclusions
The various experiments in
education, charter schools, vouchers, and takeover by private management
companies have thus far failed to deliver what their advocates had hoped
for. Charter schools have thus far
proven difficult to evaluate in terms of improved educational achievement. Similarly, the results from voucher
experiments have been contentious in some instances and ephemeral in
others. Educational Management
Organizations have issued reports claiming successes, but reviews by external
organizations have failed to replicate the gains claimed.
Vouchers on a large scale appear
to be for the moment at least without momentum. Two voucher referenda in Michigan and California in the 2000
election lost by wide margins. Congress
dropped the voucher proposal in President Bush’s education agenda.
In the charter realm, states appear to be moving to clarify
and perhaps tighten accountability provisions.
How this might affect charters’ chances for charter renewal or revocation,
though, is unclear. There as yet
appears to be no consensus on how to evaluate charter school performance, nor
how to interpret those evaluations, a state of affairs complicated by the fact
that many who evaluate charter schools appear to be predisposed to their
efficacy.[912]
The picture for EMOs is decidedly
mixed. Of the three described in this
paper, one is in bankruptcy and has sold many assets, one is having financial
difficulties and losing contracts, and one has lost $197 million as of early 2001,
but is still experiencing success in garnering new contracts.
Summary And Recommendations
None of the three proffered
approaches to privatizing public education has yet uncovered or established any
factors that can be systematically applied to increase children’s achievement.
Indeed, the data that have been reported so far do lead to three
recommendations regarding voucher and charter school experiments in particular:
·
No existing charter
school or private school voucher program funded by public money should be
expanded. The existing evidence fails to support such expansion.
·
Policy makers seeking to implement or expand voucher or
charter school experiments should first design and implement rigorous
evaluation programs that comprehensively examine the impact of such programs
both on the students who participate in them and on the larger school districts
in which they are operating.
·
School districts and state legislatures should institute
monitoring systems to ensure that for-profit Education Management Organizations
fulfill the obligations they undertake when they contract to manage local
public schools, including conventional public schools as well as charter
schools, and should rigorously enforce contract compliance.
REFERENCES
[1] Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll, conducted May 23-June
6, 2001. Results posted at: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0109gal.htm.
[2] Washington Post/ABC News poll, conducted March 30-April
2, 2000. Results posted at: http://www.pollingreport.com/educatio.htm
[3] Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll, conducted June 5-23,
1998. Results posted at: http://www.pollingreport.com/educatio.htm
[4] Op.
Cit., Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll, May 23-June 6, 2001.
[5] W.S.
Barnett and S.S. Boocock, Early Care and Education for Children in
Poverty: Promises, Programs, and
Long-Term Results, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1998
[6] D. J. Yarosz
and W.S. Barnett, Early Care and Education Program Participation: 1991-1999,
New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Early Education Research, Rutgers University,
2001
[7] J. West, E.
Hausken, and M. Collins, Profile of Preschool Children’s Child Care and
Early Education Program Participation, Washington, DC: US Department of
Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, 1993
[8] Yarosz and
Barnett, 2001
[9] D.R.
Entwisle , K.L Alexander, and L.S.
Olson, “Summer Learning and Home Environment” In R. Kahlenberg Ed. A Notion
at Risk: Preserving Public Education as an Engine for Social Mobility,
Twentieth Century Foundation/Twentieth Century Fund, Inc., 2000, pp. 9-30
[10] Entwisle,
Alexander, and Olson, 2000
Barnett and Boocock,
1998
S.L Ramey and C.T.
Ramey, “Early Educational Intervention with Disadvantaged Children- To What
Effect?” Applied and Preventative Psychology, Volume 1, 1992, pp.
131-140
[11] L.
Jacobson, “Study Says More Time in Child Care Connected to Bad Behavior,” Education
Week on the Web (www.edweek.org ) April 25,
2001
R. Haskins, “Beyond Metaphor: The Efficacy of Early
Childhood Education,” American
Psychologist, Vol. 44, 1989, pp. 274-282
R.J. Herrnstein and C. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American
Life, New York, NY: Free Press, 1994
M. Woodhead, “When Psychology Informs Public Policy: The
Case of Early-Childhood Intervention,” American Psychologist, Vol. 43,
No. 6, 1988, pp. 443-454
E. Zigler and J. Freedman, “Early Experience, Malleability,
and Head Start.” In J.J. Gallagher and
C.T. Ramey (Eds.), The Malleability
of Children, Baltimore, MD: Brookes, 1987, pp.85-96
Ramey and Ramey, 1992
[12] Ramey and
Ramey, 1992
B. Bowman, M.S. Donovan, and S. Burns, Eager to Learn:
Educating Our Preschoolers, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001
[13] R.H. McKey,
L. Condelli, H. Ganson, B. J. Barrett, C. McConkey and M.C. Plantz, The
Impact of Head Start on Children, Families, and Communities, Washington,
DC: Head Start Evaluation Synthesis and
Utilization Project, 1985
K. White and G. Casto, “An Integrative Review of Early
Intervention Efficacy Studies with At-Risk Children: Implications for the Handicapped,” Analysis and Intervention
in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 5, 1985, pp. 7-31
C.T Ramey, D.M.
Bryant, and T.M. Suarez, “Preschool compensatory Education and the Modifiability
of Intelligence: A Critical Review.” In
D. Detterman (Ed.), Current Topics in Human Intelligence, Norwood, NJ:
Ablex, 1985, pp. 247-296
M.J. Guralnick and F.C
Bennett, (Eds.) The Effectiveness of Early Intervention for At-Risk and
Handicapped Children, New York, NY:
Academy Press, 1987
Ramey and Ramey, 1992
M.J. Guralnick, “Second Generation Research on the
Effectiveness of Early Intervention,” Early Education and Development,
Vol. 4, No. 4, 1993, pp. 366-378
J.P. Shonkoff and P. Hauser-Cram, “Early Intervention for
Disabled Infants and Their Families: A Quantitative Analysis,” Pediatrics,
Vol. 80, 1987, pp.650-658
J.P. Shonkoff and S.J.Meisels, (Eds.) Handbook of Early
Childhood Intervention, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000
[14] M. M.
Wagner, and S. L. Clayton, “The Parents as Teachers Program: Results from Two
Demonstrations,” Future of Children,
Vol. 9, No.1, Spring/Summer 1999, pp.
91-116
[15] A.J.L.
Baker, C. S. Piotrkowski, and J.
Brooks-Gunn, “The Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY),” Future of Children, Vol. 9, No. 1, Spring/ Summer 1999,
pp.116-133
[16] B.H. Wasik,
C.T. Ramey, D.M. Bryant, and J.J. Sparling, “A Longitudinal Study of Two
Early-Intervention Strategies: Project CARE,” Child Development, Vol.
61, 1990, pp. 1682-1696.
[17] G. Boutte, The
Effects of Home Intervention on Rural Children’s Home Environments, Academic
Self- Esteem, and Achievement Scores,
Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, 1992
[18] S. Scarr
& K. McCartney, “Far from Home: An
Experimental Evaluation of the Mother-Child Home Program in Bermuda,” Child
Development, Vol. 59, 1988, pp. 531-543
P. Levenstein, J. O’Hara, and J. Madden, “The Mother-Child
Home Program of the Verbal Interaction Project.” In Consortium for Longitudinal
Studies (Ed.), As the Twig is Bent…Lasting Effects of Preschool Programs,
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983, pp.237-263
[19] C.
Powell and S. Grantham-McGregor, “Home
Visiting of Varying Frequency and Child Development,” Pediatrics, Vol. 84,
1989, pp. 157-164
[20] D. S.
Gomby, P. L. Culross, and R. E. Behrman, “Home Visiting: Recent Program
Evaluations – Analysis and Recommendations, Future of Children, Vol. 9,
No.1, Spring/Summer 1999, pp.4-26
[21] R.G. St.Pierre,
and J.I. Layzer, “Using Home Visits for Multiple Purposes: The Comprehensive
Child Development Program,” Future
of Children, Vol. 9, No.1, Spring/ Summer 1999, pp.134-151
[22] N.
Bayley, The Bayley Scales of Infant Development – II, San
Antonio: Psychological Corporation, 1993
[23] R.G. St.
Pierre, J.I. Layzer, B.D. Goodson and L.S. Bernstein, National Impact
Evaluation of the Comprehensive Child Development Program, Cambridge, MA:
Abt. Associates, Inc., 1997
[24] R.G. St.
Pierre, J.I. Layzer, and H.V. Barnes, “Regenerating Two-Generation Programs.”
In W.S. Barnett and S.S. Boocock (Eds.), Early Care and Education for
Children in Poverty: Promises,
Programs, and Long-Term Results, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1998, pp. 99-121
[25] Ibid.
[26] J.M. Love,
E.E. Kisker, C.M. Ross, P.Z. Schochet, J. Brooks-Gunn, K. Boller, D. Paulsell,
A.S. Fuligni, L.J. Berlin, Early Head Start Research-Building Their Futures:
How Earl Head Start Programs Are Enhancing the Lives of Infants and Toddlers in
Low-Income Families, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2001
[27] G. Casto
and A. Lewis, “Parent Involvement in Infant and Preschool Programs,” Journal
of the Division of Early Childhood, Vol. 9, 1984, pp. 49-56
D.M. Bryant and C.T. Ramey, “Prevention Oriented Infant
Education Programs,” Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, Vol.
7, 1987, pp.17-35
[28] C.
Kagitcibasi, “Parent Education and Child Development.” In M.E. Young (Ed.) Early
Child Development: Investing in our Children’s Future, Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V., 1997, pp.243-272
W.S. Barnett, C.M. Escobar, and M.T. Ravsten, “Parent and
Clinic Early Intervention for Children with Language Handicaps: A
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis,” Journal of the Division for Early Childhood,
1988, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 290-298
C. van Tuijl, P.P.M. Leseman, and J. Rispens, “Efficacy of
an Intensive Home-Based Educational Intervention Programme for 4- to 6-Year Old
Ethnic Minority Children in the Netherlands,” International Journal of
Behavioral Development, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2001, pp. 148-159
[29] St. Pierre,
Layzer, and Barnes, 1998.
[30] D. L. Olds,
C. R. Henderson, Jr., H. J. Kitzman, J. J. Eckenrode, R. E. Cole, and R.C.
Tatelbaum, “Prenatal and Infancy Home Visitation by Nurses: Recent
Findings,” Future of Children,
Vol. 9, No. 1, Spring/Summer 1999, pp.44-66
[31] C.T. Ramey,
D.M. Bryant, B.H. Wasik, J.J.Sparling, K.H. Fendt, and L.M. LaVange, “Infant
Health and Development Program for Low Birth Weight, Premature Infants: Program
Elements, Family Participation, and Child Intelligence,” Pediatrics, 89,
1992, pp. 454-465
The Infant Health and Development Program, “Enhancing the
outcomes of low-birth-weight, premature infants,” Journal of the American
Medical Association, Vol. 263, 1990, pp. 3035-3042
J. Brooks-Gunn, C.M. McCarton, P.H. Casey, M.C.McCormick,
C.R. Bauer, J.C. Bernbaum, J. Tyson,
M. Swanson, F.C. Bennett, D.T. Scott, J. Tonascia, and C.L.
Meinert, “Early Intervention in Low-Birth- Weight Premature Infants,” Journal
of the American Medical Association, Vol. 272, No. 16, 1994, pp. 1257-1262
[32] C.M.
McCarton, J.Brooks-Gunn, I. F. Wallace, C.R. Bauer, F.C. Bennett, J.C.
Bernbaum, R.S.Broyles, P.H.Casey, M.C.
McCormick, D.T. Scott, J.Tyson, J. Tonascia, C.L. Meinert, “Results at Age 8 Years of Early Intervention for
Low-Birth-Weight Premature Infants: The Infant Health and Development Program,” Journal of the
American Medical Association, Vol. 277, No.2, 1997, pp 126-132
Ramey, et al. 1992
[33] McCarton,
et al. 1997
[34] A.
Baumeister, and V. Bachrach, “A critical analysis of the Infant Health and
Development Program,” Intelligence, Vol. 23, 1996,
pp.79-104.
[35] S. Scarr
and M. Eisenberg , “Child Care Research:
Issues, Perspectives, and Results,” Annual Reviews Psychology,Vol. 44, 1993, pp. 613-644
[36] M. E. Lamb,
K. J. Sternberg, and R. Ketterlinus, “Child Care in the United States.” In M.E.
Lamb, K. Sternberg, C.P. Hwang, and A. G. Broberg (Eds.) Child Ccare in
Context, Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum,
1992
Scarr and Eisenberg, 1993
J. Belsky, “The ‘Effects’ of Infant Day Care Reconsidered,” Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 3, 1988, pp. 235-272
R. Haskins, “Public Aggression Among Children with Varying
Day Care Experience,” Child
Development, Vol. 57, 1985,
pp. 692-703
[37] Scarr and
Eisenberg, 1993
M.R. Burchinal, “Child Care Experiences and Developmental
Outcomes,” The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science: The Silent Crisis in U.S. Child
Care, Vol. 563, 1999, pp. 73-97
[38] Scarr and
Eisenberg, 1993
M. Prodroidis, M. E. Lamb, K. J. Sternberg, C. P. Hwang, and
A. G. Broberg, “Aggression and
Noncompliance Among Center-Based Care, Family Day Care and Home Care,” International Journal of Behavioral Development, Vol.
18, 1995, pp. 43-62
K. McCartney and S. Rosenthal, “Maternal Employment Should
be Studied Within Social Ecologies,” Journal of Marriage and the Family,
Vol. 53, 1991, pp. 1103-1107
Burchinal, 1999
F. A.Campbell, R. Helms, J.J. Sparling, and C.T. Ramey,
“Early Childhood Programs and Success in Schools: The Abecedarian Study.” In W. S. Barnett and S. S. Boocock (Eds.)
Early Care and Education for Children in Poverty: Promises, Programs, and Long-Term Results, Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1998
S.H. Clarke, and F.A. Campbell, “Can Intervention Early
Prevent Crime Later? The Abecedarian Project
Compared with Other Programs,” Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
Vol. 13, No. 2, 1998, pp. 319-343
[39] C. Howes,
C. Rodening, D. C. Galluzo, and L. Myers, “Attachment and Child Care:
Relationships with Mother and Care
Giver,” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 3, 1988, pp. 403-416
A.I.H. Borge and E.C. Melhuish, “A Longitudinal Study of Childhood Behaviour Problems, Maternal
Employment and Day Care in a Norweigian Community,” International Journal of
Behavioural Development, Vol. 18, 1995, pp. 23-42
Scarr and Eisenberg, 1993
[40]. R.
Peth-Pierce, The NICHD Study of Early Child Care, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, NIH Pub. No. 98-4318, 1998
[41] B. M.
Caldwell, “Déjà vu All Over Again: A Researcher Explains the NICHD Study,” Young
Children, Vol. 56, No. 4, 2001, pp. 58-59
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. “Early child care
and children's development prior to school entry.” Paper presented at the
Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis,
MN. April 2001
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, “Further
explorations of the detected effects of quantity of early child care on
socioemotional development.” Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN. April, 2001
[42] Caldwell,
2001
[43] Scarr and
Eisenberg, 1993
J. Shonkoff and D. Phillips (Eds.). From Neurons to Neighborhoods:
the Science of Early Childhood Development, Washingont, DC: National
Academy Press, 2000.
Burchinal, 1999
S. L. Hofferth, “Child Care in the First Three Years of Life
and Preschoolers’ Language and Behavior.” Paper presented at the Society for
Research in Child Development-Biennial Meeting, Alberquerque, NM, April 1999
[44] B.E.
Andersson, “Effects of Public Day Care- A Longitudinal Study,” Child
Development, Vol. 60, 1989, pp. 857-866
T. Field, “Quality Infant Day Care and Grade School Behavior
and Performance,” Child Development, Vol. 62, 1991, pp.863-870
[45] S. Desai,
P.L. Chase-Lansdale, and R.T. Michael, “Mother or Market? Effects of Maternal
Employment on the Intellectual Ability of Four-Year-Old Children,” Demography,
Vol. 26, 1989, pp. 545-561
N. Baydar and J. Brooks-Gunn, “Effects of Maternal
Employment and Child-Care Arrangements on
Preschoolers’ Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes: Evidence from the
Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Special Section Data
Analyses on Developmental Psychology,” Developmental
Psychology, Vol. 27, 1991, pp.
932-945
[46] Burchinal,
1999
[47] Peth-Pierce,
1998
[48] NICHD Early
Child Care Research Network, “Early child care and children's development prior
to school entry.” Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN. April 2001
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, “Further
explorations of the detected effects of quantity of early child care on
socioemotional development.” Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN. April, 2001
[49] Burchinal,
1999
[50] E.S.
Peisner-Feinberg, M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford, N. Yazejian, M.L. Culkin, J.
Zelazo, C. Howes, P. Byler, S.L. Kagan and J. Rustici, “The Children of the
Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go To School,” Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter
Graham Child Development Center, 1999
E.S.
Peisner-Feinberg and M.R. Burchinal, “Relations Between Preschool Children’s
Child Care Experiences and Concurrent Development: The Cost, Quality, and
Outcomes Study,” Merill- Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1997, pp.
451-477
[51] E.S.
Peisner-Feinberg, M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford, N. Yazejian, M.L. Culkin, J. Zelazo,
C. Howes, P. Byler, S.L. Kagan and J. Rustici, 1999
Burchinal, 1999
[52] K. White
and G. Casto, “An Integrative Review of Early Intervention Efficacy Studies
with At-Risk Children: Implications for the Handicapped,” Analysis and
Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 5, 1985, pp.7-31
R.H. McKey, L. Condelli, H. Ganson, B. Barrett, C. McConkey,
M.C. Plantz, and A.N. Smith, The
Impact of Head Start on Children, Families and Communities. Final Report of the Head Start Evaluation , Synthesis, and Utilization
Project, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1985
C.T. Ramey, D.M. Bryant and T.M. Suarez, “Preschool
Compensatory Education and the Modifiability of Intelligence: A Critical
Review.” In D. Detterman (Ed.), Current Topics in Human Intelligence, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986, pp. 247-296
M. Woodhead, “When Psychology Informs Public Policy: The
Case of Early Childhood Intervention,” American
Psychologist, Vol. 43, 1988, pp. 443-454
R. Haskins, “Beyond Metaphor: The Efficacy of Early
Childhood Education,” American Psychologist, Vol.44, 1989, pp. 274-282
C. Locurto, “Beyond IQ in Preschool Programs?” Intelligence,
Vol. 15., 1991, pp. 295-312
H.H. Spitz, The Raising of Intelligence: A Selected
History of Attempts to Raise Retarded Intelligence, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,
1986
H.H. Spitz, “Commentary on Locurto’s ‘Beyond IQ in Preschool
Programs?’” Intelligence, Vol. 15, 1991, pp.327-333
[53] Herrnstein
and Murray, 1994
[54] Herrnstein
and Murray,1994
Woodhead, 1988
[55] W.S.
Barnett, “Preschool Education for Economically Disadvantaged Children: Effects
on Reading Achievement and Related Outcomes.” In S.B. Neuman and D.K. Dickinson
(Eds.) Handbook of Early Literacy Research, New York, NY: Guilford
Press, 2001, pp. 421-443
[56] B.M.
Caldwell, “Sustaining Intervention Effects:
Putting Malleability to the Test.” In J.J. Gallagher and C. T. Ramey
(Eds.) The Malleability of Children, Baltimore, MD: Brookes, 1987,
pp.115-126
Haskins, 1989
Burchinal, 1999
[57] Barnett,
2001
[58] L.J. Schweinhart,
H.V. Barnes, D.P. Weikart, W. S. Barnett, and A. S. Epstein, Significant
Benefits: The High/ Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 27 [Monographs
of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation No. 10]. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 1993
[59] H.L.
Garber, The Milwaukee Project:
Prevention of Mental Retardation in Children at Risk, Washington,
DC: American Association on Mental Retardation, 1988
[60] Schweinhart, Barnes, Weikart, Barnett, and
Epstein, 1993
F.A.Campbell and C.T.
Ramey, “Cognitive and School Outcomes for High-Risk African-American
Students at Middle Adolescence: Positive Effects of Early Intervention,” American
Educational Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1995, pp. 743-772
[62] Campbell
and Ramey, 1995
Carolina Abecedarian Project, Early Learning, Later
Success: The Abecedarian Study, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center,1999
[63] Garber,
1988
[64] W.S.
Barnett, “Long-Term Effects on Cognitive Development and School Success.” In
W.S. Barnett and S.S. Boocock (Eds.) Early Care and Education for Children
in Poverty: Promises, Programs, and Long-Term Outcomes, Buffalo, NY: State
University of New York Press, pp. 11-14, 1998
A. McGill-Franzen and R.L. Allington, “Flunk ‘em or Get Them
Classified: The Contamination of Primary Grade Accountability Data,” Educational
Researcher, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1993,
pp. 19-22
[65] (t-test,
p<.05, n=20 and 24) Barnett, 2001
[66] W.S.Barnett,
“Long-Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School
Outcomes,” The Future of Children, Vol. 4, 1995, pp. 25-50
H. Yoshikawa, “Prevention as Cumulative Protection: Effects of Early Family Support and
Education on Chronic Delinquency and Its Risks,” Psychological Bulletin, Volume 115, 1994, pp. 27-54
[67] D. Johnson
and T. Walker, “A Follow-up Evaluation of the Houston Parent Child Development
Center: School Performance,” Journal
of Early Intervention, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1991, pp. 226-236
R.J. Lally, P. Mangione, and A.S. Honig, “The Syracuse
University Family Development Research Program: Long-Range Impact on an Early
Intervention with Low-Income Children and Their Families,” Parent Education
As Early Intervention: Emerging Directions in Theory, Research and Practice,
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishers, 1988, pp. 79-104
Schweinhart, Barnes, Weikart, Barnett, and Epstein, 1993
V. Seitz and N.H. Apfel, “Parent-Focused Intervention:
Diffusion Effects on Siblings,” Child Development, Vol. 56, 1994, pp.376-391
A.J. Reynolds, Success
in Early Intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers, Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press, 2000
[68] Lally,
Mangione, and Honig, 1988
Seitz and Apfel, 1994
[69] Clarke and
Campbell
[70] Reynolds, Success
in Early Intervention, 2000
A.J. Reynolds, J.A.
Temple, D.L. Robertson, and E.A.Mann, “Long-Term Effects of an Early Childhood
Intervention on Educational Achievement and Juvenile Arrest: A15-Year Follow-Up
of Low-Income Children in Public Schools,” JAMA, Vol. 285, 2001, pp.
2339-2346
J.A. Temple, A.J.
Reynolds, and W.T. Miedel, “Can Early Childhood Intervention Prevent High
School Dropout? Evidence from the Chicago Child-Parent Centers,” Urban
Education, Vol. 35, 2001, pp. 31-56
A.J. Reynolds, W.T. Miedel, and E.A. Mann, “Innovation in Early Intervention for
Children in Families with Low Incomes: Lessons from the Chicago Child-Parent
Centers,” Young Children, Vol. 55, 2000, pp. 84-88
A. J. Reynolds (Ed.), “Educational Success in High-Risk
Settings: Contributions of the Chicago Longitudinal Study,” Journal of
School Psychology (Special issue), Vol. 37, No. 4, 1999
[71] Reynolds, Success in Early Intervention, 2000
[72] W.S.
Barnett, “Benefit-cost analysis of preschool education: Findings from a 25-year
follow-up,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63, No. 4, 1993,
pp. 500-508
[73] Ibid.
[74] L.
Karoly, P. Greenwood, S. Everingham, J. Hoube, R. Kilburn, C. Rydell, M.
Sanders, & J. Chiesa, Investing In Our Children: What We Know And Don’t
Know About The Costs And Benefits Of Early Childhood Intervention. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND, 1998
[75] Reynolds,
2000
[76] Burchinal,
1999
N. Zill, G. Resnick, R. McKey, C. Clark, D. Connell, J.
Swartz, R. O’Brien and M. D’Elio, Head Start Program Performances Measures:
Second Progress Report, Washington,
DC: Research, Demonstration and Evaluation Branch and Head Start Bureau,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, U.s. Department of Health and
Human Services, 1998
W.S. Barnett, J.E. Tarr, C. Esposito-Lamy, and E.C. Frede, Fragile
Lives, Shattered Dreams: A Report on Implementation of Preschool Education in
New Jersey’s Abbott Districts, New Brunswick, NJ: The Center for Early
Education Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 2001
[77] M.
Burchinal, M. Lee, and C. Ramey, “Type of Day-Care and Intellectual Development
in Disadvantaged Children,” Child Development, 1989, Vol. 60, pp.
128-137
V. Van de Reit and M.B. Resnick, Learning to Learn: An
Effective Model for Early Childhood Education. Gainesville, FL: University
of Florida Press, 1973
[78] E.A.
Hanushek, “Teacher Characteristics and Gains in Student Achievement: Estimation
Using Micro Data,” American Economic Review, Vol. 60, No. 2, 1971, pp.
280-288
R.J. Murnane and B. Phillips, “What Do Effective Teachers of
Inner-City Children Have in Common?” Social Science Research, Vol. 10,
1981, pp. 83-100
R.F. Ferguson, “Can
Schools Narrow the Black-White Test Score Gap?” In C. Jencks and M. Phillips
(Eds.) The Black-White Test Score Gap, Washington, DC: Brookings
Institute Press, 1998, pp. 318-374
A. Clarke-Stewart and L.Gruber, Children at Home and in
Day Care, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaurn Associates, 1994
C. Howes and M. Olenick, “Child Care and Family Influences
on Toddlers’ Compliance,” Child Development,
Vol. 57, 1986, pp. 202-216
M. Whitebook, C. Howes, and D. Phillips, Who Cares? Child Care Teachers and the Quality of Care
in America-Final Report of the National
Child Care Staffing Study, Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project, 1989
C. Howes, D. Phillips, M. Whitebook, “Thresholds of Quality:
Implications for the Social Development
of Children in Center-Based Child Care,” Child Development,
Volume 63, 1992, pp. 449-460
J. Arnett, “Caregivers in Day Care Centers: Does Training
Matter?” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 10, 1989, pp.
541-522
C. Howes, “Children’s Experiences in Center-Based Child Care
as a Function of Teacher Background and
Adult-Child Ratio,” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1997, pp.
404-425
L. Dunn, “Proximal and Distal Features of Day Care Quality
and Children’s Development,” Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1993, pp. 167-192
B.Tizard, J. Philps, and I. Plewis, “Play in Preschool
Centers, II: Effects on Play of the Child’s Social Class and of the Educational
Orientation of the Center,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
Vol. 17, 1976, pp. 265-274
M. Whitebook, D. Phillips, and C. Howes, National Child
Care Staffing Study Revisited: Four Years in the Life of Center-Based Child
Care, Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project, 1993
L. Phillipsen, M. Burchinal, C. Howes, and D. Cryer, “The
Prediction of Process Quality from Structural Features of Child Care,” Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1997, pp. 281-304
S. Scarr, M. Eisenberg, and K. Deater-Deckerd, “Measurements
of Quality in Child Care Centers,” Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 9, No 2, 1994, pp. 131-152
B.T. Bowman, M.S. Donovan, and M.S Burns (Eds.) Eager to
Learn: Educating our Preschoolers, Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
2001
[79] Bowman,
Donovan, and Burns, 2001
H. McGurk, A. Mooney, P. Moss, and G. Poland, Staff-Child
Ratios in Care and Education Services for Young Children, London: HMSO,
1995
J.I. Layzer, B.D. Goodson, and M. Moss, Life in
Preschool-Volume One of an Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs for
Disadvantaged Four-Year-Olds: Final Report, Cambridge, MA:Abt Associates,
1993
Clarke-Stewart and Gruber, 1994
Howes, 1997
S.C. Kontos, C. Howes, E. Galinsky, “ Does Training Make a
Difference to Quality in Family Child Care?” Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1997, pp. 351-372
Howes, Phillips, and Whitebook, 1992
A.B. Smith, “Quality Child Care and Joint Attention,” International
Journal of Early Years Education, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1999, pp. 85-98
Phillipsen, Burchinal, Howes, and Cryer, 1997
Dunn,1993
R. Ruopp, J. Travers, F.M. Glantz, and C. Coelen, “Children
at the Center: Summary Findings and Their Implications.” In Final Report of
the National Day Care Study: Children at the Center, Vol. 1, Cambridge, MA:
Abt Associates, 1979
C.M. Achilles, P. Harman, and P. Egelson, “Using Research
Results on Class Size to Improve Pupil Achievement Outcomes,” Research in
the Schools, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1995, pp. 23-30
A. Russell, An Observational Study of the Effect of
Staff-Child Ratios on Staff and Child Behavior in South Australian Kindergartens, Adelaide: Fiinder University,
1985
Ferguson, 1998
A. Krueger, Experimental Estimates of Educational
Production Functions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1997
H. Wenglinsky, “How Money Matters: The Effect of School
District Spending on Academic
Achievement,” Sociology of Education, Vol. 70, No. 3, 1997, pp.
377-399
F. Mosteller, “The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the
Early School Grades,” The Future of Children, Vol. 5, No.2, 1995, pp.
113-127
J. Boyd-Zaharias and H. Pate-Bain, “The Continuing Impact of
Elementary Small Classes.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April, 2000
A. Krueger, “Experimental Estimates of Educational
Production Functions,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 114, No. 2,
1999, pp. 497-532
J.D. Finn, S.B. Gerber, C.M. Achilles and J. Boyd-Zaharias,
“Short and Long-Term Effects of Small Classes.” Paper prepared for conference
on the economics of school reform, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, May, 1999
[80] E. Frede,
“Preschool program quality for children in poverty.” In W.S. Barnett and S.S.
Boocock (Eds.)Early Care and Education for Children in Poverty: Promises,
Programs, and Long-Term Outcomes, Buffalo, NY: State University of New York
Press, 1998, pp. 77-98
Reynolds, 2000
Bowman, Donovan, and
Burns 2001
[81] W.S.
Barnett, Lives in the Balance: Age 27 Benefit-Cost Analysis of the
High/Scope Perry Preschool Program, Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 1996
A.J. Reynolds, J.A. Temple, D.L. Robertson, and E.A. Mann, Age
21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Center Program,
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2001
[82] W.S.
Barnett, J. Tarr, and E. Frede, Early Childhood Education Needs in Low
Income Communities: Final Report of an Assessment of Young Children’s
Educational Needs and Community Capacity
in New Jersey’s Abbott Districts, New Brunswick, NJ: Center for
Early Education Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 1999
[83] E.
Blakely, “Separate and Not Equal: America’s Diversity Crisis.” In J.W. Hughes
and J.J. Seneca, (Eds.) America’s Demographic Tapestry: Baseline for the New
Millennium, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1999, pp. 187-202
[84] Educational
Research Service, Class Size: A Summary of Research. Arlington, VA: ERS, 1978.
[85] G. E.
Robinson, “Synthesis of Research on the Effects of Class Size.” Educational Leadership, 1990, Vol.
47, No. 7, pp. 80-90.
[86] G. V Glass
and M. L. Smith, Meta-Analysis of Research on the Relationship of Class Size
and Achievement. San Francisco: Far
West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, 1978.
[87] C. M.
Achilles, Lets Put Kids First Finally: Getting Class Size Right. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1999
[88] J.D.
Finn, “Class Size and Students at Risk: What is Known? What is Next?” Washington,
DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
1998. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ClassSize/title.html
[89] R.G.
Ehrenberg, D.J. Brewer, A. Gamoran, and J.D. Willms, “Class Size and Student
Achievement,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 1, No.
1, 2001
[90] D. J.
Mueller, C. I. Chase, and J. D. Walden, “Effects of Reduced Class Sizes in
Primary Classes.” Educational
Leadership, 1988, Vol. 45, No. 7, pp. 48-50.
C. I. Chase, D. J. Mueller, and J. D. Walden, PRIME TIME:
Its Impact on Instruction and Achievement.
Final Report. Indianapolis, IN:
Indiana Department of Education, December 1986.
[91] E. Word, J.
Johnston, H. Pate-Bain, B. Fulton, J. Zaharias, C. M. Achilles, N. Lintz, J.
Folger, and C. Breda, Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR): Tennessee’s
K-3 Class Size Study. Final Report. Nashville, TN: Tennessee State Department of
Education, 1990.
J. D. Finn and C. M. Achilles, “Answers and Questions About
Class Size: A Statewide Experiment.” American
Educational Research Journal, 1990, Vol. 27, pp. 557-577
[92] J. D. Finn,
S. B. Gerber, C. M. Achilles, and J. Boyd-Zaharias, “The Enduring Effects of
Small Classes.” Teachers College
Record, 2001, Vol. 103, pp. 145-183.
[93] Finn,
Gerber, Achilles, and Boyd-Zaharias, 2001.
[94] A. B.
Krueger and D. M. Whitmore, Would Smaller Classes Help Close the Black-White
Achievement Gap? Princeton
University Industrial Relations Section Working Paper #451, March 2001. Available on the Internet at www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/working_papers.html
[95] H.
Goldstein and P. Blatchford, “Class Size and Educational Achievement: A Review
of Methodology with Particular Reference to Study Design.” British Educational Research Journal,
1998, Vol. 24, pp. 255-268.
B. Nye, L. V. Hedges, and S. Konstantopoulos, “The Effects
of Small Classes on Academic Achievement: The Results of the Tennessee Class
Size Experiment.” American
Educational Research Journal, 2000, Vol. 37, pp. 123-151.
A. B. Krueger, “Experimental estimates of educational
production functions.” Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 1999, Vol. 114, pp. 497-532.
[96] Krueger and
Whitmore, 2001.
[97] J. Finn and
J. Boyd-Zaharias, with support from the W. T. Grant Foundation, are conducting
a three-year study of “Antecedents and Consequences of High-School Gateway
Events.” This study includes an examination of post-secondary outcomes.
[98] J. D. Finn,
B. D. Fulton, J. Zaharias, & B. A. Nye, “Carry-over effects of small
classes.” Peabody Journal of
Education, 1989, Vol. 67, pp. 75-84.
[99] Word et
el., 1990. B. Harvey, An Analysis of Grade Retention for Pupils in K-3. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1993.
[100] C. M.
Achilles, Lets Put Kids First Finally: Getting Class Size Right. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1999. C. M. Achilles, J. D. Finn, and J.
Boyd-Zaharias, Small Classes Impact the Test-Score Achievement Gap
Positively. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Association of School Administrators, Orlando,
FL, February 2001.
[101] J. D. Finn,
S. B. Gerber, S. L. Farber, and C. M. Achilles, “Teacher Aides: An Alternative
to Small Classes?” In M. C. Wang and J.
D. Finn (Eds.), How Small Classes Help Teachers Do Their Best (pp.
131-174). Philadelphia: Temple
University Center for Research in Human Development and Education, and the U.
S. Department of Education, 2000.
[102] Ibid.
[103] Ibid.,
p. 165.
[104] Finn and
Achilles, 1990.
[105] C. M.
Achilles and J. D. Finn (October 2000). Small classes reduce the achievement
gap. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Council of the Great City Schools, Los Angeles.
C. S. Bingham, White-Minority Achievement Gap Reduction
and Small Class Size: A Research and Literature Review. Nashville, TN:
Center of Excellence for Research and Policy of Basic Skills, 1993.
[106] Krueger and
Whitmore, 2001.
[107] E. A.
Hanushek, “Some Findings from an Independent Investigation of the Tennessee
STAR Experiment and from Other Investigations of Class Size Effects,” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1999, Vol. 21, No 2, pp. 143-164.
J. F. Witte, “Reducing Class Size in Public Schools:
Cost-benefit Issues and Implications.” In S. W. M. Laine and J. G. Ward (Eds.),
Using What We Know: A Review of the Research on Implementing Class-Size
Reduction Initiatives for State and Local Policymakers (pp. 5-19). Oak
Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2000.
[108] Ehrenberg,
Brewer, Gamoran, and Willms, 2001
[109] Krueger,
1999.
[110] Nye, Hedges,
& Konstantopoulos, 1999.
[111] For example,
Witte, 2000.
[112] A. Molnar,
P. Smith, and J. Zahorik, 1998-99 Evaluation results of the student
achievement guarantee in education (SAGE) program. Milwaukee: University of
Wisconsin, School of Education, 1999.
A. Molnar, P. Smith, J. Zahorik, K. Ehrle, A. Halbach, and
B. Kuehl, 1999-00 Evaluation results of the student achievement guarantee in
education (SAGE) program. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin, School of
Education, 2000.
[113] Molnar,
Smith, Zahorik, Ehrle, Halbach, and Kuehl, 2000.
A. Molnar, P. Smith, J. Zahorik, A. Palmer, A. Halbach, and
K. Ehrle, “Wisconsin’s Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE)
Class-Size Reduction Program: Achievement Effects, Teaching and Classroom
Implications.” In M. C. Wang and J. D. Finn (Eds.), How Small Classes Help
Teachers Do Their Best (pp. 227-277).
Philadelphia: Temple University Center for Research in Human Development
and Education, and the U. S. Department of Education, 2000.
A. Molnar, P. Smith, J. Zahorik, A. Palmer, A. Halbach, and
K. Ehrle, “Evaluating the SAGE Program: A Pilot Program in Targeted
Pupil-Teacher Reduction in Wisconsin, “Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 1999, Vol. 21, No 2, pp. 165-177.
[114] Witte, 2000.
T. Hruz, The Costs and Benefits of Smaller Classes in
Wisconsin: A Further Evaluation of the SAGE Program. Milwaukee: Wisconsin
Policy Research Institute, 2000. [Online]. Available:
http://www.wpri.org.
[115] R.Legler,
“Implementing a Class-Size Reduction Policy: Barriers and Opportunities.” In S.
W. M. Laine and J. G. Ward (Eds.), Using What We Know: A Review of the
Research on Implementing Class-Size Reduction Initiatives for State and Local
Policymakers (pp. 75-83). Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory, 2000.
[116] P. Egelson,
P. Harman, and C. M. Achilles, Does Class Size Make a Difference? Recent Findings from State and District
Initiatives. Greensboro, NC:
Southeast Regional Vision for Education, 1996.
C. M. Achilles, P. Harman, and P. Egelson, “Using Research
Results on Class Size to Improve Pupil Achievement.” Research in the Schools, 1995, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 23-30.
[117] CSR Research
Consortium, Class Size Reduction in California: The 1998-1999 Evaluation
Findings. Sacramento, CA:
California State Department of Education, 2000.
G. W. Bohrnstedt, B. M. Stecher, and E. W. Wiley, “The
California Class Size Reduction Evaluation: Lessons Learned.” In M. C. Wang and J. D. Finn (Eds.), How Small
Classes Help Teachers Do Their Best (pp. 201-226). Philadelphia: Temple University Center for
Research in Human Development and Education, and the U. S. Department of
Education, 2000.
[118] B. Stecher,
G. Bohrnstedt, M. Kirst, J. McRobbie, and T. Williams, “Class-size Reduction in
California. A Story of Hope, Promise,
and Unintended Consequences.” Phi
Delta Kappan, May 2001, Vol. 82, pp. 670-674.
[119] Council of
the Great City Schools (CGCS), Reducing Class Size. A Smart Way to Improve America’s Urban Schools. Washington, DC: CGCS, October 2000.
U. S. Department of Education, The Class-Size Reduction
Program: Boosting Student Achievement in Schools Across the Nation – A
First-Year Report. Jessup, MD: Editorial Publications, U. S. Department of
Education, 2000.
[120] J. D. Finn
and C. M. Achilles, “Tennessee’s Class Size Study: Findings, Implications,
Misconceptions.” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1999, Vol. 21, pp. 97-109.
[121] Finn,
Gerber, Achilles, and Boyd-Zaharias, 2001.
[122] F.
Mosteller, “The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades.” The Future of Children, 1995, Vol. 5,
No. 2, pp. 113-127.
D. C. Orlich, “Brown v. Board of Education: Time for a
Reassessment.” Phi Delta Kappan,
1991, Vol. 72, pp. 631-632.
[123] For example,
the meeting of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences held in Boston in 1999
and others sponsored by the U. S. Department of Education.
[124] J. D. Finn,
S. B. Gerber, and G. M. Pannozzo, Evaluation of the Class Size Reduction
Initiative, Buffalo Public Schools 1999-2000. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo, August
2000.
[125] C. G. Arroyo
and M. Martinez, Building a Communication/Dissemination Network to Support
Class Size Reduction. Paper
presented at the National Invitational Conference on Taking Small Classes One
Step Further, Washington, DC, November 30-December 1, 2000.
[126] G. M.
Pannozzo and J. D. Finn, Professional Development and Support Needs of
Beginning Teachers. Paper presented
at the National Invitational Conference on Taking Small Classes One Step
Further, Washington, DC, November 30-December 1, 2000.
[127] Finn,
Gerber, and Pannozzo, 2000.
C. M. Achilles, J. D. Finn, and H. Pate-Bain, Base School
Restructuring Efforts on Long-Term Experimental Evidence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April 2001.
L. Bland, Evaluation of the Reduced-Ratio Program Final
Report. Fairfax, VA: Fairfax County
Public Schools, Office of Program Evaluation, 1997.
C. Howley-Rowe, “Thompson Elementary School: A Case
Report.” In M. C. Wang and J. D. Finn
(Eds.), How Small Classes Help Teachers Do Their Best (pp.
349-364). Philadelphia: Temple
University Center for Research in Human Development and Education, and the U.
S. Department of Education, 2000.
[128] Educational
Research Service, 1978; Robinson, 1990; Glass and Smith, 1978.
[129] M. Elliott,
“School finance and opportunities to learn: Does money well spent enhance
students’ achievement?” Sociology of
Education, 1998, Vol. 71, pp. 223-245.
[130] M. Boozer
and C. Rouse, Intraschool variation in class size: Patterns and implications. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Industrial Relations Section, Working Paper #344, June 1995.
[131] Finn and
Achilles, 1999.
[132] J. R. Betts
and J. L. Shkolnik, “The Behavioral Effects of Variations in Class Size: The
Case of Math Teachers.” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1999, Vol. 21, pp. 193-214.
J. King Rice, “The Impact of Class Size on Instructional
Strategies and the Use of Time in High School Mathematics and Science
Courses.” Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 1999, Vol. 21, No 2, pp. 215-230.
[133] Stecher et.
al, 2001, is one exception, although the data from California are only
suggestive at best.
[134] Achilles,
1999. Finn, Fulton, Zaharias, and Nye,
1989. CSR Research Consortium, 2000.
[135] J. M. Darley
and B. Latane, “Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of
Responsibility.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, Vol. 10, pp. 202-214.
[136] J. M. Levine
and R. L. Moreland, “Group Socialization: Theory and Research. In W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone (Eds.), The
European Review of Social Psychology, 1994, Vol. 5, pp. 305-336.
T. Postmes and R. Spears, “Deindividuation and Antinormative
Behavior: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological
Bulletin, 1998, Vol. 123, pp. 238-259.
[137] E. A.
Hanushek, The Evidence on Class Size.
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, W. Allen Wallis Institute of
Political Economy, 1998.
[138] Economic
Policy Institute (EPI), The Class Size Policy Debate. Working Paper No. 121. Washington, DC: EPI, October 2000.
[139] Finn and
Achilles, 1999.
C. M. Achilles and J. D. Finn, The Varieties of Small
Classes and Their Outcomes. Paper
presented at the National Invitational Conference on Taking Small Classes One
Step Further, Washington, DC, November 30-December 1, 2000.
[140] K. H. Miles,
“Freeing Resources for Improving Schools: A Case Study of Teacher Allocation in
Boston Public Schools.” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1995, Vol. 17, pp. 476-493.
M. Boozer and C. Rouse, Intraschool Variation in Class
Size. Patterns and Implications. Working Paper No. 344. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic
Research, Industrial Relations Section, 1995.
(ERIC Document No. ED 385 935)
[141] Ehrenberg,
Brewer, Gamoran, and Willms, 2001, p. 1. (Oddly, after making that point
emphatically, the authors include a 12-page review of research on pupil-teacher
ratios in their report, which is titled “Class Size and Student Achievement.”
[142] A. B.
Krueger, “An Economist’s View of Class Size Research.” In M. C. Wang and J. D. Finn (Eds.), How
Small Classes Help Teachers Do Their Best (pp. 99-130). Philadelphia: Temple University Center for
Research in Human Development and Education, and the U. S. Department of
Education, 2000, p. 101.
[143] H.
Wenglinsky, A Policy Information Memorandum: The Effect of Class Size on
Achievement. What the Research Says. [Online]. Available:
www.ets.org/research/pic/memorandum.html. Access
date 6/19/01.
H. Wenglinsky, When Money Matters: How Educational
Expenditures Improve Student Performance and How They Don’t, A policy
Information Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center,
Educational Testing Service, 1997.
[144] L. V. Hedges,
R. D. Laine, and R. Greenwald, “Does Money Matter? A Meta-Analysis of Studies of the Effects of Differential School
Inputs on Student Outcomes.” Educational
Researcher, April 1994, Vol. 23, pp. 5-14.
R. D. Laine, R. Greenwald, and L. V. Hedges, “Money Does
Matter: A Research Synthesis of a New Universe of Education Production Function
Studies.” In L. O. Pincus and J. L.
Wattenbarger (Eds.), Where Does the Money Go? Resource Allocation in Elementary and Secondary Schools (pp.
44-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, 1995.
[145] Krueger,
2000; Economic Policy Institute, 2000.
[146] D. Morgan and D. Alwin, “When Less is
More: School Size and Social
Participation,” Social Psychology
Quarterly, 43, 1980, pp. 241-252
[147] This discussion will use the phrase small
schools without quotes to indicate the entire realm of interest in
smaller-scale schooling, but with an emphasis on schools rather than classrooms
or school districts, though these features will receive consideration as
required to examine the related issues.
[148] Large-scale studies that produce generalizable
findings are privileged in this synthesis.
[149] K. Cotton, Affective and Social Benefits of
Small-Scale Schooling (ERIC Digest). Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and
Small Schools, 1996 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 401 088)
[150] See, for example:
K. Irmsher, School
Size (ERIC Digest). Eugene,
OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management, 1997 (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 414 615)
M. Klonsky, Small
Schools: The Numbers Tell a Story. A Review of Research and Current Experiences.
Chicago: Small Schools Workshop, 1995 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 386 517)
[151] A recent study confirms the policy importance
of conducting state-level analyses of the relationship between school size and
student achievement. Based on an
innovative methodology that combines information from the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), state reading assessments, and the Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS) in 20 states, Donald McLaughlin and Gili Drori estimate
that the relationship between class size and their experimental
achievement measure is almost exclusively a national-level phenomenon
(since the various states regulate class size rather stringently, within-state
variation in class size is much less than between-state variation). The situation is different, however, with
respect to school size. See:
D. McLaughlin and G.
Drori, School-Level Correlates of
Academic Achievement: Student
Assessment Scores in SASS Public Schools.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED ), 2000
McLaughlin and Drori report that school size varies more
within than between states (Table 7, p. 42).
McLaughlin and Drori, using national level data, and controlling for
SES, concluded that a modest positive relationship existed between
school size and their experimental achievement measure at the secondary level,
but not at the elementary or middle school level. This finding stands in sharp contrast to the findings summarized
in this review. In fact, however, Table
12 ( p. 48) demonstrates that state by
state regression coefficients of the experimental achievement measure regressed
on school size vary between -.44 and +.99, a finding that is seemingly
consistent with the interaction hypothesis that SES regulates the influence of
size on achievement (see subsequent consideration of this approach in the main
discussion). Findings from this study are
pointedly deemed “tentative” due to its emphasis on methodological
innovation. Indeed, the study is most
useful as a pioneering attempt to separate within and between state variability
in school size, class size, school climate and other supposed correlates of
achievement.
[152] An exception is V. Lee and J. Smith, “High
School Size: Which Works Best and for
Whom?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 1997 pp.
205-227
Threshold effects are substantial changes in results associated
with relatively modest changes in circumstances or conditions. Much of the
opinion literature suggests dramatic differences in outcomes for large versus
small schools, but fails to justify lines that might divide small from large.
That gap in the empirical literature is one reason that this review advises
readers to consider size in relatively (smaller and larger) rather than
categorically (small versus large).
Studies have used 300 or 400 as cut points for small 9-12
high school for some time. See:
J. Conant, The American High School Today: A
First Report to Citizens.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959
Lee and Smith, 1997
Elementary schools (K-8 or K-6) in the U.S. enroll about
half so many students as high schools, and, therefore, if 400 defines the upper
limit of “small” for high schools, 200 is a reasonable cut point for elementary
schools. Oakland’s new “Autonomous
Small Schools” policy defines as “small” those schools with enrollments up to
the following numbers of students: K‑5
– 250; K-8 – 400; K-12 – 500; 6-8 – 400; 6-12 – 500; 9-12 – 400. See:
Oakland Unified School District. New Small Autonomous Schools District Policy, May 2000. Available online: http://www.ousd.k12.ca.us/news/New_Schools/Revised_NSA_%20Policy.htm.
The recently adopted Feinstein amendment to the reauthorized
ESEA, which supports construction of “smaller schools,” defines as small
schools with enrollments less than the following maxima: K-5—500; 6-8—750;
9-12—1,500. See:
“U.S. Senate
Approves Feinstein Amendment to Build Smaller Schools,” Press Release, June 12,
2001. Available online:
http://feinstein.senate.gove/releases01/school_size_esea.html
The Feinstein limits
are two to five times higher than those proposed by most authorities. See:
C. Howley, Research on Smaller Schools: What Education Leaders Need to Know to Make
Better Decisions. Arlington,
VA: Educational Research Service, 2001.
They also stand in sharp contrast to the Oakland (CA)
limits, which are more consistent with positions held by most researchers and
small-schools advocates. In the
author’s view the Feinstein limits represent defensible absolute upper
limits of (large) size rather than cutpoints between small and “not small.”
See:
Howley, 2001
C. Howley, “Dumbing
Down by Sizing Up.” School
Administrator, 54(9), 1997, pp. 24‑26,28,30
In fact, a 9-12 high
school enrolling 1,400 students would be a large school according to the
school size researchers cited in this review.
Again, these figures are offered to readers as multiple reference
points; the work to be considered in this review does not focus on smallness
per se but on school size. For the very
wide state-by-state variations of high school size, see:
C. Howley and H.
Harmon, (Eds.), Small High Schools
That Flourish: Rural Context, Case
Studies, and Resources. Charleston, WV: AEL, Inc., 2000.
Finally, state capital outlay mechanisms reportedly have
widely set enrollment floors beneath which state funding for new construction
is unavailable. According to Barbara Lawrence, for instance, Alabama will not
fund K-6 schools enrolling fewer than 140 students or 9-12 high schools
enrolling fewer than 240. Kentucky will
not support construction of schools enrolling fewer than 300 (elementary), 400
(middle), or 500 (high schools) students.
Ohio will not fund construction of any school enrolling fewer than 350
students (any level). North Carolina
claims that “ideal” sizes for schools are 300-400 (elementary), 300-600
(middle), and 400-800 (high school).
Tennessee will not fund schools enrolling fewer than 100 (middle) and
300 (high school). Virginia recommends
the following sizes: 500-600
(elementary), 800-1200 (middle), and 1200-1500 (high school). West Virginia requires 50 students per grade
at the elementary level (i.e., 1-6 minimum enrollment of 300) and 150 students
per grade at the high school level (9-12 enrollment minimum of 600
students). By contrast, Nebraska will
not fund construction of high schools enrolling fewer than 25 students, and the
North Dakota high school minimum is 35. See:
B. Lawrence, Facilities
minimum # of students. [email
posting to facilities@lists.ruraledu.org, June 23, 2001, from
barbaralawrence@mediaone.net]
None of the positions
referenced in the Lawrence report is solidly warranted by research. Lower
limits of size are without any research justification at all, though the
positions in Nebraska and North Dakota are clearly consistent with much current
thinking about smaller school size. The Feinstein definition ("small"
defined as fewer than 1,500 students) substantially exceeds the upper
limits of size recommended in all recent reports known to this author. The
intent of the Feinstein amendment, readers should realize, appears to be to
prevent construction of mega-schools. For that purpose, 1,500 students seems a
reasonable dividing line between "large school" and
"mega-school." If 1,500 is accepted as line dividing small from
large, however, the likely result is to be the proliferation of large schools
masquerading as small schools. Educators should avoid this form of
self-deception.
[153] M. Fine and
J. Somerville, J. (Eds.), Small
Schools, Big Imaginations: A Creative Look at Urban Public Schools. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School
Reform. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 427127), 1998
Klonsky, 1995
D. Meier, The
Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for American from a Small School in Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press, 1995
P. Wasley, M. Fine, M. Gladden, N. Holland, S. King, E.
Mosak, and L. Powell, Small Schools, Great Strides: A Study of New Small Schools in Chicago. New York:
Bank Street College of Education, 2000
[154] Howley
and Harmon, 2000
Only a few studies have conducted before- and
after-consolidation comparisons The general finding is that the desired cost
benefits are not likely to be realized. See:
T. Schwinden and L. Brannon, School Reorganization in Montana: A Time for Decision.
Helena, MT: Montana School
Boards Association., 1993
J. Streifel, G. Foldsey,
and D. Holman, “The Financial Effects of Consolidation,” Journal
of Research in Rural Education, 7(2), pp. 13-20, 1991
R. Valencia, School Closures and Policy Issues
(Policy Paper No. 84-C3), Stanford,
CA: Institute for Research on
Educational Finance and Governance, 1984
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323 040)
Astute observers agree that promises of monetary savings
are exaggerations and that consolidation’s real purpose is to reallocate
expenditures away from funds required to maintain smaller units and toward
other purposes. See, for instance:
E. Cubberley, Rural Life and Education: A Study of the Rural-School Problem as a
Phase of the Rural-Life Problem. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1915. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 392 559)
R. Dunn, The
Rural Education Dichotomy:
Disadvantaged Systems and School Strengths. Oak Park, IL: North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory, 2000. Available
online: http://www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/html/dichot.htm
[155] Howley and
Harmon, 2000
[156] Ibid.
[157] S. Lawton, “School Size, Cost, and
Quality,” School Business Affairs,
November 1999, pp. 19-21.
[158] National
averages obscure the real dimensions of practice locally. The smallest public
K-6 school in the US (in Nebraska) enrolled four students in 1997-1998, whereas
the largest 9-12 high school (in Florida) enrolled about 5,160. See:
National Center for
Education Statistics, Common Core of
Data (CCD): School Years 1993-94
through 1997-98 (CD-ROM; NCES 2000-370), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement., 2000.
[159] One reason that schools continue to grow
larger is that the people who plan them misunderstand the issue of school
size. The author has worked with school
systems whose leadership teams have planned consolidated elementary-level
schools with narrow grade-span configurations (e.g., K-4 or 3-6) projected to
enroll (in rural areas) between 1,000 and 2,000 students. Elementary schools of this size are
mega-schools like the center city high schools enrolling 2,000 to 4,000
students and thought to be far too large to serve students well.
[160] A small literature is emerging on the
relationship of student achievement to grade span configuration. See, for
example:
R. Bickel, C. Howley,
T. Williams, and C. Glascock, “Will the
Real ‘Texas Miracle in Education Please Stand Up? Grade Span Configuration, Achievement, and Expenditure Per Pupil,” Education Policy Analysis Archives (Online). In Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 447 995)
B. Franklin and C. Glascock, “The Relationship Between Grade
Configuration And Student Performance In Rural Schools,” Journal of Research in Rural Education,
14(3), 1998, pp. 149-153.
D. Wihry, T. Coladarci, and C. Meadow, “Grade span and eighth-grade academic
achievement: Evidence from a
predominantly rural state,” Journal of Research in rural Education, 8(2),
1992, pp. 58-70.
Wihry and colleagues
found that 8th grade student achievement in Maine was highest in K-8
schools as opposed to middle schools or 7-12 high schools. Franklin and Glascock found that 6th and 7th grade students performed
better in K-12 schools, and high school achievement did not differ significantly
as compared to other schools. Bickel
and colleagues concluded that small K-12 schools in Texas not only helped
mitigate the negative relationship between SES and achievement but were cost
effective.
[161] In other words, bricks-and-mortar is not
quite the impediment to creating smaller schools that it is usually made out to
be. What really gets in the way of
reconfiguring grade spans in this way? The way professional educators think
about child development is a likely culprit.
Narrower grade span configurations supposedly cater better to the
“developmental needs” primary, elementary, and secondary students. In the example, the three narrowly
configured schools house all students in the district, and they may be located
on a single campus. Creating three
K-8 schools on a single campus violates professional norms about
“developmentally appropriate education” that are themselves the outcome of long
struggle. Creating three K-8 schools
would also be viewed as a slap in the face to the communities whose K-8 schools
were originally closed to make the single-campus, more “developmentally
appropriate” schools. In short,
ideology, more than bricks-and-mortar, may be at stake.
[162] R. Bickel and C. Howley, “The Influence of Scale on Student
Performance: A Multi-Level Extension of
the Matthew Principle,” Education
Policy Analysis Archives (Online), 8 (22), 2000. Available World Wide Web:
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v8n22.html.
[163] Howley, 2001
[164] Howley,
1997; Howley, 2001
[165] T. Sergiovanni, “Organizations or Communities?
Changing the Metaphor Changes the Theory,” Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 1994, pp.
214-226.
[166] Meier, 1995
[167] Lawton, 1999
[168] Rural Trust,
“Busing hearings in West Virginia:
Citizens tell their tales,”
Rural Policy Matters (Newsletter), February 2000. (Available online: http://www.ruralchallengepolicy.org/rpm/rpm.html)
[169] Howley and
Harmon, 2000
[170] M. Raywid,
Remarks in online forum, “How do we downsize our schools?” hosted by the ERIC
Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, October, 2000 (Available online:
http://www.ael.org/eric/scaletrn.htm)
[171] R. Riley,
“Schools as centers of community,” speech delivered at the annual
meeting of the American Institute of Architects, Washington, DC, October 13,
1999. (Available online:
http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/10-1999/991013.html)
[172] M. Fulton,
The ABC’s of Investing in Student Performance, Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, 1996
[173] National
Association of Secondary School Principals and the Carnegie Foundation, Breaking ranks: Changing an American institution. Reston, VA: Author.,
1996 (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 393 205)
[174] M. Raywid, personal communication, June 2001
V. Lee with J. Smith,
Restructuring High Schools For Equity And Excellence, New York:
Teachers College Press, 2001
SWAS is one strategy used to humanize large schools. Schools thus “humanized” may be newly built
– designed around houses, pods, or one or several separately run “schools
within the school.” Lee with Smith notes “our own field-based research in five
[urban] high schools divided into schools-within-schools has suggested that
social stratification is a definite possibility with this reform.” (p. 143)
As a strategy to simulate smallness in a newly constructed
and intentionally large school (a not uncommon contemporary scenario in rural
areas), the simultaneous deployment of the SWAS stratagem should be viewed as
cynical because research evidence of the effectiveness of SWAS in simulating
the achievement advantage of small size is negligible. Even evaluation evidence on SWAS is much
thinner than the school size research evidence reported in this review. Small schools—each with its own faculty,
principal, unique curriculum and co-curriculum, and fiscal autonomy—can, of
course, be housed under a single roof.
This arrangement, however, is much less common than SWAS
arrangements that more resemble grouping arrangements than they resemble
autonomous schools with evident organizational integrity -- i.e., all those
things that make a school a “school”. See Meier, 1995, for a very thoughtful
consideration.
[175] Lee and
Smith, 1997, p. 217
[176] See, for instance, Bickel and Howley, 2000;
Franklin and Glascock, 1998; and Lee and Smith, 1997.
The poverty-related portion of the search strategy used
was “poverty OR disadvantaged OR socioeconomic status OR socioeconomic
influence.” From 1966-2001 31 ERIC resources
were classified with indexing terms noted as major topics (descriptors
so indicated) of the documents and as also being “research reports.” Of these 31, 9 were either not focused
on these three issues or represented a conference paper subsequently published
in the journal literature (and which should therefore be considered a duplicate
entry for this assessment). Of the
remaining 22, just 10 were also published as journal articles. The search was illustrative rather than definitive: it did not retrieve all of the focal studies
discussed in this review.
[177] Building on prior findings in Alaska,
California, and West Virginia, the Matthew Project was particularly concerned
to investigate the possible contributions of small size to academic success in
impoverished communities regardless of rural, suburban, or urban locale. The Matthew Project, with funding
(1997-1999) from the Rural School and Community Trust, investigated the
Friedkin and Necochea hypothesis of possible equity and excellence effects of
school and district size in Georgia, Montana, Ohio, and Texas. The project title refers to a parable about
stewardship in the gospel according to Matthew (13:12); “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given,
and he shall have more abundance: but
whosoever hath not, from shall be taken away even that he hath.”
[178] Bickel and
Howley, 2000
N. Friedkin and J.
Necochea, “School System Size and Performance:
A Contingency Perspective,” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis 10 (3), 1988, pp. 237-249
C. Howley, “Compounding Disadvantage: The Effects of School
and District Size on Student Achievement in West Virginia,” Journal of Research in Rural Education, 12
(1), 1996, pp. 25-32.
C. Howley, Sizing
Up Schooling: A West Virginia Analysis
and Critique, Dissertation
Abstracts International (A), 57 (3), p. 940, 1996 (University Microfilms No. AAT 9622575)
C. Howley and R.
Bickel, The Matthew Project: National Report. Randolph, VT: Rural School and Community Trust Policy
Program, 1999 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 433 174)
G. Huang and C. Howley, “Mitigating
Disadvantage: Effects of Small-Scale
Schooling on Student Achievement in Alaska,” Journal of Research in Rural
Education, 9(3), 1993, pp. 137-149
[179] Howley, Sizing Up Schooling, 1996
[180] Friedkin and Necochea, 1988
[181] See, for instance, Lee and Smith, 1997
Not considered here
are the wide claims made about the general superiority of small versus
large schools on a host of input (e.g., cost, curriculum, faculty
characteristics), process (e.g., faculty cohesion, student alienation,
truancy), and output (e.g., self-esteem, postsecondary enrollment rates,
postsecondary success) measures.
Readers interested to assess such claims should consult the works cited
in:
M. Raywid, Current Literature on Small Schools
(ERIC Digest). Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and
Small Schools, 1999 (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 425 049);
Irmsher, 1997
Cotton, Affective and Social Benefits of Small-Scale
Schooling, 1996
K. Cotton, School Size, School Climate, and Student
Performance (Close-Up No. 20), Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory, 1996 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 476)
In the author’s view,
qualitative or mixed-method accounts of the experience of small-scale schooling
(Meier, 1995; Wasley et al., 2000) are a more appropriate source of insight
into such disparate issues as faculty collegiality or cohesion, student
self-actualization, and leadership than large-scale studies can ever be.
[182] W. Fowler, What Do We Know About School
Size? What Should We Know? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 1992 (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 347 675)
W. Fowler and H. Walberg,
“School Size, Characteristics, And Outcomes,” Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 1991, pp. 189-202
H. Walberg, “District Size and Student Learning,” Education and Urban Society, 21(2),
1989, pp. 154-163.
H. Walberg and W. Fowler, “Expenditure and Size Efficiencies
of Public School Districts,” Educational
Researcher, 16(7), 1987, pp. 5-13.
H. Walberg and H.
Walberg, “Losing local control,” Educational Researcher, 23(5), 1994,
pp. 19-26.
[183] V. Lee and
S. Loeb, “School Size in Chicago
Elementary Schools: Effects on
Teachers’ Attitudes and Students’ Achievement,” American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 2000, pp.
3-31.
V. Lee and J. Smith, “Effects of School Restructuring on the
Achievement and Engagement of Middle-Grade Students,” Sociology of Education, 66(3), 1993, pp. 164-187
V. Lee and J. Smith, “Effects of High School Restructuring
and Size on Early Gains in Achievement and Engagement,”. Sociology of Education, 68(3), 1995,
pp. 241-270.
Lee with Smith, 2001
[184] R. Bickel, School
Size, Socioeconomic Status, and Achievement:
A Georgia Replication of Inequity in Education, Randolph, VT: Rural Challenge Policy Program., 1999 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 433 985)
R. Bickel, School Size, Socioeconomic Status, and
Achievement: A Texas Replication of
Inequity in Education, Randolph,
VT: Rural Challenge Policy Program,
1999 (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 433 986)
Bickel and Howley, 2000
Bickel, Howley, Glascock and Williams, in press
C. Howley, The
Matthew Project: State Report for
Montana, Randolph, VT: Rural Challenge Policy Program., 1999 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
433 173)
C. Howley, The Matthew Project: State Report for Ohio,
Randolph, VT: Rural Challenge
Policy Program, 1999. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 433 175)
C. Howley, “Compounding Disadvantage,” 1996
C. Howley, Sizing up Schooling, 1996
Huang & Howley, 1993
[185] Differences
in the unit of analysis and the definition of the dependent variable
(achievement level in the Howley and Walberg teams’ work and achievement gain
in the Lee team’s) make direct comparison of study findings inappropriate.
[186] Nearly
everyone can agree that mitigating the negative influence of poverty
is a public good. But what about
mitigating the negative influence of SES overall? The question is worth asking because the notion that the positive
influence of affluence on academic achievement is also unfair strikes
many people as too politically radical a position, suggesting, as it does, that
the negative influence of poverty is related to the positive influence of
affluence. The fear seems to be that
reducing the influence of SES overall may repress the academic competence of
students from affluent backgrounds (an effect known since at least the 17th
century as “leveling”). But this is not
necessarily so. In the context of this
concern, Mark Fetler’s study is very important, as it shows that reduced
dropout rates (in his California data) are associated with higher levels of
achievement. See:
M. Fetler, “School Dropout Rates, Academic Performance,
Size, and Poverty: Correlates of
Educational Reform,” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 1989, pp. 109‑116.
One should speculate that learning is not a “zero-sum game”
and that productive synergies in healthy schools and districts can indeed
improve the intellectual lot of students quite broadly. The Lee and Howley teams, as well, show a
link between excellence and equity.
[187] Fowler and
Walberg, 1991; Walberg, 1989; Walberg and Fowler, 1987; Walberg and Walberg,
1994.
[188] Lee and
Smith used a two-level hierarchical linear model (students nested within
schools) with student gain scores the dependent variable. SES controls are in place for both levels of
the analyses in Lee and Smith (1997), which, for the purpose of this review, is
the most seminal article in the Lee team series.
[189] Regression
analysis predicts one variable (“dependent variable”) from an assortment of
other variables (“independent variables”).
The equations take this general form:
z = ax + by + c, which should be familiar to readers from their days in
high school algebra classes. The
studies described are all based on some variation of this basic equation. For the purposes of this review, z could
represent predicted achievement, x could represent SES, and y could represent
school size (a, b, and c would be constants that describe the slope and intercept
of the equation). The variables x
and y are the “independent variables” that predict achievement, z,
with known degrees of strength and accuracy.
[190] Friedkin
and Necochea, 1988
[191] Size-related opportunities, according to
Friedkin and Necochea’s theory, are (1) economies of scale, (2) market
domination (a sort of monopoly influence over funders), (3) benefits of size
when funding is awarded on a percentage basis, and (4) ability to improve
operations (talent, expertise, facilities).
Size-related constraints include (1) problems of coordination and
control, (2) factionalism among line personnel, (3) increased free-riding
(deflection of resources to irrelevant functions), (4) administrative bloat
(deflection of resources to administration), and (5) special program bloat
(deflection of resources away from the mass of students and toward exceptional
students).
[192] Friedkin
and Necochea, 1988, p. 240
[193] See, for example, Fowler and Walberg, 1991;
Walberg, 1989; Walberg and Fowler, 1987
[194] Fetler, 1989
[195] Walberg and Fowler, 1987, Fowler and Walberg,
1991.
[196] Fowler and Walberg 1991
[197] In bivariate analyses, district enrollment
reported in Walberg and Fowler, 1989,
correlated between -.24 (third grade) and -.56 (ninth grade) with
achievement. The regression
coefficients of school size in the focal studies (Walberg & Fowler, 1987;
Fowler & Walberg, 1991) remained negative and were the most influential
variables after SES. The net
magnitude of school size, however, was not great.
Beta weights (standardized regression coefficients) for school
size varied between about -.05 and -.10 in Fowler and Walberg (1991). This means that for every increase of
one-standard deviation in school size--approximately 520 students--the average
test score of a school would decrease by 1/20th to 1/10th of a standard
deviation; e.g., a decrease of 1% passing the then-mandated New Jersey high
school proficiency test in reading, for each additional 520 students enrolled
in a high school (Beta = -.05). In
fact, the influence of the number of schools in the district (a measure
of district size) in most of the equations exerted a much stronger influence
than did school size, a fact which received no comment in the discussion
section of this article. In the case of
the percentage passing the reading test, for instance, the strength of this
influence was equivalent to an average 35% decrease in percent passing for each
additional 14 schools in the district.
Now, readers should understand that New Jersey maintains over 600 districts,
ranging from very small rural-suburban districts to extremely large inner-city
districts. Outlier districts were not
removed from the analysis in Walberg (1991) and this fact may partially account
for the strong influence of this measure of district size.
[198] Fetler, 1989
[199] (r=-0.24).
This is a somewhat lower correlation than prevailed in New Jersey, but still
stronger than in many states, where bivariate correlations generally hover near
zero.
[200] Fetler’s results also suggest a kind of
mediating role for size, though the use of achievement as an independent rather
than a dependent variable would tend to obscure such a relationship, if it
existed. Hypothetically, his findings
are related to the work of the Howley and Lee teams, in which equity and
excellence are cultivated simultaneously in smaller schools.
[201] This entire
body of work -- Lee & Smith, 1993, 1995, 1997 -- is summarized in Lee with
Smith, 2001
[202] Lee and
Smith, 1997
[203] In
300-student increments: <300,
301-600, 601-900, 901-1200, 1201-1500 (the category to which relative effects
were compared), 1501-1800, 1801-2100, and >2100. Lee and Smith, 1997
[204] Effect sizes were approximately as
follows (301-600: -0.1 in mathematics, +0.2 in reading;
601-900: +1.6 in mathematics, +0.6 in
reading; 901-1200: +0.6 in mathematics,
+0.4 in reading). Negative effect sizes
in all other categories (except 1201-1500, the reference category, with effect
sizes equated to zero) ranged from about -.03 to about -1.8.
[205] This concept
refers to the comparative strength of the relationship between SES and
achievement. A strong relationship is inequitable, and a weak relationship is
more equitable. A statistically non-significant relationship (reported for some
analyses in this line of research) is equitable by definition
[206] Effect
size of 3.2
[207] Lee and Smith, 1997
[208] Alaska
(Huang and Howley, 1993); Georgia (Bickel, School Size…Georgia, 1999;
Bickel and Howley, 2000); Ohio (Howley, Matthew Project…Ohio, 1999);
Montana (Howley, Matthew Project…Montana, 1999); Texas (Bickel, School
Size…Texas, 1999; Bickel, Howley, Glascock & Williams, 2001); West
Virginia (Howley, “Compounding
Disadvantage” and Sizing Up Schooling, both 1996)
The model was Friedkin and Necochea, 1988. Friedkin and Necochea, however, did not
investigate equity effects of size.
[209] This concept
refers to differences in achievement level associated with the interaction of
SES and size. This line of research found that the effect of size is not
constant, but changeable, depending on SES.
[210] The Montana
system enrolls about 12% American Indian students, and predominately Indian
schools were included in the data set.
[211] Huang and
Howley, 1993
[212] Bickel and
Howley, 2000
[213] The four categories follow: (1) larger schools in larger districts, (2)
smaller schools in larger districts, (3) larger schools in smaller districts,
and (4) smaller schools in smaller districts.
[214] For example, Howley and Harmon, 2000.
[215] With a few
exceptions. See
L. Baird, “Big School, Small School: A Critical Examination of the Hypothesis,” Journal
of Educational Psychology, 60(4), 1969, pp. 253-260
.James Coleman’s famous Equality of Educational
Opportunity Report was, circa 1966, among the first to report an overall
negative correlation of school size and achievement, about r = -.10 See:
Howley, “Compounding Disadvantage,” 1996
[216] See C.
Howley, School District Size and
School Performance, Charleston,
WV: AEL, Inc., 2000 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
448 961)
[217] Lee and Smith, 1997
[218] To achieve the “ideal” high school size, many
states would have to implement massive consolidations that (as in the Montana
case) are not feasible on account of terrain or population density, or, in
fact, community preference. The very
notion of an ideal size derives conceptually from an abstraction (the nation as
a whole) that has little bearing on the social institutions and circumstances
that have actually determined school size.
Given the shortcoming of national data sets for approaching the issues
of school and district size, the author advises educators to look skeptically
on one-size-fits-all prescriptions.
Such prescriptions in educational matters seem remarkably unresponsive
to the variety of lifeways and purposes that characterize U.S. society. For a
full discussion as related to schooling, see:
S. Arons, A short route to chaos: Conscience, community,
and the reconstitution of American schooling. Amherst, MA: University of
Massachusetts Press, 1997
The cultural tenor of
the current era (postmodern or information-age) rejects one-best solutions in
favor of multiple perspectives.
[219] J. Guthrie,
“Organizational Scale and School Success,” Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 1 (1), 1979, pp. 17-27.
R. Slater, “Education
Scale,” Education and Urban Society, 21(2), 1989, pp. 207-217
[220] R. Jewell,
“School and School District Size Relationships,” Education and Urban Society, 21(2), 1989, pp. 140-153.
[221] See Bickel and Howley, 2000
[222] See
Fowler, 1992; Huang and Howley, 1993; and Lee and Loeb, 2000, for related
discussions.
[223] This
discussion, in particular, relies heavily on a similar section in Howley, Research
on Smaller Schools: What Education
Leaders Need to Know to Make Better Decisions, 2001.
[224] This is so
partly because the state-to-state variation of what might be considered a small
school is very wide, a variation that the author regards as properly responsive
to the local circumstances prevailing within states.
[225] See, for
example, Cotton, Affective and Social Benefits… and School Size,
School Climate…, both 1996; Howley, 2001; Irmsher, 1997; Raywid, 1999
[226] See Howley,
1997, 2001
[227] Again, readers are cautioned to recognize
that a K-2 school enrolling 500 students is a very large school indeed; in
comparison, a K-8 school of 500 is one-third the size.
[228] See Lee
& Smith, 1997, for a tempering view.
[229] C. Howley,
A. Howley, and E. Pendarvis, Anti-intellectualism
and Talent Development in American Schooling. New York: Teachers
College Press, 1995
[230] Howley,
1997, 2001; Howley and Harmon, 2000
[231] The danger with upper limits is that they are
confused with “optimal” or “ideal” size.
The point of the Feinstein legislation is to encourage the construction
of schools smaller than these maxima.
Readers should note well that these upper limits accord with many
interpreters’ views of the absolute upper limit of school size, which means
that these upper limits describe large, not small, schools. In practice, many administrators may be
tempted to build schools as large as the upper limits given in the Feinstein
amendment in order to maximize both size and resources. Administrators are largely responsible for
the construction of large schools and districts (see Howley, 1997, 2001).
[232] Most of the
research about educator salaries concerns salary level, rather than
between-district differences (inequities). Inequities are theoretically
important because of their probable influence on a district's organizational
capacity to sustain improvement efforts. A few studies treat the issue of
between-district differences tangentially, and just one (Beaudin, 1998)
considers the issue directly (ERIC searches conducted by the author in October,
2001). In a Connecticut study, Beaudin found that districts filled 20% of
vacancies with "migrants" from other districts. The migrants were
younger and less experienced than the 80% of within-district hires, and they
received larger salary increases as a result of "migrating."
Disadvantaged districts lost more migrants than did advantaged districts. In general,
it seems, wealthier and larger districts pay higher salaries than poorer and
smaller districts (a hypothesis confirmed by Ready & Hart, 1993, in an Ohio
study). The issue of statewide salary equity is vastly under-researched and
merits substantially more attention from researchers and policy makers. In the
meantime, the recommendation given is based on logic, the small extant research
base, and the counsel of superintendents of small districts interviewed by
Howley and Harmon.
See: Howley and Harmon, 2000
K. Ready and M. Hart, “Pattern Bargaining in Education,” Education
Economics, Vol. 1. No. 3, 1993, pp. 259-266
B. Beaudin, Teacher Interdistrict Migration: A Comparison
of Teacher, Position, and District Characteristics for the 1992 and 1997
Cohorts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 1998. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Number ED 422 616)
[233] Howley,
2001
[234] Howley and
Harmon, 2000
[235] Cawelti, G.
and Adkinsson, J. (1985). ASCD study reveals elementary school time allocations
for subject areas: other trends noted. ASCD Curriculum Update, April,
1-10
[236] Berliner,
D. C. (1984). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching. Pp. 51-77
in Hosford, P. L. (Ed.) Using What We Know About Teaching. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[237] Walberg, H.
J., Paschal, R. A. and Weinstein, T. (1985). Homework's powerful effects on
learning. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 76-79.
[238] Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research
on homework. Educational Leadership, 46(November), 85-91.
[239] Cobb, R.
B., Abate, S., and Baker, D. (1999).
Effects on students of a 4 X 4 junior high school block scheduling program. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 7(3). Available:
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n3.html.
[240] Veal, W. R.
and Schreiber, J. (1999). Block scheduling effects on a
state mandated test of basic skills. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(29).
Available http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n29.html.
[241] Wiley,
D.E., and Harnischfeger, A. (1974). Explosion of a myth: Quantity of schooling
and exposure to instruction, major educational vehicles. Educational
Researcher, 3(April), 7- 12.
[242] Coleman,
J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D.,
and York, R.L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
[243] Wiley, D.E., and Harnischfeger, A. (1973). Another hour,
another day: Quantity of schooling, a potent path for policy. University of
Chicago, Studies of Educative Processes. Report No. 3.
[244] Karweit,
N. (1976a). Quantity of schooling: A major educational factor? Educational
Researcher, 5(February), 15-17.
Karweit, N. (1976b). A reanalysis of
the effect of quantity of schooling on achievement. Sociology of
Education, 49, 236-246.
[245] Karweit, N. (1976a). Op cit. P. 17.
[246] Smith, N.M.
(1979). Allocation of time and achievement in elementary social studies. Journal
of Educational Research, 72, 231-236.
[247] Brown,
B.W., and Saks, D.H. (1986). Measuring the effects of instructional time on
student learning: Evidence from the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study. American
Journal of Education, 94, 480-500.
[248] Blai, B. (1986). Educational reform: It's about 'time'. The
Clearing House, 60, 38-40.
[249] Borg, W.R. (1980). Time and school learning. In Denham, C. and Lieberman, A. (Eds.) Time
to Learn. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
[250] Cotton, K.,
and Savard, W.G. (1981). Time factors in learning. Portland, OR: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory. (ED 214 706).
[251] Fredrick, W.C., and Walberg, H.J. (1980). Learning as a
function of time. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 183- 194.
[252] Honzay,
A. (1986-1987). More is not necessarily better. Educational Research
Quarterly, 11, 2-6.
[253] Karweit, N. (1985). Should we lengthen the school term? Educational
Researcher, 14, 9-15.
[254] Lomax,
R.G., and Cooley, W.W. (1979). The student achievement-instructional time
relationship. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center,
University of Pittsburgh. (ED 179 598).
[255] Mazzarella,
J.A. (1984). Longer day, longer year: Will they make a difference? Principal,
63(1), 14-20.
[256] Walberg,
H. J. , and Tsai, S. (1984). Reading achievement and diminishing returns to
time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 442-451.
[257] Odden, A. (1983). School finance reform: Past, present and
future. Issuegram #26. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
[258] Glass, G.V (1984). A meta-analysis of effectiveness of four
educational interventions. IFG Project Paper. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance.
[259] Levin, H.M.
& Glass, G.V. (1987). Cost-effectiveness of Computer Assisted Instruction. Evaluation
Review, 11, 50-72.
[260] Levin,
H.M.; Glass, G.V.; & Meister, G.R. (1987). Different approaches to
improving performance at school. Zeitschrift für Internationale Erziehungs
und Sozial Wissenschaftliche Forschung, 3, 156-176.
[261] Levin,
H. M. (1983). Length of school day and
year. ERS Bulletin, 11 (December), 8.
[262] Levin, H.M.; Glass, G.V.; & Meister, G.R. (1987). Op
cit.
[263] Levin,
H.M., and Tsang, M.C. (1987). The economics of student time. Economics of Education
Review, 6, 357-364.
[264] Stigler, J.
W. and Stevenson, H. W. (1991). How Asian teachers polish each lesson to
perfection. American Educator, 15(1), 12-20, 43-47.
[265] Barrett, M.
J. (1990). The case for more school days. The Atlantic Monthly,
November, 78-106.
[266] Bracey, G.
W. (2000). The TIMSS final year study and report: A critique. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 4-10.
[267] Kreitzer,
A. and Glass, G. V.(1990). Policy
considerations in conversion to year-round schools. New Brunswick Educational
Administrator. No. 19 (April), 1-5.
Pelavin, Sol H. (1979). A study of Year-round Schools.
Volume I: Final Report. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
[268] Dempster,
F. N. (1991). Synthesis of research on reviews and tests. Educational
Leadership, 48(7), 71-76.
[269] George, C.
and Glass, G.V (1982).
Evaluation Report on the Mesa County Valley School District Year-Round
School Program. Laboratory of Educational Research, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado.
George, C. and Glass, G. V (1983). Evaluation Report on the Mesa County Valley School District
Year-Round School Program, 1982-83.
Laboratory of Educational Research, University of Colorado, Boulder,
Colorado.
[270] Shepard, M.
and Reed, M. (1975). A Research Agenda
for Year-Round Schools: Executive Summary. Volume I. Cambridge, MA: Abt
Associates Inc.
[271] Smith, M.
L. and Glass, G. V (1975). Evaluation
of Year-Round Schools, Cherry Creek District 5. Bureau of Educational Field Services, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado.
Smith, M. L. and Glass, G. V (1976). Evaluation of Year-Round Schools, Cherry
Creek District 5 Second Year Final Report.
Evaluation Research Services, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
[272] Naylor, C.
(1995). Do year-round schools improve student learning? An annotated
bibliography and synthesis of the research. BCTF Research Report. Vancouver:
British Columbia Teachers' Foundation. Available:
http://www.bctf.bc.ca/ResearchReports/95ei03/.
[273] Zykowski et
al. (1991). A Review of Year-Round Education Research. California Educational Research
Co-operative.
[274] Carriedo,
R.A. & Goren, P. D. (1989). Year-Round Education Through Multi-Track
Schools. San Francisco, CA: Far
West Laboratory, Brief No 10.
[275] Campbell,
W.D. (1994). Year round schooling for academically At-Risk students:
Outcomes and perceptions of participants in an elementary program. ERS
Spectrum, 12(3).
[276] Webster, W.
E and Nyberg, K. L. (1992). Converting a high school to YRE. Thrust for
Educational Leadership, 21(6), 22-25.
[277] Webster, W.
E. and Nyberg, K. L. (1992). Op cit. P. 25.
[278] Harp, L.
(1993). Advocates of year round schooling shift focus to educational benefits. Education
Week, (February 24).
[279] Ibid.
[280] Allinder,
R.M., Fuchs, L.S. Fuchs, D. & Hamlett, C.L. (1992). Effects of summer break
on math and spelling performance as a function of grade level. The Elmentary
School Journal, 92(4).
[281] Tilley, B.
K., Cox, L. S., and Staybrook, N. (1986). An extended school year validation
study. (Report No. 86-2). Seattle: Seattle Public Schools.
[282] Cooper,
H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., and Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects
of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic
review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 227-268.
[283] From a
survey conducted in Fall 2000 by Public Agenda. See
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues.
[284] McMahon, J. (1983). Extended school year programs. Exceptional
Children, 49, 457-461.
[285] Heyns, B.
(1978). Educational effects: Issues in conceptualization and measurement. In Richardson,
J. G. (Ed.). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
[286] Cooper, H.,
Charlton, K., Valentine, J. C., and Muhlenbruck, L. (2000). Making the most of
summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 65(1, Serial No. 260).
[287] Otto, H. J.
(1950). Elementary education–III. Organization and administration. In Monroe,
W. S. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: MacMillan.
[288] Conant, J.
B. (1959). The American High School.
New York: McGraw-Hill
[289] Rosenbaum,
J. E. (1976). Making inequality: The hidden curricula of high school
tracking. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[290] Bowles, S.
and Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic
Books.
[291] Oakes, J.
(1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
[292] Loveless, T.
(Undated). The Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate. Available:
http://www.edexcellence.net/library/track.html#anchor979998
[293] Braddock, J.
H. (1980). The perpetuation of segregation across levels of education: A
behavior assessment of the contact-hypothesis. Sociology of Education, 53(3),
178-186.
[294] Darling-Hammond,
L. (1995). Inequality and access to knowledge, in Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.), Handbook of
research on multicultural education. New York: Macmillan.
[295] Esposito, D.
(1973). Homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping: Principal findings and
implications for evaluating and designing more effective educational
environments. Review of Educational Research, 43(2), 163-179
[296] Hobson v.
Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401 (1967)
[297] Dreeben, R.
and Barr, R. (1988). The formation and instruction of ability groups. American
Journal of Education, 97(1), 34-65
[298] Hoffer,
T.B. (1992). Middle school ability grouping. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 14(3), 205-227
[299] Epstein, J.
L. and
MacIver, D. J. (1990). Education in the Middle Grades: Overview of
National Practices and Trends. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on
Elementary and Middle Schools.
[300] Scherer, M.
(1992/1993). On Savage Inequalities: A conversation with Jonathan Kozol. Educational Leadership, 50(4), 4-9.
[301] Lucas, S.
(1999). Tracking Inequality: Stratification and Mobility in American Schools.
New York: Teachers College Press.
[302] Welner, K.
G. (2001). Legal rights, local wrongs: When community control collides with
educational equity. New York: SUNY Press. p. 199
[303] Ibid.,
pp. 202-203
[304] National Education
Association. (1968). Ability Grouping. Research summary 1968-53.
Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.
[305] Welner, 2001 Op cit.
[306] Useem, E. L.
(1992). Middle schools and math groups:
Parents involvement in children’s placement. Sociology of Education, 65(4),
263-279.
[307] Oakes, J.,
Wells, A. S., and associates. (1996). Beyond
the Technicalities of School Reform: Policy Lessons from Detracking Schools. Los
Angeles: UCLA Graduate School of Education.
[308] Whipple, G.
M. (Ed.) (1936). The grouping of
pupils. Thirty-fifth Yearbook, Part I, National Society for the Study of
Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[309] Kulik,
C.-L., and J. A. Kulik. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school
students: A meta-analysis of evaluation
findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 415-428.
Kulik, C. L., and J. A. Kulik. (1984). Effects of ability
grouping on elementary school pupils: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada. (ERIC No. ED 255 329).
Kulik, J. A., and C.-L. Kulik. (1984). Effects of
accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54(3),
409-425.
Kulik, J. A., and C.-L. Kulik. (1989). Effects of ability
grouping on student achievement. Equity and Excellence, 23(1-2), 22-30.
[310] Slavin, R.
R. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A
best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.
Slavin, R. E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in
elementary and secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67-77.
Slavin, R. E.
(1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A
best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-499.
[311] Glass, G. V,
McGaw, B. and Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
[312] Kulik,
C.-L., and J. A. Kulik. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school
students… Op cit.
[313] Oakes, J.
(1985). Op cit.
[314] Good, T. and
Marshall, S. (1984). Do students learn more in heterogeneous or homogeneous
groups? In Peterson, P., Wilkinson, L. C. and Halliman, M. (Eds.) The Social
Context of Instruction: Group Organization and Group Processes. New York: Academic Press, pp. 15-38.
[315] Slavin, R.
R. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A
best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.
Slavin, R. E.
(1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A
best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-499.
Slavin, R. E. (1993). Ability grouping in the middle grades:
Achievement effects and alternatives. Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 535-552.
[316] Slavin, R.
E. (1990). Op cit. p. 494.
[317] Slavin, R.
R. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A
best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.
[318] Slavin, R.
E. (1990). Op cit. p. 487.
[319] Schunk, D.
H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of
Educational Research, 57(2), 149-174.
[320] Feldhusen,
J. P. (1989). Synthesis of research on
gifted youth. Educational Leadership,
46(6), 6-11.
[321] Allan, S. D.
(1991). Grouping and the gifted ability-grouping research reviews: What do they
say about grouping and the gifted? Educational Leadership, 48 (March).
[322] Schunk, D.
H. Op cit. p. 152.
[323] Schunk, D.
H. Op cit. p. 161.
[324] Schunk, D.
H. Op cit. p. 161.
[325] Schunk, D.
H. Op cit. p. 169
[326] Gamoran, A.
(1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology
of Education, 60, 135-155.
[327] Gamoran, A.
(1987). Op cit.
[328] Oakes, J.
(1985). Op cit.
[329] Persell, C.
H. (1977). Education and inequality: A theoretical and empirical synthesis.
New York: Free Press.
[330] Rosenbaum,
J. E. (1980). Social implications of educational grouping. Review of
Research in Education, 8, 361-401.
[331] Oakes, J.
(1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, class, and tracking
on opportunities to learn math and science. Santa Monica: RAND.
Oakes, J. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice?
Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher,
21(4), 12-22.
Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. (1992). Curriculum
differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook
of research on curriculum, (pp. 570- 608). New York: Macmillan.
[332] Oakes, J.
(1985). Op cit. p. 40.
[333] Loveless, T.
(1999). The Tracking Wars: State Reform Meets School Policy. Washington
DC: Brookings Institution Press. (p. 21)
[334] Welner, K.
G. (2001), Op cit. pp. 57-61
[335] Welner, K.
and Mickelson, R.A. (2000). School reform, politics, and tracking: Should we
pursue virtue? Educational
Researcher, 29(4), 22-26.
[336] Scherer, M.
(1992/1993). Op cit.
[337] Loveless, T.
(1999). Op cit.
[338] Ibid.,
p.13
[339] Ibid.,
p. 13
[340] Ibid.,
p.13
[341] Welner
(2001). Op cit., pp. 11-12.
[342] Levin, H.M.,
Glass, G.V. & Meister, G.R. (1987) A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Computer-assisted
Instruction, Evaluation Review 11 (1), 50-72
[343] Levin, H. M.
(1996). Accelerated schools after eight
years. In Schauble, L. and R. Glaser,
R. (Eds.) Innovations in Learning: New Environments for Education. New
York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 329-351
[344] Tomlinson,
C. A. (1995). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[345] Welner, K.
G. and Oakes, J. (2000). Navigating the Politics of Detracking: Leadership
Startegies. Arlington Heights: IL.
Skylight Training and Publishing Inc.
[346] Kozol, J.
(1991). Op cit.
[347] Orfield, G.,
and Eaton, S. E. (1996). Dismantling Desegregation. The Quiet Reversal of
Brown v. Board of Education. New York: The New Press.
[348] Scherer, M.
(1992/1993). Op cit., p. 9
[349] H.J.
Walberg, “Families as partners in educational productivity,” Phi Delta
Kappan, 65, 1984, pp. 397-400
[350] Charles
Izzo, Roger P. Weissberg, Wesley J. Kasprow, and Michael Fendrich, “A
Longitudinal Assessment of Teacher Perceptions of Parent Involvement in
Children’s Education and School Performance,” American Journal of Community
Psychology, 27(6), 1999, pp. 817-839
[351] Ibid.,
p. 820
[352] J.L. Epstein
and S. Lee, “National Patterns of School and Family Connections in the Middle
Grades.” In B.A. Ryan, G.R. Adams, T.P.
Gullotta, R.P. Weissberg, & R. L. Jampton (Eds.), The Family-School
Connection, Vol. 2: Theory, Research and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
1995, pp. 108-154
[353] J.L.
Epstein, “Toward a Theory of Family-School Connections: Teacher Practices and
Parent Involvement.” In K. Jurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social
intervention: Potential and constraints, New York: Degruyter, 1987, pp.
121-136
[354] Joyce L.
Epstein, “Advances in Family, Community, and School Partnerships,” New
Schools, New Communities, 12(3), 1996, pp. 5-13
[355] Ibid.,
p. 5
[356] David L.
Stevenson and David P. Baker, “The Family-School Relation and the Child’s
School Performance,” Child Development 58, 1987, pp. 1348-1357
[357] Wendy S.
Grolnick and Maria L. Slowiaczek, “Parents’ Involvement In Children’s
Schooling: A Multidimensional Conceptualization and Motivational Model, Child
Development, 65(1), 1987, pp. 237-252
[358] Izzo et al,
1999
Laura Desimone, “Linking Parent Involvement with Student
Achievement: Do Race and Income Matter?” The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 1999, pp. 11-30
L. Steinberg, S.D. Lamborn, S.M. Dornbusch, and N.
Darling, “Impact of Parenting Practices
on Adolescent Achievement: Authoritative Parenting, School Involvement, and
Encouragement to Succeed,” Child Development, 63, 1992, pp. 1266-1281
Ronald D. Taylor, “Adolescents’ Perceptions of Kinship
Support and Family Management Practices: Association with Adolescent Adjustment
in African American Families,” Developmental Psychology, 32(4), 1996,
pp. 687-695
[359] Desimone,
1999
[360] L.C. Rigsby,
J.C. Stull, and N. Morse-Kelly, “School Performances: Complicating Explanatory
Models by Incorporating Race and Gender.” Unpublished manuscript, Temple
University, Philadelphia, 1995
[361] R. Moses, M.
Kamii, S. Swap, and J. Howard, “The Algebra Project: Organizing in the Spirit
of Ella,” Harvard Educational Review, 59 (4), 1989, pp. 423-443
[362] J. R.
Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University, 1990
[363] Joel M.
Podolny and James N. Baron, “Resources and Relationships: Social Networks and
Mobility in the Workplace,” American
Sociological Review, 62, 1997, pp. 673-693
[364] Ibid.,
p. 676
[365] Beckett Broh,
"Linking Extracurricular Programming to Academic Achievement: Who Benefits
and Why." Paper presented at the American Sociological Association
Meetings, Washington, DC, 2000
Broh noted that part
of the reason children benefit academically from playing high school varsity
sports is because this activity tends to bring parents together at school
events.
[366] William J.
Carbonaro, “Opening the Debate on
Closure and Schooling Outcomes,” American Sociological Review 64, 1999,
pp. 682-686
[367] Stephen L.
Morgan and Aage B. Sorensen, “Parental Networks, Social Closure, and
Mathematics Learning: A Test Of Coleman’s Social Capital Explanation of School
Effects,” American Sociological Review, 64, 1999, pp. 661-681
[368] Carbonaro,
1999
Desimone, 1999
Maureen T. Hallinan and Warren N. Kubitschek,
“Conceptualizing and Measuring School Social Networks,” American
Sociological Review, 64, 1999, pp.
687-693
Morgan and Sorensen, 1999. Morgan and Sorensen suggest that
students benefit when parents do not know other parents in the school,
and therefore know more adults outside of the school (“horizon-expanding”
schools) because students are exposed to more varied expectations and
opportunities.
[369] Esther Ho
Sui-Chu and J. Douglas Willms, “Effects of Parental Involvement on Eighth-Grade
Achievement,” Sociology of Education, 69, 1996, pp. 126-141
[370] Ibid.
[371] Laura
Desimone, Matia Finn-Stevenson, and Christopher Henrich, “Whole School Reform
in a Low-Income African American Community: The Effects of the CoZi Model on Teachers, Parents, and
Students,” Urban Education, 35(3), 2000, pp. 269-323
[372] Jerry West,
Kristen Denton, and Elvie Germino-Hausken, America’s Kindergartners:
Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of
1998-99, Fall 1998, NCES 2000-070, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2000
[373] Doris R.
Entwisle and Karl L. Alexander, "Summer Setback: Race, Poverty, School
Composition and Math Achievement in the First Two Years of School," American
Sociological Review, 57, 1992, pp. 72-84
Doris R. Entwisle and Karl L. Alexander, "The Gender
Gap in Math: Its Possible Origins in Neighborhood Effects." American
Sociological Review, 59, 1994, pp. 822-838
Barbara Heyns,. Summer Learning and the Effects of
Schooling, New York: Academic Press, 1978
Barbara Heyns, "Schooling and Cognitive Development: Is
There a Season for Learning?" Child
Development, 58, 1987, pp. 1151-1160
Nancy Karweit and Anne E. Ricciuti, Summer Learning:
Achievement Profiles of Prospects First Graders. Washington, DC: Abt
Associates, 1997
[374] Ann M.
Milne, David E. Myers, Alvin S. Rosenthal, and Alan Ginsburg, “Single Parents,
Working Mothers, and the Educational Achievement of School Children,” Sociology
of Education, 59, 1986, pp. 125-139
Nan Marie Astone and Sara S. McLanahan, “Family Structure,
Parental Practices, and High School Completion,” American Sociological
Review, 56:309-20, 1991
Alan C. Kerckhoff and Richard T. Camp, “Black-White Differences
in the Educational Attainment Process,”
Sociology of Education, 50, 1977, pp. 15-27
[375] D. Baumrind,
“Current Patterns of Parental Authority,” Developmental Psychology Monograph,
4, 1-1-3, 1971
D. Baumrind and A.E. Black, “Socialization Practices
Associated with Dimensions of Competence in Preschool Boys and Girls,” Child
Development, 38, 1967, pp. 291-327
[376] Sanford M. Dornbusch, Philip L. Ritter, P.
Herbert Leiderman, Donald F. Roberts, and Michael J. Fraleigh, “The Relation of
Parenting Style to Adolescent School Performance,” Child Development,
58, 1987, pp. 1244-1257
B. Schneider and Y. Lee, "A Model for Academic-Success:
The School and Home-Environment of East-Asian Students," Anthropology
& Education Quarterly, 21(4), pp. 358-377
It is hard to argue that there is something we can call
“good parenting” that applies universally. Dornbusch et al. found that the
correlation between authoritative and permissive parenting styles and
achievement was insignificant for all Asian students. Desimone and Steinberg et. al report similar patterns. In addition, Schneider and Lee report that
Asian students are less influenced by the family-school link than are other
students.
[377] Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, and Darling,
1992
The authors measured parenting style via adolescents’
responses to questions about their parents’ acceptance/involvement (e.g., “When
[my mother or father] wants me to do something, [he or she] explains why”; “ I
can count on [him or her] to help out if I have some kind of problem”) and
strictness/supervision (e.g., My parents know exactly where I am most
afternoons after school”; “In a typical week, what is the latest you can stay
out on school nights?”). Twelve percent
of the adolescents were categorized as living in authoritarian homes where the
adolescents rated their parents in the upper third for both
acceptance/involvement and strictness/supervision.
[378] Meredith
Phillips, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Greg J. Duncan, Pamela Klebanov, and Johnathan
Crane, “Family Background, Parenting Practices, and the Black-White Test Score
Gap.” In Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White
Test Score Gap, Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 1998
[379] Phillips et
al., 1998, p. 127
[380] Betty Hart
and Todd R. Risley, “American Parenting of Language-Learning Children:
Persisting Differences in Family-Child Interactions Observed in Natural Home
Environments,” Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1992, pp. 1096-1105
[381] Ibid.,
p. 1104
[382] R.M. Clark, Family
Life and School Achievement, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1983
[383] Sui-Chu and
Willms, 1996, p. 138
[384] C. Muller,
Parent Involvement and Academic Achievement: An Analysis of Family Resources
Available to the Child. In B. Schneider
and J.S. Coleman (Eds.), Parents, Their Children, and Schools, Boulder,
CO: Westview, 1993, pp. 77-114
Desimone, 1999
[385] Astone and
McLanahan, 1991
Paul G. Fehrmann, Timothy Z. Keith, and Thomas M. Reimers,
“Home Influence on School Learning: Direct and Indirect Effects of Parental
Involvement on High School Grades,”
Journal of Educational Research, 806, 1987, pp. 330-337
[386] Clark, 1983
[387] Taylor, 1996
[388] R.D. Hess,
and V. Shipman, “Early experience and the socialization of cognitive modes in children,” Child
Development, 36, 1965, pp. 869-881
[389] J. E.
Brophy, "Mothers as Teachers of Their Own Preschool Children: The Influence of Socioeconomic Status and
Task Structure on Teaching Specificity,"
Child Development, 41, 1970, pp. 79-94
In one of the most impressive studies of a generalizable
sample, Desimone (1999) employed the NELS data and constructed 12 different
measures of parental involvement: (1) discussion with child about high school,
(2) talk with parents about post-high school plans, (3) parent volunteering or
fund-raising, (4) parent has rules about homework, GPA, and chores, (5) PTO
involvement, (6) parent attends PTO meetings, (7) parent has rules about TV,
friends, and chores, (8) parent checks homework, (9) parent contacts school
about academics, (10) student reports discussing school matters with parent,
(11) student reports talking to father about high school program, (12) parents
report knowing parents of child’s friends.
The most consistent positive influence on students’ math and reading
test scores and grades was students’ reports of discussing school matters with
parents (talks to mother about planning high school program, discussed program
at school with parents, discusses school activities with parents, discusses
thing studied in class with parents). Parents knowing the parents of their
child’s friends also consistently predicted math and reading test scores and
grades, although this benefit did not generalize to low-income families. In addition, Desimone (1999) reports that
parental involvement measures account for twice as much variance in student
grades than in student test scores.
[390] E. W. Ball
and B.A. Blachman, "Does Phoneme Awareness Training in Kindergarten Make a
Difference In Early Word Recognition and Developmental Spelling?" Reading
Research Quarterly, 26(1), 1991, pp. 49-66
I. Lundberg, J. Frost, and O. Petersen, "Effects of an
Extensive Program for Stimulating Phonological Awareness in Preschool
Children," Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 1988, pp. 263-284
[391] Phillips et
al., 1998
[392] J. Tizard,
W. Schofield, and J. Hewison, “Collaboration Between Teachers and Parents in
Assisting Children’s Reading,” British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(1), 1982, pp. 1-11
[393] J.D.
Teachman, “Family Background, Educational Resources, and Educational
Attainment,” American Sociological Review, 52, 1987, pp. 548-57
D.B. Downey, “When Bigger is not Better: Family Size, Parental Resources, and
Children's Educational Performance,” American Sociological Review, 60,
1995, pp. 746-761
[394] Downey, 1995
[395] Jeremy D.
Finn, "Parental Engagement that Makes a Difference," Educational
Leadership, May, 1998, pp. 20-24
[396] Milne et al,
1986
T. Madigan, “Parent
Involvement and School Achievement.” Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1994
Desimone, 1999
[397] Sandra J.
Balli, John F. Wedman, and David H. Demo, “Family Involvement With
Middle-Grades Homework: Effects of Differential Prompting,” The Journal of
Experimental Education, 66(1), 1997, pp. 31-48
[398] Pierre
Bourdieu, Reproduction in Education,
Society, and Culture, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1977
[399] Ibid.
[400] Paul J.
DiMaggio, "Cultural Capital and Schooling Success: The Impact of Status
Culture Participation on the Grades of U.S. High School Students," American
Sociological Review, 47, 1982, pp. 189-201
[401] Vincent J.
Roscigno and James. W. Ainsworth-Darnell, “Race, Cultural Capital, and
Educational Resources: Persistent Inequalities and Achievement Returns,”
Sociology of Education, 72, 1999, pp. 158-178
[402] Ann Swidler,
“Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies,” American Sociological Review,
51, 1986, pp. 273-286
[403] S.B. Heath,
“What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative
Skills at Home and School,” Language in Society, 11(2) 1982, pp. 49-76
[404] West, Denton
and Germino-Hausken, 2000
[405] George
Farkas, Robert P. Grobe, Daniel Sheehan, and Yuan Shuan., "Cultural
Resources and School Success: Gender, Ethnicity, and Poverty Groups Within an
Urban School District," American Sociological Review, 55, 1990, pp.
127-142
James W. Ainsworth-Darnell and Douglas B. Downey,
"Assessing the Oppositional Culture Explanation for Racial/Ethnic
Differences in School Performance," American Sociological Review ,
63, 1998, pp. 536-553
[406] Stevenson
and Baker, 1987
Stevenson and Baker’s indicator of parental involvement was
based on teachers’ responses to the questions, “To what extend did his/her
parents get involved in the activities of the school such as PTO and
parent-teacher conferences?” Their
indicator of socioeconomic status was the mother’s education.
[407] M. L. Kohn, Class
and Conformity, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1969
S. Bowles and H. Gintis,
Schooling in Capitalist America, New York: Basic Books, 1976
Bowles and Gintis argue that schools in working-class
neighborhoods also promote obedience and vocational skills that will likely
ensure the reproduction of class position.
Middle-class schools, they argue, allow students greater responsibility
and put less emphasis on obedience to external standards–practices that prepare
them for middle-class jobs.
[408] A. Lareau,
"Social Class and Family-School Relationships: The Importance of Cultural Capital,” Sociology of Education,
56, April 1987, pp. 73-85
[409] Ibid.,
p. 82
[410] B.
Bernstein, Class, Codes and Control, New York: Schocken Books, 1975
[411] Ibid.
[412] S.L. Kagan,
E. Moore, and S. Bredecamp, (Eds.), Reconsidering Children's Early Learning
and Development: Toward Shared Beliefs
and Vocabulary, Washington, DC:
National Education Goals Panel, 1995
[413] Thomas Kellaghan,
Kathryn Sloane, Benjamin Alvarez, and Benjamin S. Bloom, The Home
Environment and School Learning, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993
[414] Karl R.
White, Matthew J. Taylor, and Vanessa D. Moss, “Does Research Support Claims
About the Benefits of Involving Parents in Early Intervention Programs?” Review
of Educational Research, 62(1), 1992, pp. 91-125
[415] Ibid.,
p. 91
[416] Arthur J.
Reynolds, Judy A. Temple, Dylan L. Robertson, and Emily A. Mann, “Long-term
Effects of an Early Childhood Intervention on Educational Achievement and
Juvenile Arrest,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 285 (18),
2001, pp. 2339-2346
[417] For a more
detailed description of the intervention, see:
A.J. Reynolds, Success In Early Intervention: The Chicago
Child-Parent Centers, Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 2000
[418] Judith Rich
Harris, The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do,
The Free Press: New York, 1998
David C. Rowe, The
Limits of Family Influence: Genes, Experience, and Behavior, New York: The
Guilford Press, 1994
Sandra Scarr, “How people make their own environments:
Implications for parents and policy makers,” Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 2(2), 1996, pp. 204-228
R. Plomin, M.J. Owen, and P. McGuffin, “The Genetic Basis of
Complex Human Behaviors,” Science, 264, June 17, 1994, pp. 1733-1739
[419] Scarr, 1996,
pp. 220-221
[420] Milne et
al., 1986
Madigan, 1994
[421] Some studies
suggest that parents help their children more with homework when they are young
and so it is possible that the studies based on the NELS eighth graders simply
reflect that most parents are helping little at that point unless their child
is struggling. It would be a mistake to
conclude that parental involvement with homework, especially at young ages, is
detrimental.
[422] Arguably,
research that looks at how changes in parental involvement are associated with
changes in children’s school performance, are less vulnerable to this
criticism. For example, Izzo et al.
estimated children’s standardized test scores at Time 2 while controlling for
Time 1 measures, and still found that parental involvement variables predicted
test scores. There are important
limitations to this study, however. See: Izzo et al, 1999
[423] L.
Steinberg, S.M. Dornbusch, and B.B. Brown,
“Ethnic Differences in Adolescent Achievement: An Ecological
Perspective, American Psychologist, 47, 1992, pp. 723-729
[424] R. Plomin,
“The Role of Inheritance in Behavior, Science,” 248, 1990, pp. 183-188
[425] T.J.
Bouchard, Jr., “ Genes, Environment, and Personality,” Science, 264,
June 17, 1994, pp. 1700-1701
Plomin (1990) suggests that roughly 70% of the variance in
intelligence is likely due to inherited characteristics and 30% to
environment. Given how important
intelligence is for school performance, if this ratio is correct then it is
likely that a reasonably large part of the typically observed association
between parenting practices and children’s school success represents parents’
genetic contribution to children’s development.
[426] W.A.
Collins, E.E. Maccoby, L. Steinberg, E.M. Hetherington, and M.H. Bornstein,
“Contemporary Research on Parenting: The Case for Nature and Nurture,” American
Psychologist, 55 (2), 2000, pp. 218-232
[427] David Tyack,
Health and Social services in Public Schools: Historical perspectives. In The
future of Children: School-Linked Services, Los Altos, CA: The Center for
the Future of Children, 1992
David Tyack, The One Best System: A History of American
Urban Education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974
[428] Jean Anyon. Ghetto
Schools, New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 1997
Lisa Delpit, Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict
in the Classroom, New York, NY: The New Press, 1995
Clarence N. Stone, “Civic Capacity and Urban Education,” Urban
Affairs Review, Volume 36, Number 5, May 2001, pp. 595-619
Gary Orfield, Susan E. Eaton and the Harvard Project on
School Desegregation, Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown
v. Board of Education, New York, NY: The New Press, 1996
Tyack, 1974.
[429] Anyon, 1997;
Tyack, 1974
Joy G. Dryfoos, Full-Service Schools: A Revolution in
Health and Social Services for Children, Youth, and Families, San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1994
[430] Tyack, 1992,
1974
David H. Bennett, The
Party of Fear: The American Far Right from Nativism to the Militia Movement,
New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1995
[431] David Tyack
and Larry Cuban, Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995
Tyack, 1974
[432] David Nasaw,
Schooled to Order: A Social History of Public Schooling in the United States,
New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1979
See also, Lee E. Teitelbaum, “Family History and Family
Law,” Wisconsin Law Review, 1985 Wis. L. Rev. 1135, September-October
1985
[433] Nasaw, 1979,
pp. 96-98
[434] Raymond E.
Callahan, Education and the Cult of Efficiency, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1962
[435] Tyack, 1974,
p. 244.
Tyack cites U.S. Immigration Commission data. The
“Foreign-born” category is an aggregate figure. Desegregated, students who were
classified as “Russian Jew,” “Southern Italian” and “Polish” had lower
attendance rates than their “Native-born” peers. However, students who were
classified as “German” and “Swedish” had dramatically higher attendance rates.
Readers should be cautioned, however, that most U.S. students eventually
dropped out of school. It was not until the 1950s, that over 50% of all
students graduated from high school. Two other factors that drove increased
attendance were the development of child labor and compulsory attendance laws,
both of which, when enforced, also drove up attendance rates. However, these
laws would be haphazardly enforced until the Great Depression.
[436] Tyack, 1974,
p. 231. Emphasis added
[437] Tyack, 1974,
p. 237
[438] See Tyack,
1974; Anyon, 1997
David Tyack and Elisabeth Hansot, Managers of Virtue,
Public School Leadership in America, 1820-1980, New York: NY: Basic Books,
1982
[439] Barry M.
Franklin, “ ‘Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed…’: A Historical
Commentary on the Carnegie Council’s Turning Points,” Journal of Educational
Policy, Volume 5, Number 3, 1990, pp. 265-272
[440] Tyack, 1992
[441] Kate
Rousmaniere, City Teachers: Teaching and School Reform in Historical
Perspective, New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 1997
[442] Joy Dryfoos
observes that foundations continued to support experimentation in social
service provision throughout the Depression-era. The most frequently cited
example was the project located in Flint, Michigan, which provided after-school
and summer recreation, and later health and nutrition services. Yet it is
doubtful that such an effort would have survived without strong support from
the Charles Mott Foundation. See Dryfoos, 1994, p. 30
[443] Callahan,
1962.
[444] This does
not imply that public educators and researchers were only concerned with the
“marketing” of public education. But as Robert Crowson observed,
“Community-relations proponents of the 1960s and 1970s recognized clearly the
value of a greater opening of communications between home and school, and the
benefits of parental involvement in the schools. Nevertheless, there was still
an important sense of separation – a sense that in the interest of
professionalism, the school must guard carefully an independence from the
pressures and politics of the clientele.” See:
Robert L. Crowson, School-Community Relations, Under
Reform, Berkeley, CA: McCuthan Publishing, 1992, p. 31
[445] Bruce
Anthony Jones, Schools in the “Community and Urban Context: Incorporating
Collaboration and Empowerment,” in Bruce Anthony Jones and Kathryn M. Borman
(Eds.). Investing in U.S. Schools: Directions for Educational Policy.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1994, pp. 5-23
[446] Dryfoos,
1994, p. 2
[447] Catherine A.
Lugg, For God and Country: Conservatism and American School Policy, New
York: Peter Lang, 1996
Joseph Murphy, Restructuring Schools: Capturing and
Assessing the Phenomena, New York: Teachers College Press, 1991
[448] Robert L
Crowson and William Lowe Boyd, “Coordinating Services for Children: Designing
Arks for Storms and Seas Unknown,” American Journal of Education, Volume
101, Number 2, February 1993
[449] Marshall S.
Smith and Jenifer A. O’Day, “Systemic School Reform.” In Susan Fuhrman and
Betty Malen (eds.), The Politics of Curriculum and Testing, Bristol, PA:
Falmer Press, 1991. Since the 1990s, there have been numerous and conflicting
definitions of “systemic reform.” However, Smith and O’Day are the originators
of the term.
[450] Dryfoos,
1994
A.I. Melaville and M.J. Blank. What It Takes: Structuring
Interagency Partnerships to Connect Children and Families with Comprehensive
Services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium, January
1991l; A.I. Melaville and M.J. Blank, Together We Can: A Guide for Crafting
a Profamily System of Education and Human Services. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI),
1993
[451] See: James S. Coleman, “Schools and the
Communities They Serve,” Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 66, Number 8, April
1985
James S. Coleman, “Families and schools,” Educational
Researcher, Volume 16, Number 6, August-September 1987
James S. Coleman, Thomas Hoffer and Sally Kilgore,
“Cognitive Outcomes in Public and Private Schools,” Sociology of Education,
Volume 55, 1982
[452] For an
overview of the criticisms of Coleman’s work, see Crowson, 1992, pp. 108-109.
[453] Robert L.
Crowson and William L. Boyd, “Achieving Coordinated School-Linked Services:
Facilitating Utilization of the Emerging Knowledge Base,” Educational Policy,
Volume 10, Number 2, June 1996
See Melaville and
Blank, 1991; 1993; Dryfoos, 1994.
[454] Sharon Lynn
Kagan, Integrating Services for Children and Families: Understanding the
Past to Shape the Future, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993
[455] Catherine A.
Lugg and William L. Boyd, “Leadership for Collaboration: Reducing Risk and
Fostering Resilience,” Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 75, Number 3, November
1993, pp. 253 - 258
[456] Crowson and
Boyd, 1993
[457] Dryfoos,
1994. More generally, see:
Elizabeth Schorr, Within
Our Reach, New York, NY: Doubleday, 1988
Sharon L. Kagan,
“Support systems for Children, Youths, Families, and Schools in Inner-City
Situations,” Education and Urban Society, Volume 29, Number, May 1997.
[458] Dryfoos, 1994,
p. 135
[459] Lugg and
Boyd, 1993.
[460] Dryfoos,
1994.
[461] Lugg and
Boyd, 1993
[462] Louise Adler
and Sid Gardner, (Eds.). The Politics of Linking schools and Social Services,
Washington, DC: Falmer, 1974
See also Michael W. Kirst, Julia E. Koppich and Carolyn
Kelley, “School-Linked Services and Chapter I: A New Approach to Improving
Outcomes for Children.” In Kenneth K. Wong and Margaret C. Wang (Eds.), Rethinking
Policy for At-Risk Students, Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, 1994
[463] Claire
Smrekar, “The Organizational and Political Threats to School-Linked Integrated
Services,” Educational Policy,
Volume 12, Issue 3, May 1998
James Cibulka, “Toward an Interpretation of School, Family,
and Community Connections: Policy Challenges.” In James Cibulka and William
Kritek (Eds.), Coordination Among Schools, Families, and Communities:
Prospects for Educational Reform. Albany: SUNY Press, 1996
Other large-scale
social reform efforts have also generated disappointing or ambiguous results.
See:
The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Path of Most
Resistance: Reflections on Lessons Learned from New Futures, Washington,
DC: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1995
[464] Tyack and
Cuban, 1995
[465] Daniel J.
McGrath; Peter J. Kuriloff, “ ‘They're going to Tear the Doors Off This Place’:
Upper-middle-class Parent School Involvement and the Educational Opportunities
of Other People's Children.” Educational Policy, Volume 13, Number 5,
November 1999. From a PROQUEST search.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000046090963&Fmt=3&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=102&Sid=10&RQT=309
[466] Diane E.
Karther and Frances Y. Lowden, “Fostering Effective Parent Involvement,” Contemporary
Education, Volume 69, Number 1, Fall 1997
Joyce L. Epstein,
“Perspectives and Previews on Research and Policy for School, Family, and
Community Partnerships.” In Family-school links: How Do They Affect
Educational Outcomes? A. Booth and J. E Dunn (Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 1996
Natasha K. Bowen and Gary L. Bowen, “The Mediating Role of
Educational Meaning in the Relationship Between Home Academic Culture and
Academic Performance,” Family Relations, Volume 47, Number 1, January
1998
[467] Lenore
Floyd, “Joining Hands: A Parental Involvement Program,” Urban Education,
Volume 33, Number 1, March 1998
Crowson, 1992, p. 195
Nancy Chavkin, N.
(Ed.). Families and Schools in a Pluralistic Society. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1993
[468] Crowson,
1992, pp. 184-188
Kathryn Nakagawa, “Unthreading the Ties That Bind:
Questioning the Discourse of Parent Involvement,” Educational Policy,
Volume 14, Number 4, September 2000
McGrath & Kuriloff, 1999
Anthony Gary Dworking and Merric Lee Townsend, “Teacher
Burnout in the Face of Reform: Some Caveats in Breaking the Mold.” In Bruce
Anthony Jones and Kathryn M. Borman (Eds.), Investing in U.S. Schools:
Directions for Educational Policy, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1994, pp.
81-83
For a discussion on contemporary families, see Stephanie
Coontz, The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms with America’s Changing
Families, New York, NY: Basic Books, 1997
[469] Karther and
Lowden, 1997.
[470] Crowson,
1992.
[471] Pamela M.
Norwood, Sue Ellen Atkinson, Kip Tellez, and Deborah Carr Saldana,
“Contextualizing Parent Education Programs in Urban Schools: The Impact on
Minority Parents and Students,” Urban Education, Volume 32, Number 3,
September 1997; From a PROQUEST search,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000013324443&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=13&Sid=3&RQT=309
see also Joyce Epstein, “What Principals Should Know About
Parent Involvement,” Principal, Volume
66, 1987
[472] Norwood,
Atkinson, Teller and Saldana, 1997
[473] Ibid.
[474] Ibid.
[475] Ibid.
[476] Ibid.
[477] Ibid.
Delpit, 1995;
Nakagawa, 2000; Floyd, 1998.
[478] Stuart Smith
and Phillip K. Piele (Eds.), Handbook on Educational Research, 3rd Edition,
Eugene, OR: ERIC Press, 1996
[479] John W.
Alspaugh, “The Relationship of School and Community Characteristics to High
School Drop-out Rates,” The Clearing House, Volume 71, Number 3, Jan/Feb
1998
John K. Urice
“Implications of the REAP Report on Advocacy,” Arts Education Policy Review,
Volume 102, Number 5, May-June 2001
Arnold Aprill,
“Toward a Finer Description of the Connection Between Arts Education and
Student Achievement,” Arts Education Policy Review, Volume 102, Number
5, May-June 2000
[480] Charles
Taylor Kerchner, “Education as a City's Basic Industry,” Education and Urban
Society, Volume 29, Number 4, August 1997; From a PROQUEST search,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000013388287&Fmt=3&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=51&Sid=6&RQT=309
Lawrence O. Picus and Jimmy L. Bryan, “The Economic Impact
of Public K-12 Education in the Los Angeles Region,” Education and Urban
Society, Volume 29, Number 4, August 1997, From a PROQUEST search,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000013388288&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=53&Sid=6&RQT=309
[481] Kerchner,
1997
[482] Kerchner,
1997. He observes in a footnote that, “At the traditional real estate rule of
thumb of $9/$ 1,000 in mortgage, the parent(s) in the 30% bracket contemplating
$4,000 in private school tuition could afford an extra $75,000 for a house in
order to send their children to a desirable public school.”
[483] Kerchner
notes the converse is also true; witness the destruction of the Detroit public
school system, which was followed by the hollowing out of the community.
American suburbs are a positive example of a school district’s influence on the
community’s economy.
[484] Picus and
Bryan, 1997
[485] Dryfoos,
1994
[486] Ibid.
[487] Tyack, 1974
[488] Tyack and
Cuban, 1995
[489] L.J,
Cronbach and G.C. Gleser, Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nd
ed.), Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965
[490] D. Schalock,
Research on teacher selection. In D.C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in
education, Vol. 7, Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.,
1979
Soar, R.S., Medley, D.M., and Coker, H. (1983). Teacher
evaluation: A critique of currently used methods. Phi Delta Kappan, 65,
4, 239-246.
[491] C.A. Druva
and R. D. Anderson, “Science Teacher Characteristics by Teacher Behavior and by
Student Outcome: A Meta-Analysis of Research,” Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1983, pp. 467-479
See also: V.A. Perkes, “Junior High School Science Teacher
Preparation, Teaching Behavior, and Student Achievement,” Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1967-’68, pp. 121-126.
[492] D.H. Monk,
“Subject Matter Preparation of Secondary Mathematics and Science Teachers and
Student Achievement,” Economics of Education Review, Vol. 13, No. 2,
1994, pp. 125-145.
[493] D.D.
Goldhaber and D.J. Brewer, “Why Don’t Schools and Teachers Seem to Matter?
Assessing the Impact of Unobservables on Educational Productivity,” Journal
of Human Resources, Vo. 32, No. 3, 1996, pp. 505-520.
[494] T.J. Quirk,
B.J. Witten, and S.F. Weinberg, “Review of Studies of Concurrent and Predictive
Validity of the National Teacher Examinations,” Review of Educational
Research, Vol. 43, 1973, pp.
89-114.
[495] J.A. Shea, The
Predictive Value of Various Combinations of Standardized Tests and Subtests for
Prognosis of Teaching Efficiency. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of
America Press, 1955
[496] H.J.
Walberg, “Scholastic Aptitude, the National Teacher Examinations, and Teaching
Success,” Journal of Educational Research, 61, 1967, pp. 129-131.
[497] Quirk et
al, 1973, Table 2.
[498] L. Lins, “
The Prediction of Teaching Efficiency,” Journal of Experimental Education,
Vol. 15, 1946, pp. 2-60
[499] G.V Glass
and K.D. Hopkins, Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology, 3rd
Edition, Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1996, p. 357
[500] W. Haney, C.
Fowler, A. Wheelock, D. Bebell, and N. Malec, “Less Truth Than Error? An
Independent Study Of The Massachusetts Teacher Tests,” Education Policy
Analysis Archives, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1999. Available at
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n4/.
[501] Wendy Kopp,
“Teach for America: Moving Beyond the Debate,” The Educational Forum, 58(4),
1994, pp. 187-192.
[502] G.W.
McDiarmid and S. Wilson, “An
Exploration of the Subject Matter Knowledge of Alternative Route Teachers: Can
We Assume They Know Their Subject?” Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2),
1991, pp. 93-103.
[503] L.
Darling-Hammond, The Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools That
Work, San Francisco, CA.
Jossey-Bass, 1997, p. 308
[504] P. Ashton,
“Improving the Preparation of Teachers,” Educational Researcher, Vol.
25, No. 9, 1996, pp. 21-22.
[505] I.I. Laczko,
and D.C. Berliner, “The Effects of Teacher Certification on Student
Achievement: An Analysis of the Stanford Nine.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, 2001
[506] The
practical significance of a study is often expressed in a form known as an effect
size. An effect size that measures the amount of difference between two
groups is defined as a mean difference (between conditions A and B) in units of
the within-condition standard deviation:
ES =
(Mean-A – Mean-B) / σ
The value of ES reveals the amount of superiority of
condition A over condition B (or, B over A in the event that ES has a
negative value). Under the assumption of normally distributed scores, an ES of +1.0 indicates that the average student
in condition A scores above 84% of the students in condition B. When the effect
size is calculated on standardized achievement test data, a fortuitous
coincidence gives the measure added meaning. It is an empirical fact that the
standard deviation of most achievement tests is 1.0 years in grade
equivalent units. Consequently, an effect size of 1.0 implies that the
average superiority of condition A over condition B is 1.0 in grade equivalent
units. Likewise, an effect size of .50 implies that students in A achieve, on
average, 5 months in grade equivalent units above students in condition B.
[507] Glass and
Hopkins, 1996
[508] R.J. Murnane
and B.R. Phillips, “What Do Effective Teachers Of Inner-City Children Have In
Common?” Social Science Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1981, pp. 83-100.
[509] Ibid.,
p. 91.
[510] Martin
Haberman, Star Teachers of Children in Poverty, Bloomington, IN: Kappa Delta
Pi, 1995
[511] E.L. Brown,
“Review of Haberman, Martin. (1995). Star
Teachers of Children in Poverty.” Education Review, July 22, 1999.
Available: http://coe.asu.edu/edrev/reviews/rev64.htm.
[512] J.S.
Coleman, E.Q. Campbell, C.J. Hobson, J. McPartland, A.M. Mood, F.D. Weinfeld,
and R.L. York, Equality of Educational Opportunity, Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1966
[513] S. Bowles
and H.M. Levin, “The Determinants of Scholastic Achievement – An Appraisal of
Some Recent Evidence,” Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 3, 1968, pp.
3-24.
[514] A.A. Summers
and B.L. and Wolfe, Which School
Resources Help Learning? Efficiency and Equality in Philadelphia Public Schools,
Philadelphia, PA: ED 102, February 1975, p. 716
A.A. Summers, and B.L. Wolfe, “Do Schools Make a Difference?” American Economic Review,
Vol. 67, September 1977, pp. 639-652
[515] E.A.
Hanushek, “Teacher Characteristics and Gains in Student Achievement: Estimation
Using Micro Data,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 61, No. 2, 1971,
pp. 280-288
[516] R.
Greenwald, L.V. Hedges, and R.D. Laine, “The Effect of School Resources on
Student Achievement,” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66, 1996 pp.
361-396
[517] E. Hanushek,
“A More Complete Picture of School Resource Policies,” Review of Educational
Research, Vol. 66, No. 3, 1996, pp. 397-409.
[518] E. Hanushek, “Assessing the Effects of School
Resources on Student Performance: An Update,” Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1997, pp. 141-164.
[519] Hanushek,
1997, p. 144
[520] M. Fetler,
“High School Staff Characteristics and Mathematics Test Results,” Education
Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 7, No. 9, 1999 [Entire issue]. Available:
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n9.html.
But also see:
E.J. Fuller, “Does Teacher Certification Matter? A
Comparison Of TAAS Performance in 1997 Between Schools with Low and High
Percentages of Certified Teachers,” Austin: Charles A. Dana Center, University
of Texas at Austin, 1999
L. Darling-Hammond, “Teaching and Knowledge: Policy Issues
Posed by Alternate Certification for Teachers,” Peabody Journal of Education,
Vol. 67, No. 1, 1990, pp. 123-154
[521] L.
Darling-Hammond, “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State
Policy Evidence,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 8, No. 1,
2000. Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/.
[522] Glass and
Hopkins, 1996, p. 269
[523] This
estimate is actually higher than the prevailing figures in public schools. An
informal survey of teacher educators and administrators conducted in June 2001
on the AERA Division K listserv fixes the true figure at 5% or less.
[524] P. E. Meehl
and A. Rosen, “Antecedent Probability and the Efficiency of Psychometric Signs,
Patterns, or Cutting Scores,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 52, 1955, pp.
194-216.
[525] H. Wainer,
“Some Comments on the Ad Hoc Committee’s Critique of the Massachusetts Teacher
Tests,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 7, No. 5, 1999.
Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n5.html.
[526] Meehl and
Rosen, 1955, p. 215
[527] Lins, 1946
[528] W. Haney, G.
Madaus, and A. Kreitzer, “Charms Talismanic: Testing Teachers for the
Improvement of American Education,” pp. 169-238, in E.Z. Rothkopf, (Ed.) Review of Research in Education,
Vol. 14. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association, 1987
[529] A.E. Wise,
L. Darling-Hammond, D. Berliner, E. Haller, P. Schlechty, B. Berry, A. Praskac,
and G. Noblit, Effective Teacher Selection: From Recruitment to Retention –
Case Studies, Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 1987
[530] Wise,
Darling-Hammond, Berliner, Haller, Schlechty, Berry, Praskac, and Nobit, 1987
L. Darling-Hammond, A.E. Wise, and S.R. Pease, “Teacher Evaluation in the Organizational
Context: A Review of the Literature,” Review of EducationalRresearch,Vol.
53, 1983, pp. 285-337.
[531] G.V Glass,
“Using Student Test Scores To Evaluate Teachers.” In J. Millman, and L.
Darling-Hammond, (Eds.) New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. Beverly
Hills, CA: SAGE, 1989
[532] H.A. Simon
and J.R. Hayes, “The Understanding Process: Problem Isomorphs,” Cognitive Psychology,
8(2), 1976, pp. 165-190.
[533] W.G. Chase
and M.T.H. Chi, “Cognitive skill:
Implications for spatial skill in large-scale environments.” In J. Harvey (Ed.) Cognition, Social
Behavior, and Environment. Potomac,
MD: Erlbaum 1980, p. 12
[534] M. Pressley
and C.B. McCormick, Advanced Educational Psychology For Educators,
Researchers, And Policy Makers. New York: Harper Collins, 1995, pp. 48-109
[535] Ibid.
[536] A.S.
Palincsar, and A.L. Brown, “Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities.” Cognition and Instruction, 2, 1984
pp. 117-175
[537] B.J.
Guzzetti, T.E., Snyder, and G.V Glass, “Promoting Conceptual Change in Science:
Can Texts be Used Effectively?” Journal of Reading, 35, 1992, pp.
642-649.
[538] J. A.
Stallings and D.H. Kaskowitz, Follow Through Classroom Observation
Evaluation (1972-1973), Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute, 1974
[539] R.S.
Soar, An Integrative Approach to
Classroom Learning, Philadelphia:
Temple University, 1966 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 033 749)
[540] R.S. Soar
and R.M. Soar, Classroom Behavior, Pupil Characteristics, and Pupil Growth
for the School Year and the Summer, Gainesville: University of Florida,
Institute for Development of Human Resources, 1973
[541] R.S. Soar, Follow-Through
Classroom Process Measurement and Pupil Growth (1970-1971). Gainesville: University of Florida, Institute
for Development of Human Resources, 1973
(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 106 297).
[542] A.S. Barr,
“The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency: A Summary of the
Investigations,” Journal of Experimental Education, 16, 1948, pp.
203-283.
[543] N.A.
Flanders, Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes and Achievement.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
1960 (Also published under this title as FS 5.225:25040 U.S. Department of
Education, U.S. Government Printing
Office)
[544] D.M. Medley
and H.E. Mitzel, “Some Behavioral Correlates Of Teacher Effectiveness,” Journal of Educational Psychology,
50, 1959, pp. 239-246
[545] Stallings
and Kascowitz, 1974
[546] T. Good and
D. Grouws, “Teaching Effects: A Process-Product Study of Fourth Grade
Mathematics Classrooms,” Journal of Teacher Education, 28,1977, pp.
49-54.
[547] J. Brophy
and C. Evertson, Learning From Teaching: A Developmental Perspective,
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1976
[548] B.
Rosenshine, Teaching Behaviors and Student Achievement, Slough, England: National Federation for
Eucational Research, 1971
[549] J. Brophy
and T. Good, “Teacher effects results.” In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of
Research on Teaching, 3rd Edition. New York: Macmillan, 1986
[550] N.L. Gage
and M.C. Needles, “Process-Product Research on Teaching: A Review Of
Criticisms,” Elementary School
Journal, 89, 1989, pp. 253-300
[551] B.
Rosenshine and R. Stevens, “Teaching Functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook
of Research on Teaching, 3rd Edition, New York: Macmillan, 1986
[552] Ibid.
[553] M. Hunter, Mastery
Teaching. El Segunda, CA.: TIP Publications, 1982
[554] D. Durkin,
“What Classroom Observations Reveal About Reading Comprehension,” Reading
Research Quarterly, 14, 1979, pp. 581-544
[555] G. Duffy
and L.R. Roehler, “Improving Reading Instruction Through The Use Of Responsive
Elaboration. The Reading Teacher, 40, 1987, pp. 514-521
[556] Ibid.
[557] S. C.
Paris, D.R Cross, and M.Y. Lipson,
“Informed Strategies for Learning: A Program to Improve Children’s
Reading Awareness and Comprehension,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,
1984, pp. 1239-1252
T.E. Raphael and P.D. Pearson, “Increasing Student Awareness
of Sources of Information for Answering Questions,” American Educational Research Journal,
22, 1985, pp. 217-237
D.E. Alvermann, “The Compensatory Effect of Graphic
Organizers on Descriptive Text,” Journal of Educational Research, 75,
1981, pp. 44-48
[558] A.H.
Schoenfeld, Mathematical Problem Solving, New York: Academic Press, 1985
[559] J.H. Larkin
and F. Reif, “Analysis and Teaching of a General Skill for Studying Scientific
Text,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 1976, pp. 348-350
[560] C.S.
Englert and T.E. Raphael, “Developing Successful Writers Through Cognitive
Strategy Instruction.” In J.Brophy
(Ed.) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume I. Newark, NJ: JAI Press,
1989
M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter, “Fostering the Development
of Self-Regulation in Children’s Knowledge Processing. In S.F. Chipman, J.W. Segal, and R. Glaser
(Eds.) Thinking And Learning Skills: Research And Open Questions.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1985
[561] M.
Pressley, J. Burkell, T. Cariglia-Bull, L, Lysynchuk, J.A. McGoldrick, B.
Schneider, S. Symons, and V. Woloshyn, Cognitive Strategy Instruction: 2nd
Edition. Cambridge, MA.:Brookline
Books, 1995
[562] Palincsar
and Brown, 1984
B. Rosenshine and C. Meister, “Scaffolds for Teaching
Higher-Order Cognitive Strategies.” In A.C. Ornstein (Ed.) Teaching: Theory
into Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1995
D.J. Wood, J.S. Bruner, and G. Ross, “The Role of Tutoring
in Problem Solving,” Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 1976, pp. 89-100
[563] M.H.
Bickhard, “Scaffolding and self-scaffolding: Central aspects of development.”
In L. T. Winegar and J. Valsiner (Eds.), Children's Development Within
Social Context, Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992
[564] A.
Collins, J.S. Brown, and S.E. Newman, “Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching The
Crafts Of Reading, Writing, And Mathematics.”
In L. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor
of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates,1990
Palincsar and Brown, 1984
[565] Collins,
Brown and Newman, 1990
[566] Scardamalia
and Bereiter, 1985
[567] Ibid.
[568] B.
Rosenshine, C. Meister, and S. Chapman, “Teaching Students to Generate
Questions: A Review of the Intervention Studies,” Review of Educational
Research, 66, 1996, pp. 181-221
[569] A. King,
“Improving Lecture Comprehension: Effects Of A Metacognitive Strategy,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 1990,
pp. 1-16
[570] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (1999).
Strategic Learning in the Content Areas. Madison, WI: Publication Sales, Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction, 1999
[571] Palincsar
and Brown, 1984
A.S. Palincsar, Collaborating for Collaborative Learning
of Text Comprehension. Paper presented at the annual conference of
the American Educational Research Association, April, Washington, D.C. (School of
Education, University of Michigan), April 1987
[572] G.E. Garcia
and P.D. Pearson, “Modifying Reading Instruction To Maximize Its Effectiveness
For All Students,” Technical Report #489. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study
of Reading, University of Illinois, 1990
[573] A. Collins,
J.S. Brown, and A. Holum, “Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible,” American Educator, 15, 3,
Winter, 1991
[574] V.
Anderson, Training Teachers to Foster Active Reading Strategies in
Reading-Disabled Adolescents. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, April 1991
[575] R. Cohen,
“Students Generate Questions as an Aid to Reading Comprehension,” Reading
Teacher, 36, 1983, pp. 770-775
Palincsar, 1987
Y.L. Wong, W. Wong, N. Perry, and D. Sawatsky, “The efficacy
of a self-questioning summarization strategy for use by underachievers and
learning-disabled adolescents,” Learning
Disability Focus, 1986
[576] Rosenshine
and Stevens, 1986.
[577] Panlincsar,
1987
[578] M.D.A. Andre
and T.H. Anderson, “The Development and Evaluation of a Self-Questioning Study
Technique,” Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 1978-1979, pp. 605-623
M.J. Dreher and L.B.
Gambrell, “Teaching Children to use a Self-Questioning Strategy for
Studying Expository Text,” Reading
Improvement, 22, 1985, pp. 2-7
Wong, Wong, Perry, and Sawatsky, 1986
[579] M. Dermody,
Metacognitive Strategies For Development Of Reading Comprehension For
Younger Children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,
New Orleans, February, 1988 (Louisiana State Department of Education,
New Orleans Adolescent Hospital, New Orleans)
[580] R.B.
Lonberger, The Effects Of Training In A Self-Generated Learning Strategy On
The Prose Processing Abilities Of Fourth And Sixth Graders. Doctoral dissertation, State University of
New York at Buffalo, 1988
[581] B.A. Blaha,
The Effects Of Answering Self-Generated Questions On Reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston
University School of Education, 1979
[582] Palincsar,
1987
[583] B. Davey
and S. McBride, “Effects of Question-Generation on Reading Comprehension,” Journal
of Educational Psychology, 78, 1986, pp. 256-262
[584] Cohen 1983
[585] Andre and
Anderson, 1978-79; Dreher and Gambrell, 1985
[586] Collins,
Brown, and Newman, 1990
[587] Lonberger,
1988
C. Bereiter and M. Bird, “Use of Thinking Aloud in
Identification and Teaching of Reading Comprehension Strategies,” Cognition
and Instruction, 2, 1985, pp. 131-156
[588] Nolte, R.Y.
and Singer, H. (1985). Active comprehension: teaching a process of reading
comprehension and its effects on reading achievement. The Reading Teacher,
39, 24-31
A. King, “ Effects of Self-Questioning Training on College
Students’ Comprehension of Lectures,” Contemporary Educational Psychology,
14, 1989, pp. 366-381
King, 1990
H. Singer and D. Donlan, “Active Comprehension:
Problem-Solving Schema With Question Generation Ofcomplex Short Stories,” Reading
Research Quarterly, 17, 1982 pp.
166-186
[589] Nolte and
Singer, 1985
[590] Collins,
Brown and Newman, 1989
[591] Dermody,
1988
[592] Davey and
McBride, 1986
[593] N. S.
Smith, The effects of training teachers to teach students different reading
ability levels to formulate three types of questions on reading comprehension
and question generation ability. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1977
[594] Wong, Wong,
Perry, and Sawatsky, 1986
[595] N.L. Gage,
(Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching, Chicago, Il: Rand McNally, 1963
[596] National
Education Association Handbook 2000-2001, Washington, D.C.: National
Education Association, 2000
American Federation of Teachers Web site, http://www.aft.org
[597] L.C. Rose
and A.M. Gallup, “The 30th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallop Poll of the Public’s
Attitudes Toward the Public Schools,” Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 1998, pp.
41-56
D. Haselkorn and L. Harris, The Essential Profession:
American Education at
the Crossroads, Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers, Inc., 2001
[598] M. Murphy, Blackboard
Unions: The AFT and the NEA, 1900-1980. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1990
[599] D.S. Selden,
The Teacher Rebellion. Washington, D.C.: Harvard University Press, 1985
Murphy, 1990
See also:
M.R. Berube, Teacher Politics: The Influence of Unions.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1988
[600] R. W. Eberts
and J.A. Stone, Unions and Public Schools: The Effect of Collective
Bargaining on American Education. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1984
W.A. Streshly and T.A. DeMitchell, Teacher Unions and
TQE: Building Quality Labor Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
1994
[601] R.G. Valetta
and R.B. Freeman, “Appendix B: The National Bureau of Economic Research Public
Sector Collective Bargaining Law Data Set.”
In When Public Sector Workers Unionize, edited by R.B. Freeman
and C. Ichiowsi, 1988, pp. 399-419
J.L. Lund and C.L. Maranto, “Public Sector Labor Law: An
Update.” In Public Sector Employment: In a Time of Transition, edited by D.
Belman, M. Gunderson, and D. Hyatt, Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research
Association, 1996, pp.21-57
[602] National
Center for Educational Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993-1994.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1994
[603] S.
Aronowitz, Working Class Hero: A New Strategy for Labor. New York: Adama
Books, 1983
[604] See, for example:
Streshly and DeMitchell, 1994
P. Brimelow and L. Spencer, “The National Extortion
Association?” Forbes, 1993, June 7, pp. 72-83
C.J. Sykes, Dumbing Down our Kids: Why America’s Children
Feel Good about Themselves but Can’t Read, Write, or Add. New York: St.
Martin’s Press, 1995
M. Lieberman, The Teacher Unions: How the NEA and AFT
Sabotage Reform and Hold Students, Parents, Teachers, and Taxpayers Hostage to
Bureaucracy. New York: The Free Press, 1997
G.G. Moo, Power Grab: How the National Educational
Association is Betraying our Children. Washington, D.C.: Regnery
Publishing, 1999
[605] See, for
example:
W.H. Baugh and J.A. Stone, “Teachers, Unions and Wages in
the 1970s: Unionism Now Pays.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
1982, 35, pp. 368-376
R.W. Eberts and J.A. Stone, “Teacher Unions and the Cost of
Public Education,” Economic Inquiry, 1986, 24, pp. 631-643
C.M. Hoxby, “How Teachers’ Unions Affect Education
Production.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1996, 111, pp. 670-718
[606] S.M.
Johnson, Teacher Unions in Schools. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1984
[607] H.L. Fuller,
G.A. Mitchell, and M.E. Hartmann, “Collective Bargaining in Milwaukee Public
Schools.” In Conflicting Missions? Teachers Unions and Educational Reform,
edited by T. Loveless, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2000,
pp.110-149
[608] See, for
example:
Eberts and Stone, 1984
M.A. Zigarelli, “The Linkages Between Teacher Unions and
Student Achievement.” Journal of Collective Negotiations, 1994, 23, pp.
299-319
S. Feldman, “Where we Stand.” Phi Delta Kappan,
November 1998, pp. 233-236
N. Bascia, “The Other Side of the Equation: Professional
Development and the Organizational Capacity of Teacher Unions.” Educational
Policy, 2000, 14, pp. 385-404
S. Feldman, “Where we Stand: Everyone Wins.” The New York
Times, April 1, 2001
[609] R. Freeman
and J. Medoff, What do Unions do? New York: Basic Books, 1984
Eberts and Stone, 1984
[610] L.M.
Mcdonnell and A. Pascal, Teacher Unions and Educational Reform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1988
[611] Eberts and
Stone, 1984
[612] Eberts and
Stone, 1984
M. M. Kleiner and D.L. Petree, “Unionism and Licensing of
Public School Teachers: Impact on Wages and Educational Output.” In R. Freeman and C. Ichiowsi (Eds.), When
Public Sector Workers Unionize. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988,
pp. 305-319
Hoxby, 1996
[613] Eberts and
Stone, 1984
[614] M. Kurth,
“Teacher Unions and Excellence in Education: An Analysis of the Decline in SAT
scores.” Journal of Labor Research, 1988, 8, pp. 351-387
[615] F.H. Nelson
and J.C. Gould, “Teacher Unions and Excellence in Education: Comment.” Journal
of Labor Research, 1988, 9, pp. 379-387
[616]. Zigarelli,
1994
[617] S. Peltzman,
“The Political Economy of the Decline of American Public Education.” The
Journal of Law & Economics, 1993, 36, pp. 331-370
[618] S. Peltzman,
“Political Factors in Public School Decline.” The American Enterprise,
1993, 4, p. 46
[619] C.R.
Sunstein, “Against Interest-group Theory: A Comment on Peltzman - The Political
Economy of the Decline of American Public Education.” The Journal of Law
& Economics, 1993, 36, pp. 371-378
[620] D.D.
Friedman, “Comments on Peltzman - The Political Economy of the Decline of
American Public Education.” The Journal of Law & Economics, 1993, 36,
pp. 371-378
[621] C. Hurn, The
Limits and Possibilities of Schooling, third edition. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, 1993
[622] S.
Peltzman, “Political Economy of Public Education: Non-College-Bound Students.” Journal
of Law and Economics, 1996, 39, pp. 73-120
[623] Fuller,
Mitchell, et al., 2000
[624] Hoxby, 1996
[625] U.S. Census
Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000 (120th edition)
Washington, DC, 2000, p. 164
[626] A. Shanker,
“Strong Teacher Unions, Better Teachers,” The Wall Street Journal,
October 17, 1996, p. A23
[627] C. Hoxby,
“Unions’ Effect on Schools,” The Wall Street Journal, October 31, 1996,
p. A23
[628] Kleiner and
Petree, 1988
Peltzman, 1996
[629] E.A.
Hanushek, S.G. Rivkin, and L.L. Taylor, “Aggregation and the Estimated Effects
of School Resources,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No.
5548. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1996
[630] R.W. Eberts
and J.A. Stone, “Teacher Unions and the Productivity of Public Schools.” Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, 1987, 40, pp. 354-363
[631] M. Milkman,
“Teacher Unions and High School Productivity.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Oregon. Eugene, OR, 1989
[632] P.G. Grimes
and C.A. Register, “Teacher Unions and Black Students’ Scores on College
Entrance Exams.” Industrial Relations, 1991, 30, pp. 492-500
[633] P.G. Grimes
and C.A. Register, “Teachers’ Unions and Student Achievement in High School
Economics.” Journal of Economic Education, 1990, 21, pp. 297-306
[634] Zigarelli,
1994
[635] L.M. Argys
and D.I. Reese, “Unionization and School Productivity: A Reexamination.” In Research
in Labor Economics, Vol 14, edited
by S. Polacheck, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1995, pp.49-68
[636] Eberts and
Stone, 1987
[637] Milkman,
1989
[638] Argys
and Reese, 1995
[639] Grimes and
Register, 1991
[640] M. Milkman, “Teachers’
Unions, Productivity, and Minority Student Achievement.” Journal of Labor
Research, 1997, 18, pp. 137-150
[641] H.L.
Zwerling and T. Thomason, “The Effects
of Teacher Unions on the Probability of Dropping out of High School.” Journal
of Collective Negotiations, 1994, 23, pp. 239-250
[642] Kleiner and
Petree, 1988
[643] B. Powell
and L.C. Steelman, “Variations in State SAT Performance: Meaningful or
Misleading?” Harvard Educational Review, 1984, 54, 389-412
B. Powell and L.C. Steelman, “Bewitched, Bothered, and
Bewildering: The Use and Misuse of State SAT and ACT Scores,” Harvard
Educational Review, 1996, 66, pp. 27-59
[644] News
2000-2001, Table 3: SAT Averages by
State for 1990 and 1997-2000, The College Board web site:
http://www.collegeboard.org
[645] Powell and
Steelman, 1996
[646] L.C.
Steelman, B. Powell, and R.M. Carini, “Do Teacher Unions Hinder Educational
Performance? Lessons Learned from State SAT and ACT Scores.” Harvard
Educational Review, 2000, 70, pp. 437-466
[647] Steelman, Powell
et al., 2000
[648] F.H. Nelson
and M. Rosen, Are Teacher Unions Hurting American Education? A
State-by-State Analysis of the Impact of Collective Bargaining Among Teachers
on Student Performance, Technical Report, Milwaukee, WI: The Institute for
Wisconsin’s Future, 1996
[649] Johnson,
1984
[650] Eberts and
Stone, 1987
[651] S.
Michelson, “The Association of Teacher Resources with Children’s
Characteristics.” In How do Teachers Make a Difference? Washington, D.C.: Office of Education,
OE-58042, 1970, pp. 55-75
[652] J.A. Stone,
“Collective Bargaining and Public Schools.” In Conflicting Missions?
Teachers Unions and Educational Reform, edited by T. Loveless, Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2000, pp.47-68
[654] K.E. Weick,
“Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1976, 21, pp.1-19
J.W. Meyer and B. Rowan, “The Structure of Educational
Organizations.” In Environments and Organizations, edited by M.W. Meyer
and Associates, 1978, pp. 78-109
[655] Zigarelli,
1994
[656] Zigarelli,
1994
[657] Eberts and
Stone, 1987
[658] Eberts and
Stone, 1987
[659] See, for
example:
J.R. Cochren, Teacher Unions: A Career Educator’s
Perspective, Contemporary Education, 1998, 69, pp. 214-217
Moo, 1999
Fuller, Mitchell, Hartmann, 2000
[660] For one of
the earliest studies on this issue, see:
L. Cunningham,
“Implication of Collective Negotiation for the Role of the Principal.” In Collective
Negotiations in Public Education, edited by S.M. Elam, M. Lieberman, and
M.H. Moskow, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967, pp. 298-313
[661] S.M.
Johnson, Teacher Unions in Schools. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1984
Fuller, Mitchell, Hartmann, 2000
[662] S.M.
Johnson, 1984
[663] S.M.
Johnson, 1984
[664] McDonnell
and Pascal, 1988
[665] McDonnell
and Pascal, 1988
[666] L.M.
Mcdonnell and A. Pascal, Organized Teachers in American Schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1979, p. 83
[667] C.T.
Kerchner and D.E. Mitchell, The Changing Idea of a Teachers’ Union,
London: The Falmer Press, 1988
[668] Kerchner and
Mitchell, 1988
Zigarelli, 1994
[669] G.Geisert
and M. Lieberman, Teacher Union Bargaining: Practice and Policy,
Chicago: Precept Press, 1994
[670] Kerchner and
Mitchell, 1988
[671] Kerchner and
Mitchell, 1988
[672] Eberts and
Stone, 1984
[674] J.H Stronge,
“Improving Schools Through Teacher Evaluation.” In J.H. Stronge (Editor), Evaluating
Teaching: A Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, 1997, p. 1
[675] A. J.
Shinkfield and D. L. Stufflebeam, Teacher Evaluation: Guide to Effective
Practice, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995
[676] See J.
Millman and H.D Schalock “Beginnings and Introduction.” In J. Millman (Editor),
Grading Teachers, Grading Schools: Is Student Achievement A Valid Measure?
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1997, Table 1.1 (pp. 6-7) for a summary
[677] Ibid.,
p. 7.
[678] For reviews,
see H. Meyer, “Value-Added Indicators of School Performance.” In E. A. Hanushek
and D. W. Jorgenson (Editors), Improving America's Schools: The Role of
Incentives, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996, p. 200
L. Saunders, “A
brief history of educational 'value added': How did we get to where we are?” School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999, pp. 233-256
[679] State of
Tennessee, Education Improvement Act, 1992, §49-1-603
[680] For a
detailed description of the TVAAS model, see W. L Sanders, A. M. Saxton, and S.
P. Horn, “The Tennessee Value-Added System: A Quantitative Outcomes-Based
Approach To Educational Assessment.” In J. Millman (Editor), Grading
Teachers, Grading Schools: Is Student Achievement A Valid Measure? Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1997, pp. 137-162
[681] J.S.
Coleman, E.Q. Campbell, C.J. Hobson, J. McPartland, A.M. Mood, F. D. Weinfeld,
& R. L. York, Equality of Educational Opportunity, Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966
[682] J. Archer,
“Sanders 101,” Education Week, Vol. 18, No. 34, May 5, 1999, pp. 26-28
[683] L. J.
Cronbach and P.E. Meehl, “Construct
Validity In Psychological Tests.” Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 52, 1955, pp. 281-302
[684] A.P. Baker
and D. Xu, The measure of education: A review of the Tennessee Value Added
Assessment System, Nashville: Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury, Office
of Education Accountability, 1995
[685] R.D. Bock
and R. Wolfe, Audit and Review of the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment
System (TVAAS): Final Report, 1996, Nashville: Tennessee Comptroller of the
Treasury, Office of Education Accountability, 1996
[686] State of Tennessee , Education Improvement
Act, 1992, §49-1-604. Mixed model methodologies
[687] W. L.
Sanders and J. C. Rivers, Cumulative
And Residual Effects Of Teachers On Future Student Academic Achievement,
Research Progress Report, Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee
Value-Added Research and Assessment Center, 1996
[688] Ibid.
[689] It is
interesting to note that an error message from the computer run presented in
Table 2 of Rivers’ dissertation suggests
that estimates from the analyses may be biased. A possible reason for this
error is the inclusion of highly correlated variables in the same analyses.
[690] S. P.
Wright, S. P. Horn, and W.L. Sanders, “Teacher And Classroom Context Effects On
Student Achievement: Implications For Teacher Evaluation,” Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1997, pp. 57-67
[691] Ibid.
[692] This study
used a statistical technique to compare the magnitude of the different factors
affecting student achievement, citing Rosenthal (1984) as a supporting
reference. However, Rosenthal suggests the technique for comparing results across
different studies (a methodology known as “meta-analysis) and not for
comparing the magnitude of effects within the same study. The authors offer no
justification for this unconventional application of the technique.
[693] W. L.
Sanders and S.P. Horn, “Research Findings From The Tennessee Value Added
Assessment System (TVAAS) Database: Implications For Educational Evaluation And
Research,” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 12, No. 3,
1998, pp. 247-256
[694] W. L.
Sanders, “Value-Added Assessment,” The School Administrator, Vol. 55,
No. 11, December 1998
[695] H. Meyer,
“Value-Added Indicators of School Performance.” In E. A. Hanushek and D. W.
Jorgenson (Editors), Improving America's Schools: The Role of Incentives,
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996, p. 200
[696] Graphical
Summary of Educational Findings From the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment
System. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and
Assessment Center, 1997
[697] Ibid.
[698] L.
Darling-Hammond and L. Post, “Inequality in Teaching and Schooling: Supporting
High-Quality Teaching and Leadership in Low-Income Schools.” In R.D. Kahlenberg
(Editor), A Notion at Risk: Preserving Public Education as an Engine for
Social Mobility, The Century Foundation / Twentieth Century Fund Inc. 2000
[699] D. Hu,
The Relationship of School Spending and Student Academic Achievement When Achievement
is Measured by Value-Added Scores. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, 2000
[700] J.D.
Bransford, A.L. Brown and R.R Cocking, (Editors), How People Learn: Brain,
Mind, Experience, and School, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999,
p. xvi.
[701] H.
Kupermintz, L. Shepard and R. Linn, “Teacher Effects as a Measure of Teacher
Effectiveness: Construct Validity Considerations in TVAAS (Tennessee Value
Added Assessment System).” In D. Koretz (Chair), New Work on the Evaluation
of High-Stakes Testing Programs. Symposium at the National Council on
Measurement in Education (NCME) Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, April 2000
[702] Bock and Wolfe, 1996
[703] Ibid.,
p. 27
[704] G. W. Bracey, The Ninth Bracey Report On
the Condition Of Public Education, Phi Delta Kappan, Oct 1999, Vol. 81,No.
2, p. 147; L. Darling-Hammond, “Toward What End? The Evaluation of Student
Learning for the Improvement of Teaching.” In J. Millman (Editor), Grading
Teachers, Grading Schools: Is Student Achievement A Valid Measure? Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1997
[705] Sanders and
Horn, 1998, p. 251
[706] T.R. Guskey,
Evaluating Professional Development, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
2000, p.16
[707] D. Sparks,
“Focusing Staff Development on Improving Student Learning.” In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Handbook of Research
on Improving Student Achievement, 1995, pp. 163-172 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
394 629).
[708] The terms
“staff development” and “professional development” will be used synonymously in
this review
[709] J.W. Little,
“Teachers’ Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform,” Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 15(2), 1993, pp.129-151, p. 143
[710] Ibid.,
p. 148
[711] M.
McLaughlin, “Enabling Professional Development.” In A. Lieberman and L. Miller (eds.), Staff Development for
Education in the ‘90s, 1991, pp. 61-82
[712] J.S. Brown, Remarks
at a Stanford Center for Organizational Research Seminar, January 13, 1989
[713] Little, 1993
[714] J. Pennell
and W.A. Firestone, “Changing Classroom Practices Through Teacher Networks:
Matching Program Features with Teacher Characteristics and Circumstances,” Teachers
College Record, 98(1), 1996, pp. 46-76
[715] A. Lieberman
and M. Grolnick, “Networks And Reform In American Education,” Teachers College
Record, 98(1), 1996, pp. 7-45
[716] A. Lieberman
and L. Miller, “Teacher Development in Professional Practice Schools,” 1992
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374 098)
[717] L.
Darling-Hammond and M.W. McLaughlin, “Policies that Support Professional
Development in an Era of Reform,” Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 1995, pp.
597-604
[718] M.A.
Smylie, “Teacher Learning in the Workplace.”
In T.R. Guskey and M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional Development in
Education: New Paradigms and Practices, New York: Teachers College Press,
1995, pp. 92-113
[719] Ibid.
p. 93
[720] T.R. Guskey,
“Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change,” Educational Researcher, 15(5), 1986,
pp. 5-12
D.P. Crandall, S. Loucks-Horsley, J.E. Bauchner, W.B.
Schmidt, J.W. Eiseman, P.L. Cox, M.B. Miles, A.M. Huberman, B.L. Taylor, J.A.
Goldberg, G. Shive, C.L. Thompson, and J.A. Taylor, People, Policies, and
Practices: Examining the Chain of School Improvement, Andover, MA: The
NETWORK, Inc., 1982
[721] Guskey, 1986
[722] T.R. Guskey
and D. Sparks, “Exploring the Relationship Between Staff Development and
Improvements in Student Learning,” Journal of Staff Development,
17(Fall), 1996, pp. 34-38
[723] J.E.
Mullens, M.S. Leighton, K.G. Laguarda, and E. O’Brien, Student Learning,
Teaching Quality, and Professional Development: Theoretical Linkages, Current
Measurement, and Recommendations for Future Data Collection, 1996 (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417 158)
[724] Guskey and
Sparks, 1996
[725] D. Sparks
and S. Hirsh, A National Plan for Improving Professional Development,
2000, p. 1 (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 442 779)
[726] R. Ferguson,
“Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters,” Harvard Journal of Legislation, 28
(Summer), 1991
[727] T.E. Armour,
C. Clay, R. Domanico, K. Bruno, and B. Allen, An Outlier Study of Elementary
and Middle Schools in New York City: Final Report, New York: New York City Board of Education,
1989
[728] J.A.
Shymansky, L.D. Yore, and J.O. Anderson, A Study of the Impact of a Long-Term
Local Systemic Reform on the Perceptions, Attitudes, and Achievement of Grade 3
/ 4 Students, 1999 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429 820)
[729] Ibid.
[730] See, for
example:
F.M. Newmann and G.G. Wehlage, Successful School
Restructuring, Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools,
1995
F.M. Newmann and Associates, Authentic Achievement:
Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996
[731] Newman and
Wehlage describe authentic instruction
as teaching and learning that
1.) involves disciplined inquiry,
2.) construction of knowledge, and
3.) learning tasks that have a “value beyond school” (i.e., students see
the relationship between the task and things that happen in the real
world). Constructivist learning
and construction of knowledge refer to a body of cognitive research that has
found that students learn by attaching new knowledge to which they are exposed
to existing knowledge they already hold.
The product is a reconstruction of what they know – essentially, the old
and new knowledge combine to create a different form of knowledge. Disciplined inquiry refers to
gathering information and data. In
essence, it can be thought of as the new material that students gather to add
to their existing foundation of knowledge, which they then cognitively process
to create new knowledge.
[732] B. Joyce and
B. Showers, Student Achievement Through Staff Development, New York: Longman, 1988
[733] National
Center for Education Statistics, Toward Better Teaching: Professional
Development in 1993-94. Washington,
D.C.: US Department of Education, 1998
[734] National
Center for Education Statistics, Status of Education Reform in Public
Elementary And Secondary Schools: Teachers’ Perspectives, Washington, D.C.:
US Department of Education, 1998
[735] D.K. Cohen,
H.C. Hill, State Policy and Classroom Performance: Mathematics Reform in
California, 1998 (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 418 842)
D.K. Cohen, H.C. Hill, Instructional Policy and Classroom
Performance: The Mathematics Reform in California, 1998 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
417 942)
[736] P.S. Adey, Factors
Influencing Uptake of a Large Scale Curriculum Innovation, 1997 (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408 672)
P. S. Adey, and M. Shayer, “An Exploration of Long-Term
Far-Transfer Effects Following an Extended Intervention Programme in the High
School Science Curriculum,” Cognition
and Instruction, 11(1), 1993, pp.1-29.
P. S. Adey, and M. Shayer, Really Raising Standards:
Cognitive Intervention and Academic Achievement, London: Routledge, 1994
M. Shayer and P.S. Adey, “Long-Term Far-Transfer Effects of
a Cognitive Intervention Program: A
Replication,” paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, 1996
[737] Adey and
Shayer,. 1993
[738] R.
Greenwald, L.V. Hedges, and R.D. Laine, “The Effect of School Resources on
Student Achievement,” Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 1996, pp.
411-416
[739] A. Molnar,
P. Smith, J. Zahorik, A. Palmer, A.
Halbach, and K. Ehrle, “Evaluating The SAGE Program: A Pilot Program in
Targeted Pupil-Teacher Reduction in Wisconsin,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 21, No.
2, 1999, pp. 165-177.
[740] H.
Wenglinski, How Teaching Matters:
Bringing the Classroom Back into Discussions of Teacher Quality, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service,
2000.
[741] F. Dunne,
B. Nave and A. Lewis, Critical Friends Groups: Teachers Helping Teachers to
Improve Student Learning. Phi Delta
Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research (December, 2000; No.
28). URL: www.pdkintl.org/edres/resbul28.htm
[742] Ibid.,
p. 1
[743] Wenglinski,
2000
[744] W.L.
Sanders and J.C. Rivers, “Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future
Student Academic Achievement,” In
Education Trust, Thinking K-16: Good Teaching Matters: How Well Qualified
Teachers Can Close the Gap. , 1998. Cited in Wenglinski, 2000
[745] A quick
count of references indicates that 13 come from refereed journals; 17 from books
published by national/international
academically-oriented or university presses; 15 from ERIC reports; eight from
research lab, school district, or government reports; four from non-refereed
national or international journals; and a handful from a variety of other
sources.
[746] W.D. Hawley
and L.Valli, “The Essentials of
Effective Professional Development: A New Consensus.” In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the
Learning Profession, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999, pp. 125-150
Little, 1993
D. Sparks, A Paradigm Shift in Staff Development,
1995 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 136
M.G. Visher, P. Teitelbaum, and D. Emanuel, Key High
School Reform Strategies: An Overview of Research Findings, 1999 (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 271
[747] For
example, Michael Fullan repeatedly points out the ineffectiveness of top-down
planning in his two highly regarded and research-based works on change:
M. Fullan, The
New Meaning of Educational Change, New York: Teachers College Press, 1991
M. Fullan, Change Forces, Londan and New York:
RoutledgeFalmer, 1993
[748] Little, 1993
[749] Hawley and
Valli, 1999; Mullens et al., 1996
[750] Sparks, A
Paradigm Shift… 1995
[751] Little, 1993
[752] D. Sparks,
“A New Vision for Staff Development,” Principal, 77(1), 1997, pp. 20-22
[753] Sparks, Paradigm
Shift… 1995, p. 3
[754] P. Berman,
and M.W. McLaughlin, Federal
Programs Supporting Educational Change/ Volume 8, Implementing and Sustaining
Innovations, Santa Monica: Rand
Corporation, 1978
McLaughlin, 1991
[755] Berman and
McLaughlin, 1978
[756] Darling-Hammond
& McLaughlin, 1995
W. Doyle and G. Ponder, “The Practical Ethic and Teacher
Decision Making,” Interchange, 8(3), 1977, pp. 1-12
R.F. Elmore and D. Burney, Investing in Teacher Learning:
Staff Development and Instructional Improvement in Community School District
#2, New York City, 1997, (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 203)
Hawley &
Valli, 1999; Sparks & Hirsh, 2000
J.W. Little, “Seductive Images and Organizational Realities
in Professional Development,” Teachers College Record, 86(1), 1984, pp.
84-102
G. Sykes, “Teacher and Student Learning: Strengthening the
Connection.” In L. Darling-Hammond
& G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the Learning Profession, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1999, pp. 151-179
P. Zigarmi, L. Betz, and D. Jensen, “Teachers’ Preferences
in and Perceptions of In-Service,” Educational Leadership, 34, 1977, pp.
545-551
[757] B. Joyce, J.
Wolfe, and E. Calhoun, The
Self-Renewing School, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 1993
[758] Ibid.,
p. 19
[759] Sparks,
1997, p. 21
[760] Sparks, A
Paradigm Shift…, 1995
[761] Elmore and
Burney, 1997, p. 8
[762] Sparks, A
Paradigm Shift…, 1995
D. Sparks, “A New Form of Staff Development is Essential to
High School Reform,” The Educational
Forum, 60, 1996, pp. 260-266
[763] Sparks and
Hirsh, 2000, p. 5
[764] Cohen and
Hill, State Policy…, 1998
Cohen and Hill,
Instructional Policy…, 1998
[765] Cohen and
Hill, State Policy…, 1998
Cohen and Hill, Instructional
Policy…, 1998
Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995; Elmore and Burney,
1997; Hawley and Valli, 1999; Little, 1984; Mullens et al., 1996
Sparks, A Paradigm Shift…, 1995
Visher et al., 1999
[766] M.G. Fullan,
The New Meaning of Educational Change (2nd ed.), New York:
Teachers College Press, 1991
M.G. Fullan, Change Forces: Probing the Depths of
Educational Reform, Bristol, PA: Falmer Press, 1993
Guskey, 1986
[767] Sparks and
Hirsh, 2000, p. 5
[768] National
Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Quality: A Report on the
Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers, Washington, D.C.:
US Department of Education, 1999
[769] Cohen and
Hill, State Policy…, 1998
Cohen and Hill, Instructional
Policy…, 1998
[771] Little,
1993, p. 138
[772] See, for
example:
L.B. Resnick and L.E. Klopfer, Toward the Thinking
Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research, Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1989
D. Walker and L. Lambert, “Learning and Leading Theory: A
Century in the Making.” In L. Lambert,
D. Walker, D.P. Zimmerman, J.E. Cooper, M.D. Lambert, M.E. Gardner, and P.J.
Ford Slack (eds.), The Constructivist Leader, New York: Teachers College
Press, 1995, pp. 1-27
[773] Sparks, A
Paradigm Shift…, 1995, p. 3
[774] S.
Brookfield, Understanding and
Facilitating Adult Learning, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986
[775] Darling-Hammond
and McLaughlin, 1995; Elmore and Burney, 1997; Guskey, 1986; Joyce and Showers,
1988
[776] Guskey, 1986
[777] M. L. Cogan,
“Current Issues in the Education of Teachers.”
In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher Education: Seventy-Fourth Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975
[778] McLaughlin,
1991; Berman and McLaughlin, 1978
[779] Joyce and
Showers, 1988, p. 112
[780] See Joyce
& Showers, 1988, pp. 81-94 , for a more extensive discussion of coaching
and the research supporting its effectiveness.
[781] Joyce, Wolfe
and Calhoun, 1993
[782] Cohen and
Hill, State Policy…, 1998
Cohen and Hill, Instructional Policy… 1998
Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995; Elmore and Burney,
1997; Hawley and Valli, 1999; Little, 1984; Mullens et al., 1996
Sparks, A
Paradigm Shift…, 1995
M. K. Stein, High Performance Learning Communities
District 2: Report on Year One
Implementation of School Learning Communities, High Performance Training
Communities Project, 1998 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429 263)
[783] J.W. Little,
W.H. Gerritz, D.S. Stern, J.W. Guthrie, M.W. Kirst, and D.D. Marsh, Staff
Development in California, San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for
Educational Research and Development
and Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, 1987
[784] Sparks, A
Paradigm Shift…, 1995
[785] Ibid.,
page 3
[786] Little et
al., 1987
[787] Elmore and
Burney, 1997, p. 13
[788] Sparks and Hirsh, 2000
[789] Stein, 1998,
p. 7
[790] F.I.
Stevens, Case Studies of Teachers Learning and Applying Opportunity to Learn
Assessment Strategies in Two Urban Elementary Schools, 1999 (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 437 487)
[791] Elmore and
Burney, 1997, p. 9
[792] Little, 1984
[793] Cohen and
Hill, State Policy…, 1998
Cohen and Hill, Instructional Policy…, 1998
Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995; Elmore and Burney,
1997; Hawley and Valli, 1999
B. Joyce, “Prologue.”
In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing School Culture Through Staff Development, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 1990, pp. xv-xviii
A. Lieberman, “Practices That Support Teacher Development:
Transforming Conceptions of Professional Learning,” Phi Delta Kappan,
76, 1995, pp. 591-596
J.W. Little, “Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation:
Workplace Conditions of School Success,” American Educational Research
Journal, 19, 1982, pp. 325-340
Little, 1984; Little et al., 1987; McLaughlin, 1991; Mullens
et al., 1996
S. Rosenholtz, Teachers
Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools, New York: Longman, 1989
Sparks, A
Paradigm Shift…, 1995; Stein, 1998
[793] Little et al., 1987; Sparks, A Paradigm
Shift…, 1995; Sparks, 1996, 1997; Sparks and Hirsh, 2000; Stein, 1998;
Visher et al., 1999
[794] Darling-Hammond
and McLaughlin, 1995; Lieberman and Miller, 1992
Sparks, A
Paradigm Shift…,1995; Sparks, 1996
[795] Sparks and Hirsh, 2000, p. 11
[796] Smylie, 1995, p. 92
[797] Lieberman
and Miller, 1992
[798] Ibid.
[799] D.
Meier, The Power of Their Ideas:
Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem, Boston: Beacon Press, 1995, p. 109
[800] Sparks and
Hirsh, 2000
[801] Little, 1982
[802] Little,
1993, p. 139; italics in original
[803] Rosenholtz,
1989
[804] Ibid.,
p. 73
[805] J.O. Larson, N. Mayer, C. Kight, and C. Golson, Narrowing
Gaps and Formulating Conclusions: Inquiry in a Science Teacher Action Research
Program, 1998 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417 976)
[806] F. Dunne and F. Honts, “That Group Really Makes
Me Think!” Critical Friends Groups and
the Development of Reflective Practitioners, 1998 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423 228)
[807] NCES, 1999
[808] Berman and McLaughlin, 1978; Little, 1993;
McLaughlin, 1991; Meier, 1995
U.C. Reitzug and M. J. O’ Hair, “From Conventional School to
Democratic School Community: The
Dilemmas of Teaching and Leadership.”
In Gail Furman-Brown (Ed.), School as Community: From Promise to Practice, New York:
State University of New York Press (in press)
Sparks, 1997; Stein, 1998
[809] McLaughlin, 1991
[810] Reitzug and O’Hair, in press
[811] Stein, 1998
[812] McLaughlin, 1991; Meier, 1995
[813] Little, 1993
J.W. Little, “What Teachers Learn in High School:
Professional Development and the Redesign of Vocational Education,” Education
and Urban Society, 27(3), 1995, pp. 274-293
[814] McLaughlin, 1991; Berman and McLaughlin, 1978
[815] Sparks, A
Paradigm Shift…, 1995; Sparks, 1996; Visher et al., 1999
[816] J.
Bellanca, Designing Professional
Development for Change: A Systematic Approach, Arlington Heights, IL:
IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing, 1995
[817] Budde, Ray (1998). Education by Charter: A
Ten-Year Plan. Andover, MA: The
Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.
[818] Shanker, Albert S. (1988). “Convention Plots
New Course–A Charter for Change.” New
York Times, July 10, Section 4, p. 7.
[819] Nathan, Joe
(1996). Charter Schools: Creating
Hope and Opportunity for American Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. xxviii
[820] Finn,
Chester E., Jr., Bierlein, Louann, and Manno, Bruno V. (1996). “Charter Schools in Action: A First
Look.” Indianapolis: Hudson Institute
[821] Henig, Jeffrey (1994, 1995). Rethinking
School Choice: Limits of the Market Metaphor.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, paperback edition, 1995. Page
234. (The quoted passage did not appear in the original hardcover edition.)
[822] Manno,
Bruno, V. (1999). “Accountability: The
Key to Charter Renewal.” Accessible at http://edreform.com/pubs/accountabilityguide.htm.
[823] Patterson, Tom (2001). “Arizona’s Charter Schools: What Do We
Know?” Accessible at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/perspectives/0104.htm.
[824] See Center
for Education Reform (2001). “Charter School Laws: Scorecard and Ranking 2001” http://www.edreform.com/charter_schools/laws/ranking_2001.htm 2000
[825] Finn,
Chester E., Jr., Manno, Bruno V., and Vanourek, Gregg (2000). “Accountability Through Transparency.” Education Week, April 26, p. 42
[826] Horn,
Jerry, and Miron, Gary (2000). An
Evaluation of the Michigan Charter School Initiative: Performance,
Accountability, and Impact. Kalamazoo:
The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University
[827] Oplinger,
Douglas (2001). “Charter School Trail
Public Rivals on Proficiency Tests, Need to Improve.” Akron Beacon Journal, February 28
Ohio Legislative Office of Education Oversight, (2001). Community Schools in Ohio: Second Year
Implementation Report, Volume I, Policy Issues. Columbus: Author.
Ohio Legislative Office of Education Oversight, (2000). Community Schools in Ohio: First Year
Implementation Report. Columbus:
Author
[828] RPP International
(2000). The Condition of Charter
Schools: Fourth Year Report. Washington,
D.C.: United States Department of
Education.
[829] See, for
instance:
Cooper, Kenneth J. (2000).
“For Texas Charter Schools, Shaky Grades.” Washington Post, October 15, p. A10.
[830] Henry,
Tamara (2001). “Scores Go Up for
Charters.” USA Today, March 28.
[831] Miron, Gary
and Nelson, Christopher (2001). Autonomy
in Exchange for Accountability: An Initial Study of Pennsylvania Charter
School. Kalamazoo: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan
University
[832] Solmon,
Lewis, Paark, Kern, and Garcia, David (2001).
Does Charter School Attendance Improve Test Scores? The Arizona Results. Phoenix, AZ: The Center for Market-Based
Education, The Goldwater Institute. www.goldwaterinstitute.org.
[833] See:
Horn and Miron, 2000
Horn, Jerry and Miron, Gary (1999). Evaluation of the Michigan Public School
Initiative: Final Report. Kalamazoo:
The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University
Public Sector Consultants/Maximus (1999). Michigan’s Charter School Initiatives:
From Theory to Practice.
Arsen, David, Plank, David and Sykes, Gary (1999). School Choice Policies in Michigan: The
Rules Matter. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University.
[834] Wells, Amy
Stuart (1998). Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform: A Study of Ten
California School Districts. Los
Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles.
[835] Miron and
Nelson, 2001
[836] Henig
Jeffrey R., Holyoke, Thomas T., Lacireno-Paquet, Natalie, and Moser Michelle
(2001). Growing Pains: An Evaluation
of Charter Schools in the District of Columbia, 1999-2000. Washington, DC: The George Washington
University
[837] Solmon,
Paark, and Garcia (2001)
[838] Gene V
Glass, personal communication, June 2001
Douglas Harris, personal communication, June 2001
[839] Solmon,
Paark, and Garcia (2001), pp. 12-13
[840] Popham,,
W.J. (1999) “Why Standardized Tests Don’t Measure Educational Quality,” Educational Leadership, March
[841] J.P. Greene,
P.E. Peterson, and J. Du (1996) The Effectiveness of School Choice in
Milwaukee, 1996. Available at http://data.fas.harvard.edu/pepg.
[842] Peterson,
Paul E., Myers, David and Howell, William G. (1999) An Evaluation of the New
York Choice Scholarship Program: The First Year. Accessible at http://data.fas.harvard.edu/pepg.
Howell, William G., Wolf, Patrick, J., Peterson, Paul E.,
and Campbell, David E. (2000).
“Test-Score Effects of School Vouchers in Dayton Ohio, New York City,
and Washington, D. C.: Evidence from Randomized Field Trials.” Accessible at http://data.fas.harvard.edu/pepg.
[843] SRI
International (1997). Evaluation of
Charter School Effectiveness, Part II. Menlo
Park, CA: Author.
[844] Wells
(1998)
[845] Izu et alia, 1998, p. 47
[846] Horn and
Miron (2000)
[847] Public Sector Consultants/Maximus (1999).
[848] Horn and
Miron (1999); Horn and Miron (2000)
[849] Horn and
Miron (2000)
[850] Ibid.
[851] Ibid., page vii
[852] Bettinger,
Eric (1999). The Effect of Charter
Schools on Charter Students and Public Schools. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in
Education, Teachers College, Occasional Paper Number 4, page 3
[853] Ibid.,
page 20
[854] Eberts,
Randall W., and Hollenbeck, Kevin M (2001).
An Examination of Student Achievement in Michigan Charter
Schools. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research.
[855] Hoxby,
Caroline M. (2001). “School Choice and
School Productivity: Could School Choice be a Tide that Lifts All Boats?” Paper presented at the National Bureau of
Economic Research, “The Economics of School Choice,” Islamorada, Florida,
February, 2001.
[856] Ibid., page 36
[857] Ibid.,
page 41
[858] Miron and
Nelson (2001)
[859] Ibid.
[860] Ibid.
[861] Henig et al
(2001)
[862] Ibid.
[863] Ibid.,p. 66.
[864] Ibid.
[865] See, for instance,
Moe, 1995, p. 20: “Ideology aside, perhaps the most vexing problem [of voucher
research] is that few researchers who carry out studies of school choice are
sensitive to issues of institutional design or context. They proceed as though their case studies
reveal something generic about choice or markets when, in fact – as the
Milwaukee case graphically testifies – much of what they observe is due to the
specific rules, restrictions, and control mechanisms that shape how choice and
markets happen to operate in a particular setting.”
[866] Peterson,
Paul E., and Noyes, Chad (1998). “Under
Extreme Duress: Choice Success.”
Accessible at http://data.fas.harvard.edu/pepg.
[867] Ibid.
[868] Witte, John
F., Sterr, Troy D., and Thorn, Christopher A. (1995). Fourth-Year Report: Milwaukee Choice Program. Madison, WI: Department of Public
Instruction
[869] Greene,
Peterson and Du (1996)
[870] Rouse,
Cecilia E. (1998). Private School
Vouchers and Student Achievement: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental
Choice Program.” The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, May, 553-602
[871] Rouse,
Cecilia E. (2000). “School Reform in
the 21st Century: A Look at the Effect of Class Size and School
Vouchers on the Academic Achievement of Minority Students.” Working Paper #440, Industrial Relations
Section, Princeton University.
Accessible at www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/working_papers.htm.
[872] Greene, Jay
P., Peterson, Paul E., and Howell, William G. (1997). “An Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship Program. Accessible at
http://data.fas.harvard.edu/pepg
[873] Metcalf,
Kim K (1998). “Advocacy in the Guise of
Science”. Education Week, September
23.
[874] Peterson,
Paul E., Greene, Jay P., and Howell, William G. (1999). “An Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship
Program After Two Years.” Accessible at
http://data.fas.harvard.edu/pepg.
[875] Walsh, Mark
(1998). “Audit Criticizes Cleveland
Voucher Program.” Education Week, April
14, p. 9
Metcalf, Kim K., Boone, William J., Stage, Francis K.,
Chilton, Todd L, Muller, Patty, and Tait, Polly (1998). A Comparative
Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Grant Program. Bloomington: Indiana Center for Evaluation, University of Indiana.
[876] Peterson,
Howell and Greene, 1998
[877] Peterson,
Paul E., Greene, Jay P., and Howell,
William G. (1998a). New Findings from
the Cleveland Scholarship Program: A Reanalysis of the Data from the Indiana
University School of Education Evaluation.”
Accessible at http://data.fas.harvard.edu/pepg.
[878] Metcalf
(1998)
[879] Peterson,
Paul E., Greene, Jay P., and Howell, William G (1998b). “Voucher Research: Good Motives Aren’t
Sufficient.” Education Week, October
21.
[880] Greene, Jay
P. (2001). “An Evaluation of the
Florida A-Plus Accountability and School Choice Program.” Accessible at www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_aplus.htm.
[881] Ibid.
[882] Camilli,
Gregory, and Bulkley, Katrina (2001).
“A Critique of ‘An Evaluation of the Florida A-Plus Accountability and
School Choice Program.’” Accessible at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n7/.
[883] Regression
to the mean refers to the fact that when one selects a group made up of low
test scorers, they tend to score higher on a second administration of the test
(high scorers tend to score lower the second time. Greene aggregated scores across grades which Camilli and Bulkley
argue was inappropriate because the different grades showed very different
effects, meaning that Greene aggregated “apples and oranges.”
See also:
Greene, Jay P. (2001b).
“A Reply to ‘Critique of “An Evaluation of the Florida A-Plus Accountability
Program.” www.manhattaninstitute.org.
[884] Weinschrott,
David and Kilgore, Sally (1996). Educational
Choice Charitable Trust: An Experiment in School Choice. Washington, D. C.: Hudson Institute.
[885] Howell,
Wolf, Peterson, and Campbell (2000)
Peterson, Paul E., Howell, William G., Wolf, Patrick J., and
Campbell, David E., (2001). “School
Vouchers: Results from Randomized
Experiments.” Paper presented at the
Conference on School Choice, sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic
Research, Islamorada, Florida, February.
[886] Zernike,
Kate (2000). “New Doubt Is Cast on
Study That Backs Voucher Efforts.” New
York Times, September 15, p. A21
[887] Witte et
al. (1995)
[888] Peterson,
Myers and Howell (1998)
[889] Howell,
Wolf, Peterson and Campbell (2000)
[890] Ibid., pp. 32-33
[891] Ibid., p. 33
See also:
Finn, Jeremy D. and Achilles, Charles N., (1999). “Tennessee’s Class Size Study: Findings,
Implications, Misconceptions.” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Summer, pp. 97-109.
Finn, Jeremy, D., and Achilles, Charles N., (1990). “Answers and Questions about Class
Size.” American Educational Research
Journal, Winter, pp. 557-577.
[892] Peterson,
Howell, Wolf, and Campbell (2001)
[893] Godwin R.
Kenneth, Kemerer, Frank R., and Martinez, Valerie, J. (1997). Final Report: San Antonio School Choice
Research Project. Denton, Texas:
Center for the Study of School Reform, School of Education, University of North
Texas, Executive Summary
[894] Ibid.
[895] Greene, Jay
P. and Hall, Daryl (2001). The CEO
Horizon Scholarship Program: A Case Study of School Vouchers in the Edgewood
Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
[896] Ibid.,
p. 25
[897] Kronholz,
June (1998). “A Poor School District in
Texas Is Learning to Cope in a Test Tube.”
Wall Street Journal, September 11, p. A1
[898] See, for instance:
Shanker, Albert S., and Rosenberg, Bella (1992). “Do Private Schools Outperform Public
Schools?” In Peter W Cookson (ed.), The
Choice Controversy. Newbury Park,
CA: Corwin Press.
[899] Rothstein,
Richard, Carnoy, Martin, and Benveniste, Luis (1999). Can Public Schools Learn from Private Schools? Washington, DC: Economic Policy
Institute.
[900] For a
comprehensive description of firms operating in this industry, see Molnar, Morales
and Vander Wyst (2000) Profiles of For-Profit Education Management Companies.
Milwaukee: Center for Education Research, Analysis, and Innovation, University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
[901] Williams and Leak, 1995.
[902] Mattern,
Hal, (2000). “TesseracT Nears $50
Million Deficit Mark.” Arizona
Republic, May 23, p. D1.
[903] American
Federation of Teachers (1998). Student
Achievement in Edison Schools: Mixed Results in an Ongoing Enterprise. Washington, DC: Author
Nelson, F. Howard (2000).
Trends in Achievement for Edison Schools, Inc. The Emerging Track Record. Washington, DC: American Federation of
Teachers
[904] Miron, Gary
and Applegate, Brooks (2000). An
Evaluation of Student Achievement in Edison Schools Opened in 1995 and
1996. Kalamazoo,MI : The Evaluation
Center, Western Michigan University.
Accessible at www.wmich.edu/evalctr.
[905] Cookson, Peter W., Embree, Katie, and Fahey,
Scott (2000). The Edison Partnership
Schools: As Assessment of Academic Climate and Classroom Culture. Washington, D. C.: Embree and Fahey,
2000
[906] Nelson
(2000), p. 6
[907] Miron and
Applegate (2000)
[908] Cookson et
al. (2000), p. 3
[909] Ibid.
[910] See for
instance:
Woodward, Tali, (2000).
“Edison Exodus: Will a Teacher Revolt Spell an End to the School
Privatization Experiment?” San
Francisco Bay Guardian, July 19, p. 1.
Wyatt, Edward (2001a).
“Challenges and the Possibility of Profits for Edison.” New York Times, January 1.
Wyatt, Edward (2001b).
“School Management Company Faces Ouster in San Francisco.” New York Times, March 28
[911] Guthrie,
Julian (2001). S. F. Schools Vote to
End Edison Compact.” San Francisco
Chronicle, June 29.
[912] Bulkley,
Katrina (2000). “The Accountability
Bind.” Paper presented at the annual
convention of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
Louisiana, April.