U.S. Department of Education
2001
As we near the final stage of the long-pending E.S.E.A. reauthorization process in Congress, we find ourselves presented with a long-awaited study of today's Title I schools, conducted for the U.S. Department of Education's Planning and Evaluation Service (PES) by the firms Westat and Policy Studies Associates. This is not so much an evaluation of the Title I program itself (which some people insist isn't really a "program" so much as a "funding stream") as it is a study of 71 high-poverty schools and a group of their students who moved from third to fifth grade during the course of this longitudinal project. The data were gathered between 1996 and 1999 as policy changes dictated in the 1994 E.S.E.A. amendments were beginning to kick in. The report consists mostly of information about which school policies and instructional practices seem to be related to greater and lesser pupil achievement, and you may well want to plunge into this sea yourself. (The executive summary-Volume I-is 16 pages; the technical report-Volume II-runs to 120 pages.) Two points struck me. First, not much gap-closing occurred between third and fifth grade for Title I students attending these schools. They were about as far behind national (and urban) norms in reading and math at the end of the multi-year study as at the beginning. In other words, nothing that was tried really worked very well. Second, the variables that the researchers opted to examine (for their impact on student learning) were but a handful of those they might have studied or that might make a difference. For example, they considered how highly teachers rated their professional development but never looked at any gauges of teacher knowledge, experience or competence. They also sought out instructional arrangements that the profession tends to favor (e.g. NCTM math, "exploration in instruction") but didn't look to see whether a school's curriculum or pedagogy was based on anything with proven efficacy. (NCTM math, by the way, showed a negative effect in high-poverty schools, a positive effect in less poor schools.) Finally, let us note that it took the analysts two years to crank out their analysis and that this report emerged after Senate and House had taken action on the current reauthorization. There have been previous examples of the Department's evaluation shop timing the release of its studies just a little too cleverly-so that they do or don't impact pending policy choices. One wonders if we're looking at another example of that. If you want to see for yourself, the document code is Doc#2001-20 and you can write to ED Pubs, Editorial Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794. You could also e-mail [email protected]. You could fax (301) 470-1244, phone (877) 433-7827 or surf to www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html or www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/eval.html.
