Kappan Home PDK Home

Schoolwide Reform Models: What Works?

By Olatokunbo S. Fashola and Robert E. Slavin The 1994 Title I reauthorization enables high-poverty schools to turn their Title I dollars into markedly better achievement for children. Models to facilitate this process are replicable and widely available, the authors point out, and these models provide a standard against which homegrown approaches to schoolwide reform can be assessed.   Illustration © 1998 by Kris Hackleman

THE EDUCATION of disadvantaged students is at a crossroads. On one hand, the recent release of Prospects, a national evaluation of Chapter 1/Title I -- at a cost of more than $7.2 billion the largest federal program for disadvantaged students in elementary schools -- has called into question the effectiveness of the entire program.1 At a time of budget cutting and downsizing of government, this finding has potentially disastrous implications for this critical funding source, the fuel for virtually all innovations in high-poverty schools. In addition, the long-term reduction in the achievement gaps between African American and Latino students and white students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading test has been reversed. On the 1994 assessment, the gaps grew for the first time since NAEP began in 1972.2

On the other hand, a number of developments have created the potential for fundamental reform in the education of students who are at risk. One of the most important of these also relates to Title I. This is the change in the Title I law, introduced in 1994, that makes it much easier for high-poverty schools to become schoolwide Title I projects and so be allowed to use Title I funds for schoolwide change, not just for changes that serve individual students having difficulties. At present, any school with at least 50% of its students in poverty can become a schoolwide Title I project. Recognizing how much more effective this model can be, many school districts have been concentrating their Title I resources in these schoolwide project schools.

The potential that has been created by these developments is not well understood outside of the Title I world, but it is revolutionary nevertheless. What the changes mean is that a substantial category of schools, approximately 20,000 of them by one estimate,3 have the freedom, the resources, and in most cases the motivation to fundamentally change their practices by adopting or developing schoolwide strategies to meet the needs of all their students.

Special Strategies for Educating Disadvantaged Children, a companion study to the national evaluation of Title I, investigated several promising alternatives to traditional Chapter 1 programs.4 The most effective of these were schoolwide projects: James Comer's School Development Program and our own Success for All model.5 Yet there was nothing magical about the schoolwide opportunity. Several homegrown schoolwide programs as well as some other nationally disseminated models did not increase student achievement. Even among schools that implemented the two most successful models, the quality of implementation varied and was strongly related to outcomes. Clearly, Title I will be no better than Chapter 1 unless schools today use more effective methods than they were using under Chapter 1. With the new Title I emphasis on schoolwide projects, this is the area on which the search for effective methods must focus.

How can Title I schoolwide projects take advantage of this opportunity? At present, most schoolwide projects are using their resources and freedom to provide the same services found to be ineffective in Prospects and many other studies: classroom aides and remedial services for small groups of students. Some are using the opportunity to reduce class size across the board, although Title I funding is usually not enough to bring about a large enough reduction in class size to make a meaningful difference.

Yet Title I schoolwide projects are beginning to see schoolwide status as a real opportunity for reform. In fact, whenever a high-poverty school is involved in any kind of reform program, the costs of that program are highly likely to have been covered by Title I. In many cases, schools develop their own homegrown reform models. However, schoolwide projects are increasingly adopting or adapting programs developed elsewhere, from subject-specific approaches, such as Reading Recovery, which is used in more than 6,000 U.S. elementary schools, to such whole-school change models as Accelerated Schools, the School Development Program, and Success for All.6

The advantages of adopting these "off the shelf" instructional models are clear. School staffs need not reinvent the wheel. Organizations behind each of the schoolwide models provide professional development, materials, and networks of fellow users. These reform organizations bring to a school broad experience working with high-poverty schools in many contexts. Unlike district or state staff development offices, external reform networks are invited in only if they are felt to meet a need, and they can be invited back out again if they fail to deliver. Their services can be expensive, but the costs are typically well within the Title I resources available to high-poverty schoolwide projects.

In light of the growing interest among schoolwide projects in adopting proven programs, it is critical for schools and districts to be aware of both the range of widely available schoolwide models and the evidence that exists to support them. Below, we review the research on the schoolwide reform models most likely to be available to Title I elementary and secondary schools across the U.S. and most likely to be effective in a variety of circumstances. Our article, which is adapted from a more detailed review of research on proven and promising programs for elementary and middle schools,7 uses a common standard of evidence to describe what is known today about the most promising schoolwide reform models appropriate to Title I schoolwide projects.

Scope of the review. We focus here on programs designed to affect core aspects of school functioning: instruction, curriculum, classroom management, assessment, professional development, and governance. These programs are designed, evaluated, and disseminated by a variety of groups: universities, nonprofit R & D organizations, and for-profit organizations. Programs were included if they had national capacity to work with large numbers of schools and had been extensively used with Title I schoolwide projects. Valid evidence of effectiveness was not a criterion for inclusion, but all programs had at least some anecdotal evidence, such as reports of achievement gains in a particular year. Therefore, the programs listed in this article should by no means all be considered "proven," but they are certainly promising, ambitious, comprehensive, and widely available. They were selected for review primarily on the basis that, among all programs that we might have considered, these are ones that Title I schoolwide projects might legitimately consider as alternatives to what they are doing now.

Of course, not all Title I schoolwide projects would be willing or able to adopt externally developed comprehensive plans; many would rather build their own whole-school models. Further, few of the existing comprehensive models cover every aspect of school functioning, so even schools that adopt these comprehensive approaches might want to use additional elements. For these reasons, we discuss in a section at the end of this article a strategy for assembling proven programs in specific curriculum areas into whole-school designs that Title I schoolwide projects could adopt as part of their own school plans.

Criteria of effectiveness. A program was considered to be effective if evaluations compared students who participated in the program to similar students in matched comparison or control schools and found that the program participants performed significantly better on fair measures of academic performance. Such evaluations were required to demonstrate that experimental and control students were initially equivalent on measures of academic performance, language proficiency, and other measures. "Fair measures" were ones that assessed objectives pursued equally by experimental and control groups. For example, a curriculum-specific measure would be fair only if the control group were implementing the same curriculum.

Many studies of innovative programs used evaluations that compared gains made by program participants on standardized tests, usually expressed in percentiles or normal-curve equivalents (NCEs), to "expected" gains derived from national norming samples. This design, widely used in evaluations of Chapter 1/Title I programs, is prone to error and generally overstates program impacts.8 In addition, many of the programs reviewed here presented evidence from only a small proportion of their schools, indicating large NCE or percentile gains in selected schools in a given year. Such evaluations do not meet minimal standards of evidence. Programs that present evidence only of this type are referred to in a summary table as "partially" meeting criteria of effectiveness.

Criteria of replicability. The best evidence that a program is replicable in other schools is that it has in fact been replicated elsewhere, especially if it has been evaluated and found to be effective in sites beyond its initial pilot locations. All programs listed in this article have national dissemination staffs able to work with schools anywhere, although some are currently working with far more schools than others.

Effect sizes. The outcomes of the evaluations summarized in this review are quantified as "effect sizes" (ES). These are computed as the difference between the means of the experimental and control groups, divided by the standard deviation of the control group. To give a sense of scale, an effect size of +1.0 would be equivalent to 100 points on the SAT scale, two stanines, 15 points of I.Q., or about 21 NCEs. In general, an effect size of +0.25 or more would be considered educationally significant. Effect sizes should be interpreted with great caution, however, for they can be influenced by many factors. Nevertheless, they can provide a useful indication of a program's effects on student achievement that can be compared (with care) across studies and programs.

Schoolwide Reform Programs

Success for All. The schoolwide reform program that has been most extensively evaluated in schools serving many students placed at risk is Success for All, a comprehensive reform program for elementary schools. Success for All provides schools with innovative curricula and instructional methods in reading, writing, and language arts from kindergarten through grade 6 and includes extensive professional development. The curriculum emphasizes a balance between phonics and meaning in beginning reading and extensive use of cooperative learning throughout the grades. Recently, programs in mathematics, social studies, and science have been added to Success for All, making up a program called Roots and Wings, described below.9

One-to-one tutoring, with an emphasis on first-graders, is provided, usually by certified teachers, to children who are having difficulties in learning to read. Family support services provided in each school build positive home/school relations and solve such problems as truancy, behavior problems, or the need for health services. A program facilitator works with all teachers on continuing professional development and coaching, manages an assessment program to keep track of student progress, and ensures close coordination of all program components.

In schools with Spanish bilingual programs, Success for All uses instructional strategies similar to those used in the English program, but with Spanish materials and a curriculum sequence appropriate to Latino culture. In schools that teach in English but serve many students who have limited proficiency in English, there is close coordination between the English-as-a-second-language (ESL) program and the classroom reading program, and effective ESL strategies are infused into the reading approach.

Longitudinal research on the Success for All program has taken place in 23 schools in nine districts throughout the U.S. In each case Success for All schools were matched with similar comparison schools. Students were pretested to establish comparability and then individually posttested each year on scales from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test and the Durrell Oral Reading Test. The results show consistent, substantial positive effects of the program, averaging an effect size of about +0.50 at each grade level. For the students most at risk -- those in the lowest 25% of their grades -- effect sizes have averaged more than a full standard deviation (ES = +1.00 or more). In grade-equivalent terms, differences between Success for All and control students have averaged three months in the first grade, increasing to more than a full grade-equivalent by fifth grade.10 Follow-up studies have found that this difference is maintained into sixth and seventh grades.

For language-minority students, the effects of Success for All have been particularly positive.11 Bilingual schools in Philadelphia that used the Spanish-language version of Success for All, Lee Conmigo, found substantial differences between Success for All schools and control schools on scales from the Spanish Woodcock, with an effect size at the end of second grade of +1.81 (almost a full grade-equivalent). A study in two California bilingual schools also found very positive effects of Success for All/Lee Conmigo.12 At the end of first grade, Success for All students exceeded control students by an effect size of +1.03 or about five months. The same study also reported an effect size of +1.02 for Spanish-dominant students in a sheltered-English adaptation of Success for All in a third California school. Incidentally, a five-year study of the ESL adaptation of Success for All for Cambodian students in Philadelphia also found extremely positive outcomes, averaging an effect size of +1.44 and a grade-equivalent difference of almost three years by the end of fifth grade.13

As of fall 1997, Success for All was in use in more than 750 schools in 36 states, nearly all Title I schools. A training staff in Baltimore, with regional training programs in many parts of the U.S. and Canada, disseminates the program nationally; program adaptations are also used in Mexico, Australia, Israel, and England.

Roots and Wings. Roots and Wings is a comprehensive reform design for elementary schools that adds to Success for All innovative programs in mathematics, social studies, and science. Funded by New American Schools, Roots and Wings has recently begun to be disseminated nationally.

Roots and Wings schools begin by implementing all the components of Success for All described above. In the second year of implementation, schools typically begin to incorporate the additional major components. MathWings is the name of the mathematics program used in grades 1 through 5. It employs a constructivist approach to mathematics based on the standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, but it is designed to be practical and effective in schools serving many students placed at risk. MathWings makes extensive use of cooperative learning, games, discovery, creative problem solving, manipulatives, and calculators.

WorldLab is an integrated approach to social studies and science that engages students in simulations and group investigations. Students take on the roles of various people in history, in different parts of the world, or in various occupations. For example, they work as engineers to design and test efficient vehicles, they form a state legislature to enact environmental legislation, they repeat Benjamin Franklin's experiments, and they solve problems of agriculture in Africa. In each activity students work in cooperative groups, do extensive writing, and make use of reading, mathematics, and fine arts skills.

A study of Roots and Wings was carried out in four Title I schools in rural southern Maryland.14 The assessment tracked growth over time on the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP) and compared that growth to growth in the state as a whole. The MSPAP is a performance measure on which students are asked to solve complex problems, set up experiments, write in various genres, and read extended text.

In both third- and fifth-grade assessments in all subjects tested (reading, language, writing, math, science, and social studies), Roots and Wings students showed substantial growth. On every measure, the percentage of students scoring at the "satisfactory" or "excellent" levels increased substantially more than the average for all Maryland schools. Evaluations of MathWings in San Antonio and in Miami and Palm Beach County, Florida, have also found strong positive effects.15

As of fall 1997, approximately 100 schools have added MathWings and/or WorldLab to their implementations of Success for All and so have made themselves into Roots and Wings schools.

Edison Project. The Edison Project is a comprehensive, schoolwide reform model launched by media entrepreneur Chris Whittle. Edison, a for-profit organization, contracts with local school districts to run all aspects of selected schools. The project selects the principals and staff, uses its own curricula and professional development, and adheres to its own rules, although it does accept any student who wishes to attend. The program mandates a longer-than-average school day (seven to eight hours) and school year (205 days). It usually makes extensive use of computers and software, including computers for students to take home.

Most curriculum and instruction in Edison schools are borrowed from other programs. In elementary reading, writing, and language arts, Edison schools use Success for All, including the early childhood, tutoring, and family support components. The schools use the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project for math in all grades and the Scholastic Company's Science Place. To these, they add a comprehensive system of performance assessments, learning contracts, and professional development.

The Edison Project is in the early stages of implementation, but it has begun formal evaluations of its pilot sites. The first-year evaluation focused primarily on reading performance in grades K-2. Schools in Wichita, Kansas, and Mt. Clemens, Michigan, were assessed on the same individually administered reading measures used in Success for All evaluations.16 The Wichita evaluation showed the largest impacts. Compared to matched children in control groups, Edison kindergartners averaged .26 grade-equivalents higher across four measures (ES = +.68); the differences for first-graders averaged .23 grade-equivalents (ES = +.37). Second-grade differences were nonsignificant.

At the Edison school in Mt. Clemens, Michigan, kindergarten students gained an average of almost two months more than controls (ES = +.48), and first-graders also gained almost two months more than controls (ES = +.36).

The differences between experimental and control groups in kindergarten and first-grade reading performance found in Wichita and Mt. Clemens are similar to those found in other Success for All evaluations, so it is as yet unclear how much the rest of the Edison design adds to this effect. However, Edison is early in its development and evaluation, and it seems likely that the other program components will have an added impact as the project reaches full implementation in each school. As of fall 1997, Edison is in approximately 15 elementary schools, eight middle schools, and one high school.

Core Knowledge. Core Knowledge is an approach to curriculum and instruction based on the work of E. D. Hirsch, Jr. The main emphasis of the approach is on teaching a common core of concepts, knowledge, and skills that characterize an educated individual. The curriculum itself is defined in a series of books titled What Your [First-, Second-, etc.] Grader Needs to Know. The hallmark of the curriculum is specificity. From very early on, children are taught about Egypt, Greece, Rome, and ancient African kingdoms; about photosynthesis, space, and Mayan calendars; about Shakespeare, haiku, and the Harlem Renaissance. In addition to the curriculum sequence, the Core Knowledge Foundation provides teachers with general guidelines and examples of how to teach the various topics.17

Core Knowledge is more a set of curriculum standards than it is a school reform model, and so it is difficult to evaluate the program in comparison to traditional conceptions of curriculum. The question of what should be taught, especially in such subjects as social studies and science, is often a question of values, which are not empirically testable. However, the program does make claims in terms of test outcomes.

A study currently in its second year compares six Baltimore Core Knowledge schools to six matched control schools.18 Outcomes are very inconsistent. On the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills, Core Knowledge first-graders scored slightly better than controls in reading comprehension (ES = +.09), with larger positive differences in math concepts (ES = +.18). Third-graders also scored slightly higher than controls in reading (ES = +.08), but no differently in math.

On the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), a state-of-the-art performance measure that would seem on its face to be more appropriate for Core Knowledge students, differences were equally inconclusive. Core Knowledge third-graders gained slightly more than controls on math, social studies, writing, and language use scales; they were essentially identical in reading; and they scored worse than controls in science. Among fifth-graders, Core Knowledge students gained slightly more (or declined slightly less) than controls on MSPAP reading, math, social studies, and science scales, and there were no differences in writing. The only important differences between experimental and control groups were in language usage.

Preliminary second-year data show similar patterns: slight and inconsistent advantages for the Core Knowledge schools.19 Anecdotal information from Core Knowledge schools in San Antonio, Texas, and Albemarle County, Virginia, indicates higher-than-expected reading performance.20

Core Knowledge makes few claims to improvements in basic skills, and the evidence to date is not encouraging in these areas. As a schoolwide change model, Core Knowledge might best be seen as part of a larger intervention, with other programs providing basic reading and math skills. For example, a program currently being implemented in six Baltimore elementary schools combines Core Knowledge with Direct Instruction in reading, and Core Knowledge is part of the more comprehensive Modern Red Schoolhouse design, described below. Core Knowledge is currently used in more than 350 schools in 40 states throughout the U.S.

Accelerated Schools. This approach to school reform is built around three central principles.21 One is "unity of purpose," a common vision of what the school should become, agreed to and worked toward by the school staff, the parents, the students, and the community. A second is "empowerment coupled with responsibility," which means that staff, parents, and students find their own ways to transform themselves, with freedom to experiment but also a responsibility to carry out their decisions. Third is "building on strengths," which means identifying the strengths of the students, the staff, and the school as an organization and then using these as a basis for reform. One of the key ideas behind Accelerated Schools is that, rather than remediate students' deficits, students at risk of school failure must be accelerated and given the kind of high-expectations curriculum typical of programs for the gifted and talented.

The school implements these principles by establishing a set of "cadres" that include a steering committee and work groups focused on particular areas of reform. The program has no specific instructional approaches and provides no curriculum materials; instead, school staff members are encouraged to search for methods that help them realize their vision. However, there is an emphasis both on reducing all uses of remedial activities and on adopting constructivist, engaging teaching strategies, such as project-based learning.

The evaluation evidence on Accelerated Schools is quite limited and largely anecdotal. The program's developers state that the program takes five years to implement fully and that it is unfair to evaluate program outcomes sooner. However, data from a few individual schools earlier in their implementations have been reported. One study reported on a Texas school with a large Latino majority that showed gains over time in its fifth-grade standardized test scores.22 (Other grades were not mentioned.) A similar comparison school showed losses over the same period. Another study reported mixed results, some favoring an Accelerated School and some, a control school.23 More than 900 schools in 39 states are currently involved in the Accelerated Schools network, and there are four regional training sites for the program in addition to the original training site at Stanford University.

School Development Program. The School Development Program (SDP) is a comprehensive approach to school reform in elementary and middle schools.24 It focuses on building a sense of common purpose among school staff members, parents, and community members and on engaging school staff and others in a planning process intended to change school practices to improve student outcomes.

Each SDP school creates three teams that take particular responsibility for moving the reform agenda forward. A school planning and management team -- made up of representatives of teachers, parents, and administrators -- develops and monitors implementation of a comprehensive school improvement plan. A mental health team, principally composed of school staff members concerned with mental health (e.g., school psychologists, social workers, counselors, and selected teachers) plans programs focusing on prevention, building positive child development, positive interpersonal relations, and so on.

The third major component of the SDP is a parent program, which is designed to build a sense of community among school staff members, parents, and students. The parent program incorporates existing parent participation activities (such as the PTA) and implements further activities to draw parents into the school, to increase opportunities for parents to provide volunteer services, and to design ways to respect and celebrate the ethnic backgrounds of students.

The three teams in SDP schools work together to create comprehensive plans for school reform. The main focus of their efforts is on mental health and parent involvement, but schools are also encouraged to examine their instructional programs and to look for ways to serve children's academic needs more effectively. The SDP was originally designed specifically to meet the needs of African American children and families, but large numbers of Latino and white students also attend SDP schools.

Evaluations of the effects of the program have taken place in a number of locations. The first was a longitudinal evaluation of the first two SDP schools, located in New Haven, Connecticut, which showed marked improvements in student performance on standardized tests over a 14-year period.25 The Special Strategies study, which followed first-graders in two SDP schools, also showed positive effects of the SDP model.26 Other evaluations comparing SDP to matched control schools have found mixed, inconsistent effects, with substantial site-to-site variation. Outcomes emphasized by the program, such as self-concept and school climate, have shown more consistent gains associated with the program than has achievement.27

The SDP is currently used in more than 565 schools in 22 states; most are elementary and middle schools. It has regional training programs in several states.

Consistency Management and Cooperative Discipline. Consistency Management and Cooperative Discipline (CMCD) is a schoolwide reform program designed to improve discipline in inner-city schools at all grade levels. CMCD emphasizes shared responsibility for classroom discipline between students and teachers, turning classrooms into communities of ownership in which teachers and students collaboratively arrive at the rules for classroom management. The idea is that if students have a hand in creating and enforcing the rules, then defying the teacher will not work anymore, "because [students] would also be breaking their own laws."28

CMCD provides a framework of regulations, which schools adapt to fit their individual needs. The main components or themes of CMCD, which exist at every school, are prevention, caring, cooperation, organization, and community. At the initial implementation stages of CMCD, the teachers engage in a series of interviews and assessment sessions in which they evaluate the school's strengths and weaknesses and adapt the program to fit their school.

CMCD has been evaluated primarily in inner-city Houston schools with many African American and Latino students. The main evaluation of CMCD followed five CMCD and five matched control schools in Houston over a period of five years. This evaluation found significant positive effects on standardized achievement tests, especially for students who remained in the program for six years.29

The most recent study of CMCD compared the performances of students in schools implementing a mathematics program with those in schools implementing a combination of CMCD and the mathematics program.30 All the schools involved in this study were majority Latino. The students in the combined program outperformed students involved in the mathematics-only program (ES = +.33).

CMCD currently exists in about 25 schools in three Texas districts, plus schools in Chicago and Norfolk. It is establishing a national dissemination capacity.

New American Schools Designs

The development of comprehensive, schoolwide designs for school reform has been greatly advanced by the New American Schools Development Corporation, now called simply New American Schools (NAS). Founded in 1991, NAS is a foundation primarily funded by large corporations that supports the development and dissemination of ambitious school designs for the 21st century. Initially, 11 design teams were funded to develop school designs. Four were discontinued for various reasons. The remaining seven are now engaged in national dissemination.

With the exception of our own program, Roots and Wings (described above), the NAS designs are at too early a stage of implementation and evaluation to have produced conclusive outcome data. Most have anecdotal data noting outstanding gains in one or two schools (among many that might be using the program). However, while the achievement data supporting them are limited so far, these designs have several features that make them attractive alternatives for Title I schoolwide projects seeking fundamental reform. First, the designs are very comprehensive. To one degree or another, all address curriculum, instruction, school operation, assessments, and parent/community involvement. Second, all are built for replication. All the designs provide trainers, well-specified professional development strategies, and networks of implementing schools that help mentor new schools in the network. Other than Roots and Wings, the New American Schools designs are as follows.

ATLAS Communities. The ATLAS Communities design is based on the collaboration of four school reform organizations, those led by James Comer, Howard Gardner, Theodore Sizer, and Jane Whitla.31 ATLAS incorporates elements of Comer's SDP, but it also adds elements of the other reform networks and has several unique features. One of these is a focus on working with pathways -- feeder systems of elementary, middle, and high schools whose staff members work together to create coordinated and continuous experiences for students. The emphasis of the design is on helping school staffs create classroom environments in which students are active participants in their own learning, putting into practice a model of the student as worker and the teacher as coach. Project-based learning is extensively used. Assessment in ATLAS schools emphasizes portfolios, performance examinations, and exhibitions.

Preliminary data from implementing schools show some gains. In Prince George's County, Maryland, reading test scores increased by up to 30% in one ATLAS elementary school, and a middle school reported increases on test scores in math, language arts, science, and social studies on the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program.

Audrey Cohen College System. The Audrey Cohen College System of Education is based on the teaching methods used at the Audrey Cohen College in New York City.32 This design attempts to have all learning relate to a purpose that contributes to the community or to the world at large. Each semester's work is built around a specific purpose, such as using science and technology to shape a just and productive society or helping people through the arts. Curriculum materials appropriate to the semester's purpose are identified and adapted for the use of the schools. Academic activities build toward "constructive action" projects in which children apply knowledge to contribute to real community needs. Anecdotal reports of early outcomes from individual elementary schools implementing the Audrey Cohen design in San Diego, Phoenix, and Miami have reported above-average gains on standardized achievement tests.

Co-NECT. Co-NECT is a design created by the Cambridge, Massachusetts, consulting firm of Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.33 The design focuses on complex interdisciplinary projects that incorporate technology and connect students with ongoing scientific investigations, information resources, and other students beyond their own school. Cross-disciplinary teaching teams work with clusters of students. Performance-based assessments are used extensively. On a battery of performance items, one of the original pilot schools for Co-NECT, a middle school in Worcester, Massachusetts, showed significant gains in reading scores from 1994 to 1995. Other schools also showed gains in selected areas.

Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound. Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound is a design built around learning expeditions -- explorations within and beyond school walls.34 The program is affiliated with Outward Bound and incorporates many of that program's principles of active learning, challenge, and teamwork. It makes extensive use of project-based learning, cooperative learning, and performance assessments. Expeditionary Learning schools in Boston, Dubuque, and New York City have shown significant increases over time on standardized test scores.

Modern Red Schoolhouse. The Modern Red Schoolhouse is a project of the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank with headquarters in Indianapolis.35 The program strongly emphasizes core academic subjects, and in the elementary and middle grades it is based on the Core Curriculum of E. D. Hirsch, Jr.36 It makes extensive use of technology in instruction and assessment and has established benchmarks for academic performance that all students must achieve to be advanced to the next unit or grade.

Several elementary schools involved in the Modern Red Schoolhouse design have shown improvement on NCEs in the early grades. In particular, a school in the Bronx showed substantial gains on a state test of essential skills in reading and math.

National Alliance for Restructuring Education. The National Alliance for Restructuring Education is a partnership of states, school districts, and national organizations that is affiliated with the New Standards Project.37 The National Alliance is different from all other NAS designs in that its emphasis is more on systemic reform than on specific school-by-school restructuring. In particular, the National Alliance works to help states and districts establish standards, performance assessments, and accountability methods. It then helps individual schools design their own approaches to meet those standards. Districts are also urged to give schools greater autonomy and control over resources so that they can find their own ways to meet high standards. In Kentucky, a key National Alliance partner, schools engaged with the National Alliance were much more likely than other Kentucky schools to earn awards for improving their students' performance.

Summary of Outcomes

As we noted above, an ideal program for this review would be one that has been rigorously evaluated many times in elementary or secondary schools that serve many students placed at risk. Moreover, the program would have been extensively replicated in similar schools. However, few programs meet all these criteria. Table 1 summarizes the degree to which each of the programs reviewed here meets these inclusion criteria.

TABLE 1 Programs Reviewed
Program Name	Grades Served	Meets Evaluation Criteria For Achievement?	Widely Replicated?
Schoolwide Reform Programs
Success for All	K-6	yes	yes
Edison Project	K-12	yes (for primary program)	no
Core Knowledge	K-6	partially	yes
Accelerated Schools	K-8	partially	yes
School Development Program	K-8	partially	yes
Consistent Manage- ment and Coopera- tive Discipline	K-12	yes	no
New American Schools Designs
ATLAS Communities	K-12	partially	yes
Audrey Cohen College	K-12	partially	yes
Co-NECT	K-12	partially	yes
Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound	K-12	partially	yes
Modern Red Schoolhouse	K-12	partially	yes
National Alliance	K-12	partially	yes
Roots and Wings	K-6	yes	yes

The table is only a summary. We have described the characteristics, evaluation evidence, and replicability of each program in more detail elsewhere.38

However, Title I schoolwide projects can greatly expand their range of alternatives by assembling their own set of components into a comprehensive model. A key advantage of comprehensive models is that their developers have thought through an overall school plan and know how to coordinate each of the elements of that plan with the others, how to phase them in over time, and so on. However, a school staff can certainly create its own plan and work out for itself how the elements will interconnect.

There is a very broad range of programs in particular subject areas from which schools can select. Obviously, there are many commercial textbooks and other programs that provide professional development as well as materials. The National Diffusion Network (NDN), terminated in 1996, listed more than 500 replicable programs with some evidence of effectiveness, most of which were innovations in particular subjects and grade levels. Despite the demise of the NDN, many of these programs still exist.39

In building a schoolwide model from discrete components that are themselves proven (but subject-specific) models, there are three key types of interventions schools should look for.

1. Curriculum and instruction. The most important set of interventions are those that affect what happens between children and teachers every day. Schools should review instructional programs in each major area of the curriculum, focusing on approaches that have evidence of effectiveness in comparison to matched control groups.40 These approaches tend to provide extensive professional development, far beyond that ordinarily provided by commercial textbook programs. Because of this, it is usually important to phase in curricular and instructional innovations over a period of time so as to ensure high-quality implementation of each element before the next is introduced.

Improving the quality of classroom instruction is the best and most cost-effective means of improving overall student achievement and preventing at-risk students from falling behind. In addition to extensive professional development, effective models tend to provide for a great deal of classroom follow-up from expert or peer coaches. They usually provide extensive curriculum-based assessment to enable teachers to continually adjust their pace and level of instruction and to identify individual children in need of extra assistance. Teachers implementing innovative curricula should have regular opportunities to meet and discuss what they are doing, to visit one another's classes, and to share materials and ideas.

2. Programs for at-risk students. Even with the best of instruction, some number of students in any school will always experience academic difficulties. An overall school plan must provide services for these children. In general, the best approaches to helping struggling students catch up with their peers involve one-to-one assistance targeted to the unique needs of the student. Most effective are tutoring programs involving certified teachers, such as those used in Reading Recovery and Success for All/Roots and Wings. However, tutoring approaches using paraprofessionals, volunteers, and cross-age peer tutors can also be effective.41 In each case, tutoring and other support services are likely to work best if they are closely linked to classroom instruction, using the same materials and objectives but adapting teaching methods to students' needs. For secondary schools, there are several programs that show evidence of effectiveness in reducing the dropout rate and increasing the college-attendance rate among at-risk students.42

3. Family support. Any comprehensive schoolwide reform approach should include elements designed both to engage parents in supporting their children's success in school and to solve nonacademic problems that could interfere with children's school performance. Such programs are a part of almost all the schoolwide approaches discussed above, and there are also many parent-focused programs that have their own dissemination programs, such as Parents as Teachers and Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork.43 In addition, schools should consider approaches that integrate health, mental health, and social services with their educational programs. One national model for this is Schools of the 21st Century.44

Conclusion

The results detailed in the Prospects report, like those in other reports before it, show little to support those who would endorse traditional practices in high-poverty Title I schools. Providing small-group remedial services to children who have already fallen behind has never been found to be effective. The 1994 reauthorization of Chapter 1 as Title I gives schools with at least 50% of their students in poverty an opportunity to use Title I funds to fuel comprehensive schoolwide reform. To take advantage of this opportunity, however, schools need to have access to a broad range of proven and replicable options so that they can make rational, considered choices among programs that work.

In this article we have described schoolwide reform models that are nationally available and have summarized the evidence of effectiveness for each. We have also described a strategy for assembling effective subject-specific instructional innovations, programs for struggling students, and family support programs into well-coordinated schoolwide plans.

It is apparent from the discussions of the currently available schoolwide reform models that much more research is needed to make available a substantial "shelf" of proven models. Yet what we do know now is that schools need not start from scratch in designing effective schoolwide plans. A wide array of promising programs are available, backed up by national networks of trainers, fellow users, materials, assessments, and other resources. For most Title I schoolwide projects, it is probably a better use of time and resources to affiliate with one of these networks than to try to develop a completely new approach. Once a school has chosen to affiliate with a national program, it can then work out how to implement the national model with integrity, intelligence, and sensitivity to local needs and circumstances.

Since the 1994 Title I reauthorization, a new world has opened up for high-poverty schools. The importance of Prospects is in telling us that there is no turning back to the policies of the past. Schoolwide projects are not a magic pill to cure the ills of high-poverty schools; it matters a great deal which particular model a school chooses and how effectively the school implements it. Yet it is clear that schools can turn their Title I dollars into markedly better achievement for children and that models able to facilitate this process are replicable and widely available. Not every school needs to adopt one of these models, but they do provide a standard against which homegrown models can be assessed. Our children deserve no less.

1. Michael J. Puma et al., Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes (Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates, 1997).
2. National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1994).
3. Mary Jean LeTendre, speech delivered to the New American Schools Leadership Conference, Washington, D.C., March 1997.
4. Sam Stringfield, Mary Ann Millsap, and Rebecca Herman, Special Strategies for Educating Disadvantaged Children: Results and Policy Implications (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997).
5. James P. Comer, "Educating Poor Minority Children," Scientific American, May 1988, pp. 42-48; Robert E. Slavin et al., Every Child, Every School: Success for All (Newbury Park, Calif.: Corwin, 1996); and Robert E. Slavin et al., "Success for All: A Summary of Research," Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, vol. 1, 1996, pp. 41-76.
6. Gay Su Pinnell, "Reading Recovery: Helping At-Risk Children Learn to Read," Elementary School Journal, vol. 90, 1989, pp. 161-82; Carol A. Lyons, Gay Su Pinnell, and Diane E. DeFord, Partners in Learning: Teachers and Children in Reading Recovery (New York: Teachers College Press, 1993); Wendy S. Hopfenberg and Henry M. Levin, The Accelerated Schools Resource Guide (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993); James P. Comer et al., Rallying the Whole Village: The Comer Process for Reforming Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 1996); and Slavin et al., Every Child, Every School.
7. Olatokunbo S. Fashola and Robert E. Slavin, "Promising Programs for Elementary and Middle Schools: Evidence of Effectiveness and Replicability," Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, vol. 2, 1997, pp. 251-307.
8. Robert E. Slavin and Nancy A. Madden, "Modifying Chapter 1 Program Improvement Guidelines to Reward Appropriate Practices," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 13, 1991, pp. 369-79.
9. Robert E. Slavin, Nancy A. Madden, and Barbara A. Wasik, "Roots and Wings," in Sam Stringfield, Steven Ross, and Lana Smith, eds., Bold Plans for School Restructuring: The New American Schools Development Corporation Designs (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1996), pp. 207-31.
10. Slavin et al., "Success for All."
11. Robert E. Slavin and Nancy A. Madden, "Effects of Success for All on the Achievement of English Language Learners," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1995.
12. Marcella Dianda and John Flaherty, "Effects of Success for All on the Reading Achievement of First-Graders in California Bilingual Programs," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1995.
13. Slavin and Madden, "Effects of Success for All on the Achievement of English Language Learners."
14. Slavin, Madden, and Wasik, op. cit.
15. Nancy A. Madden, Robert E. Slavin, and Kathleen Simons, MathWings: Early Indicators of Effectiveness (Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University, 1997).
16. Edison Project Partnership Schools Show Promising Academic Gains One Year After Opening (New York: Edison Project, 1996).
17. Core Knowledge Sequence (Charlottesville, Va.: Core Knowledge Foundation, 1995).
18. Sam Stringfield and Barbara McHugh, The Maryland Core Knowledge Implementation: First-Year Evaluation (Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University, 1997).
19. Sam Stringfield, personal communication, 20 May 1997.
20. Michael Marshall, Core Knowledge Sequence Credited in Test Score Boosts (Charlottesville, Va.: Core Knowledge Foundation, 1996); and Gail O. Schubnell, "Hawthorne Elementary School: The Evaluator's Perspective," Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, vol. 1, 1996, pp. 33-40.
21. Henry M. Levin, "Accelerated Schools for Disadvantaged Students," Educational Leadership, March 1987, pp. 19-21; and Hopfenberg and Levin, op. cit.
22. Jane McCarthy and Suzanne Still, "Hollibrook Accelerated Elementary School," in Joseph Murphy and Phillip Hallinger, eds., Restructuring Schooling: Learning from Ongoing Efforts (Newbury Park, Calif.: Corwin, 1993), pp. 63-83.
23. Stephanie L. Knight and Jane A. Stallings, "The Implementation of the Accelerated School Model in an Urban Elementary School," in Richard L. Allington and Sean A. Walmsley, eds., No Quick Fix: Rethinking Literacy Programs in America's Elementary Schools (New York: Teachers College Press, 1995), pp. 236-52.
24. James P. Comer, School Power (New York: Free Press, 1980); Comer, "Educating Poor Minority Children"; and Comer et al., op. cit.
25. Comer, "Educating Poor Minority Children."
26. Stringfield, Millsap, and Herman, op. cit.
27. Betsy J. Becker and Lawrence V. Hedges, "A Review of the Literature on the Effectiveness of Comer's School Development Program," unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1992; Norris M. Haynes, Summary of School Development Program Documentation and Research (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Child Study Center, 1991); and idem, ed., School Development Program Research Monograph (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Child Study Center, 1994).
28. H. Jerome Freiberg, Neil Prokosch, and Edward S. Treister, "Turning Around Five At-Risk Elementary Schools," School Effectiveness and School Improvement, vol. 1, 1990, pp. 5-25.
29. H. Jerome Freiberg and Shwu-Young Huang, Final Report Study 2.4: The Longitudinal Study of the Life Cycle of Improving Schools (Philadelphia: National Center on Education in the Inner Cities, 1994); and H. Jerome Freiberg, Terry A. Stein, and Shwu-Young Huang, "Effects of a Classroom Management Intervention on Student Achievement in Inner-City Elementary Schools," Educational Research and Evaluation, vol. 1, 1995, pp. 36-66.
30. H. Jerome Freiberg, Consistency Management and Cooperative Discipline: A Sample Design (Houston: University of Houston, 1996).
31. Cynthia J. Orrell, "ATLAS Communities: Authentic Teaching, Learning for All Students," in Stringfield, Ross, and Smith, pp. 53-74.
32. Audrey Cohen and Janith Jordan, "The Audrey Cohen College System of Education: Purpose-Centered Education," in Stringfield, Ross, and Smith, pp. 25-52.
33. Bruce Goldberg and James Richards, "Co-NECT Schools," in Stringfield, Ross, and Smith, pp. 75-108.
34. Margaret M. Campbell et al., "The Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound Design," in Stringfield, Ross, and Smith, pp. 109-38.
35. Ron Heady and Sally Kilgore, "The Modern Red Schoolhouse," in Stringfield, Ross, and Smith, pp. 139-78.
36. E. D. Hirsch, Jr., "The Core Knowledge Curriculum: What's Behind Its Success?," Educational Leadership, May 1993, pp. 23-25.
37. Robert Rothman, "Reform at All Levels: National Alliance for Restructuring Education," in Stringfield, Ross, and Smith, pp. 179-206.
38. See Fashola and Slavin, op. cit.
39. For a list of these programs, see National Diffusion Network, Educational Programs That Work: The Catalogue of the National Diffusion Network, 21st ed. (Longmont, Colo.: Sopris West, 1995).
40. A list of elementary and middle school programs with good evidence of effectiveness appears in Fashola and Slavin, op. cit.
41. On various types of tutoring programs, see Barbara A. Wasik and Robert E. Slavin, "Preventing Early Reading Failure with One-to-One Tutoring: A Review of Five Programs," Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 28, 1993, pp. 178-200; Barbara A. Wasik, Volunteer Tutoring Programs: A Review of Achievement Outcomes (Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University, 1997); and Peter A. Cohen, James A. Kulik, and Chen-Lin C. Kulik, "Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Meta-Analysis of Findings," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 19, 1982, pp. 237-48.
42. Olatakunbo S. Fashola and Robert E. Slavin, "Effective Dropout Prevention and College Attendance Programs for Students Placed at Risk," Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, in press.
43. Judy Pfannenstiel, Thomas Lambson, and Virginia Yarnell, Second Wave Study of the Parents as Teachers Program (Final Report) (St. Louis: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and Parents as Teachers National Center, 1991); and Joyce L. Epstein, Karen C. Salinas, and Vivian E. Jackson, TIPS: Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork, rev. ed. (Baltimore: Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children's Learning, Johns Hopkins University, 1995).
44. Edward F. Zigler, Matia Finn-Stevenson, and Karen W. Linkins, "Meeting the Needs of Children and Families with Schools of the 21st Century," Yale Law and Policy Review, vol. 10, 1992, pp. 69-81.

Contacts for Information on Programs Reviewed
Accelerated Schools Claudette Spriggs National Center for the Accelerated Schools Project Stanford University CERAS 109 Stanford, CA 94305-3084 Ph. 415/725-7158 or 415/725-1676	Edison Project Deborah Doorack 521 5th Ave., 16th Fl. New York, NY 10175 Ph. 212/309-1600
ATLAS Communities Linda Gerstle Education Development Center 55 Chapel St. Newton, MA 02160 Ph. 617/969-7100, ext. 2470 Fax 617/969-3440	Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound Margaret M. Campbell 122 Mount Auburn St. Cambridge, MA 02138 Ph. 617/576-1260 Fax 617/576-1340
Audrey Cohen College Janith Jordan 345 Hudson St. New York, NY 10014 Ph. 212/989-2002, ext. 223 Fax 212/675-0603	Modern Red Schoolhouse Sally B. Kilgore Hudson Institute 5395 Emerson Way Indianapolis, IN 46226 Ph. 317/545-1000 Fax 317/545-1384
Co-NECT Schools John Richards Educational Technologies Bolt, Beranek, and Newman 150 Cambridge Park Dr. Cambridge, MA 02138 Ph. 617/873-3081 Fax 617/873-3776	National Alliance for Restructuring Education Marc S. Tucker 700 11th St. N.W., Suite 750 Washington, DC 20001 Ph. 202/783-3668 Fax 202/783-3672
Consistency Management and Cooperative Discipline H. Jerome Freiberg College of Education University of Houston Houston, TX 77204-5872 Ph. 713/743-8663	School Development Program Ed Joyner Child Study Center School Development Program 230 South Frontage Rd. P.O. Box 20790 New Haven, CT 06520-7900 Ph. 203/785-2548 Fax 203/785-3359
Core Knowledge E. D. Hirsch, Jr. Core Knowledge Foundation 2012-B Morton Dr. Charlottesville, VA 22903 Ph. 804/977-7550	Success for All/Roots and Wings Robert E. Slavin Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk Johns Hopkins University 3505 North Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21218 Ph. 800/548-4998 Fax 410/516-8890

PDK Home | Site Map
Kappan Professional Journal

Last updated 9 February 1998
URL: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/ksla9801.htm
Copyright 1998 Phi Delta Kappa International