This document presents highlights of a synthesis of research results associated with school projects. The synthesis focuses on three aspects: (a) characteristics of the faculties and districts with comprehensive training; (b) programmatic and organizational components of educational achievement and (c) evidence of the effectiveness of organizational operations, particularly in terms of student achievement. In addition, several cautions associated with interpreting these findings are presented. Finally, implications for future assessments and for administrators in schools and districts with high academic standards are discussed. The new educational programs have provided supplemental resources to schools with large numbers of low-income students for more than three decades. Recent federal legislation has encouraged schools to adopt new projects that allow them to use funds more flexibly and strengthen their overall capacity to develop more comprehensive strategies to help disadvantaged children. Schools often use the funds to improve their entire program rather than target services to meet the needs of disadvantaged populations. However, despite the dramatic increase in the number of educational standards, a variety of questions remain about their effectiveness relative to traditional programming. The new projects have operated primary schools in large urban districts and have had high concentrations of poverty and academic disadvantage. School districts and state education agencies have often played a central role in initiating and establishing coordination and integration, and most colleges spent a relatively short period of time in the desire design and assessment process.
The new academic standards have allowed schools to introduce new activities and programs, as well as strengthen existing ones. Full emphasis has been placed on strengthening existing programs and schools have designed assistance to do so. However, a number of common components have emerged, including reducing class sizes through hiring additional staff and increasing staff development activities, revised decision-making structures (e.g., input of teachers in decisions that affect the school) and increased efforts to involve parents. In most schools, services have become indistinguishable from the regular school program, indicating that the traditionally fragmented or categorical approach to service delivery is becoming less common. Some schools have introduced or strengthened aspects of classroom instruction or the curriculum, often incorporating components associated with effective schools. There is also evidence that the planning process increased the ability of schools and teachers to deliver instructional services more flexibly as particular student needs arise. These preliminary findings give insight into the components that are included as supporting elements and begin to shape the idea of an understanding of what emerges from a typical implementation of the academic standards.
Principals report a variety of advantages and disadvantages associated with school projects. The vast majority of directors, who had been in business for a minimum of three years, reported that the evidence favored the new projects. Furthermore, of these schools that are considered to comprise the primary group of projects, only 9% did not show the academic achievement required to continue. Although these overall indicators are generally positive, information on the impact on student achievement remains limited. The richest information on student performance is derived from a pair of studies conducted within individual school districts. These district-level studies focus on comparing reading and math scores equivalent to a bell curve for schools with and without new projects. However, their designs, measures, and analytical methods vary widely, creating difficulties in drawing conclusions and comparing findings between studies. Of those studies that do test for statistical significance, most report only a couple of serious differences in measures of student performance between schools. Findings from these district-level studies suggest mixed effects (both positive and negative) on student achievement scores that tend to be small. In addition, several cautions should be considered within the interpretation of those findings, including project implementation, methodological difficulties inherent in the study, and thus limited studies at the district level.
The evaluation of new projects should continue beyond the initial phase of implementation and will be longitudinal and to capture effects that will not be fully evident during the primary years. Because there are a variety of methodological challenges inherent in the study (eg, different implementation strategies between sites), the evaluation design needs to be particularly careful. In addition, subsequent evaluations have yet to explore the role of school districts and seek a better understanding of the mechanisms through which particular features of educational standards cause changes in educational outcomes. The comprehensive plan has the potential to address three interrelated challenges within the nation’s most disadvantaged schools. First, to provide flexibility for our teachers in dealing with disadvantaged students. Second, reduce curricular and instructional fragmentation within the classroom. Third, and of immediate interest to national policymakers, it will be designed to improve accountability at a time when there is growing public concern about the overall quality of public education. Because the entry points incorporate a stronger accountability component, they provide the organizational potential to meet new federal legislative expectations for new programs. Additionally, schools and districts implementing new projects may take the opportunity to travel beyond basic accountability requirements and consider expanding the ways in which assessment and analysis are used. For example, student assessment can also be used to guide instruction and improve teaching practice. Whole-school projects also create a context during which the roles of principals and district staff could be expanded or redefined. District staff could emphasize methods for phasing out pull-out programs or integrating the traditional school-wide reading and math curriculum. The opportunity to redefine decision-making roles in the school can also facilitate the creation of structures that better serve students. For example, professional networks among teachers could be fostered within the school that encourage teachers to ‘buy in’ to aspects of the project’s new approach and cultivate changes at the classroom level. Similarly, new projects offer opportunities to explore broader governance issues. New alternative approaches to district, school, and classroom roles and relationships are often explored in conjunction with parental involvement.
Research on the effectiveness of new projects in terms of student performance has yielded mixed and largely inconclusive results. However, the very fact that district and school staff perceptions of the continuation of the latest projects suggests that subsequent evaluations may begin to indicate more positive effects. It should be noted that these reflect only some of the mentoring standards within the nation; therefore, it is critical that reliable longitudinal assessments continue beyond this first phase.
