AEP Online
Featured Columns
Blaschke on Fed. Funding
A+ Advice for Parents
    Archives
Archives
    Education 
    Legislation
    Technology
    Market Trends
    Misc. Topics
About

Blaschke on Federal Funding

New USED Study Confirms Targeting of Schools Identified for Improvement as Best Prospects for New Adoption/Purchasing of Math or Reading Curricula

A three-year study by SRI International for USED has confirmed recommendations which we have been making to clients -- to target schools identified for improvement as the best prospects for purchasing/adopting new math and/or reading curricula.  Among schools that have been “continuously identified for improvement” since 2002, 60 percent reported adopting a new reading/language arts curriculum over the last three years, while 53 percent adopted a new mathematics curriculum.  For schools identified for improvement in 2002, which by 2003-04 were no longer identified, 41 percent reported adopting a new reading/language arts curriculum during that time frame, while 35 percent adopted a new mathematics curriculum.  Overall, continuously identified schools since 2002 have undertaken more improvement activities than their counterparts no longer identified, including using student achievement data to inform school improvement efforts (95 percent).  Sixty-three percent of “continuously identified” schools reported they received assistance from school-based staff developers compared to only 23 percent reported among schools no longer identified. 

Among schools “continuously identified” or those no longer identified since 2002, districts reported the most often used school improvement strategies included:

* increasing the use of achievement data (76 percent);

* matching curriculum and instruction with standards and assessments (75 percent);

* increasing the quality and quantity of teacher and principal professional support professional development (64 percent); and

* selecting or implementing a new curriculum or instructional program (45 percent).

The SRI study, entitled “Title I Accountability and School Improvement from 2001-2004” (TASSIE), also tended to corroborate the results of previous studies conducted by the Center on Education Policy, including:

• While the number of Title I schools identified for improvement was about the same between 2002-03 and 2003-04, the trend toward greater concentration of identified schools in large, very large, and urban districts occurred, rising from about 40 percent to more than 53 percent over the timeframe;

• Between 2002-03 and 2003-04, only about half the districts that were required to offer SES actually provided these services, with about two-thirds of the districts reporting the major reason was that no parents had signed up for the services; the major reason in small rural schools was the lack of service providers;

• Between April 2003 and April 2004, the total number of approved SES providers increased from slightly over 1,000 to almost 1,800; the number of online providers increased from 98 to 162 and the number of districts and public school providers increased from 326 to 431; the number of private providers increased from 470 to slightly over 980;

The SRI study identifies a number of “challenges,” confirming small and rural districts need better access to providers.  On the other hand, it states, “…to date, case study data indicate online providers are not always a solution because some students lack access to needed technology and some online programs have limits as to the types of student they can adequately serve (i.e., certain age groups, students who are limited-English proficient, and students with special needs) may not be able to access online providers.”  The study also notes that, while “continuously identified” schools have engaged in most of the improvement and support activities, it cites the case study findings that, “…schools are grabbing at solutions -- programs and strategies they think will increase scores quickly.  As a result, they are doing many activities but not taking the kinds of coherent and sustained approaches that have the potential for a long-term payoff.” 

Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 302-295-8349.

© 2011 The Association of Educational Publishers
300 Martin Luther King Blvd., Ste. 200 • Wilmington, DE 19801
P: 302-295-8350 • F: 302-778-1110 • Email: mail@AEPweb.org
 
Satellite Offices:
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 300 • Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
C/O Knowledge Alliance • 1 St Matthews Court NW • Washington, DC 20036