Stories of Mixed Success: Program Improvement Implementation in Chapter 1 Schools

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine A. George ◽  
James B. Grissom ◽  
Anne E. Just
Keyword(s):  
Program Improvement

Chapter 1 Program Improvement: Cause for Cautious Optimism and a Call for Much More Research

1991 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 399-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Stringfield ◽  
Shelley H. Billig ◽  
Alan Davis
Keyword(s):  
Academic Achievement ◽  
Program Improvement ◽  
School Level ◽  
Disadvantaged Students ◽  
Educationally Disadvantaged ◽  
Low Performing Schools ◽  
Local Responses

The program improvement provisions of the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments to Chapter 1 rest on the optimistic premise that school-level accountability pressures directed at Chapter 1 will lead to higher academic achievement for educationally disadvantaged students. Although the legislation may be unrealistic in assuming that improvement is primarily an act of will, it correctly focuses on the school as the appropriate unit for change. Principals of over 200 schools identified for program improvement in three states were surveyed to determine local responses to the new provisions. Over two-thirds of responding schools had begun to implement programmatic changes. Fully 84% supported the legislative provisions. Research is called for to study the effects of the legislation and to provide additional options to low-performing schools.

The States’ Role in Improving Compensatory Education: Analysis of Current Trends and Suggestions for the Future

1991 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 339-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia R. L. Plunkett
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Education ◽  
Title I ◽  
Program Improvement ◽  
Compensatory Education ◽  
New Era ◽  
Elementary And Secondary Education ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
The Future ◽  
Education Act

The passage of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965 set the stage for a new era of state leadership in improving compensatory education. This article traces the development of state leadership in implementing the Title I/Chapter 1 program quality mandate up to 1988, when Congress added procedural and accountability requirements to make “program improvement” the centerpiece of the new legislation. It continues by describing the challenges now facing the states in implementing the program improvement process and how they are being met, and it concludes with suggestions for the future.

Modifying Chapter 1 Program Improvement Guidelines to Reward Appropriate Practices

1991 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Slavin ◽  
Nancy A. Madden
Keyword(s):  
First Grade ◽  
Program Improvement ◽  
Early Interventions ◽  
Normal Curve ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Appropriate Practices

New accountability guidelines have helped to focus educators on the outcomes of Chapter 1 programs, but they may also be rewarding counterproductive practices. They may discourage early interventions, such as preschool, kindergarten, and first-grade programs, which increase the baseline for later gains. They may reward retentions, which significantly increase apparent normal curve equivalent (NCE) gains. They may focus teaching on narrow, easily measured objectives. This article proposes an alternative approach to Chapter 1 accountability which rewards schools for reducing the number of students who fail to meet minimum standards on broad-based, appropriate tests. Retained or untested students would be counted as not meeting minimum standards. Program improvement services would be greatly increased and made available to all Chapter 1 schools. Advantages and problems of this system are discussed.

The Dilemma of Chapter 1 Program Improvement

1991 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 394-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla A. Heid
Keyword(s):  
Program Improvement ◽  
Achievement Level ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Closing The Gap ◽  
Negative Connotation ◽  
Improvement Effort

Chapter 1 has been effective in raising the achievement level of students it served, but it has not been effective in closing the gap between Chapter 1 students and their more advantaged peers. The revised Chapter 1 contains specific provisions that relate to program improvement. However, the setting of minimum standards for program improvement, along with the dilemma between the negative connotation of being identified as in need of program improvement and its positive intent, has resulted in unanticipated outcomes that do not advance the Chapter 1 program improvement effort.

Chapter 1 Evaluation: Progress, Problems, and Possibilities

1991 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constance E. Clayton
Keyword(s):  
Standardized Testing ◽  
Alternative Assessment ◽  
Standardized Test ◽  
Program Improvement ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Elementary And Secondary Education ◽  
School Year ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Report Card Grades

The 1988 reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act Chapter 1 legislation introduced several significant changes in both program and evaluation features, many of which have benefited students and schools in the School District of Philadelphia. However, some provisions of the legislation, and the accompanying regulations, have unintended consequences which are hampering efforts to provide the best possible program for students. This article addresses the implementation of schoolwide projects in Philadelphia, discusses some of the conceptual problems which exist in interpreting results of those programs, and offers suggestions for alternative assessment methods. As a result of the 1988 reauthorization, schoolwide projects have increased from 37 sites in 1988–1989 to 103 for the 1991–1992 school year. This expansion has occurred because of positive results in test scores and report card grades and because of the satisfaction expressed by school staffs and communities at having the flexibility to design a program tailored especially for the needs of their own students. Problems with the current legislation, as noted in the article, have stimulated the following attempts at solutions: how to discern which schools are in need of program improvement, how to ensure that schools with successful programs have the opportunity to continue implementing them, how to determine the intent of program improvement, and how to find alternatives to standardized testing. Finally, the article offers suggestions for alternative ways to use standardized test data, as well as performance-based measures of student learning.

Educational Leverage From a Political Necessity: Implications of New Perspectives on Student Assessment for Chapter 1 Evaluation

1992 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Wilson
Keyword(s):  
School Improvement ◽  
Learning Theory ◽  
Student Assessment ◽  
Program Improvement ◽  
State Assessment ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Assessment And Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Methodologies

This article describes new developments in the fields of learning theory, assessment, and the politics of national and state assessment and shows how these developments, along with the application of modern assessment and evaluation methodologies, could be used to address some longstanding problems with Chapter 1 evaluation. Specific attention is paid to linking classroom and school improvement with Chapter 1 Program Improvement.

The Continuing Evolution of a Federal Role in Compensatory Education

1991 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 328-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Jean LeTendre
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Program Improvement ◽  
Compensatory Education ◽  
Educational Services ◽  
Educationally Disadvantaged ◽  
Disadvantaged Children ◽  
High Achieving Students ◽  
The Future ◽  
High Achieving

Chapter 1 is now in its 26th year of providing supplementary educational services to low-achieving children who live in low-income neighborhoods. The program has shown positive but not significant gains in the achievement of educationally disadvantaged children. In 1988, Congress reauthorized Chapter 1 with the mandate to the nation’s schools to close the gap between low- and high-achieving students, stressing accountability for performance, program improvement, and flexibility to produce results. Chapter 1 faces reauthorization again in 1993. The author provides perspectives on a number of issues that should be considered in the coming dialogue on the future of Chapter 1.

Quick Reference: Chapter 1: The Musculoskeletal System: The Hand and Upper Extremity

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Keyword(s):  
Dorsal Column ◽  
Persistent Pain ◽  
Illness Behavior ◽  
Abnormal Illness Behavior ◽  
Organ Systems ◽  
Spinal Cord Dorsal ◽  
Objective Basis ◽  
Dorsal Column Stimulation ◽  
Underlying Pathology

Abstract Spinal cord (dorsal column) stimulation (SCS) and intraspinal opioids (ISO) are treatments for patients in whom abnormal illness behavior is absent but who have an objective basis for severe, persistent pain that has not been adequately relieved by other interventions. Usually, physicians prescribe these treatments in cancer pain or noncancer-related neuropathic pain settings. A survey of academic centers showed that 87% of responding centers use SCS and 84% use ISO. These treatments are performed frequently in nonacademic settings, so evaluators likely will encounter patients who were treated with SCS and ISO. Does SCS or ISO change the impairment associated with the underlying conditions for which these treatments are performed? Although the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) does not specifically address this question, the answer follows directly from the principles on which the AMA Guides impairment rating methodology is based. Specifically, “the impairment percents shown in the chapters that consider the various organ systems make allowance for the pain that may accompany the impairing condition.” Thus, impairment is neither increased due to persistent pain nor is it decreased in the absence of pain. In summary, in the absence of complications, the evaluator should rate the underlying pathology or injury without making an adjustment in the impairment for SCS or ISO.

Fifth Edition: the New Standard

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
James B. Talmage ◽  
Leon H. Ensalada
Keyword(s):  
Musculoskeletal System ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Objective Assessment ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Appropriate Use ◽  
Medical Evaluation ◽  
Single Set

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, is available and includes numerous changes that will affect both evaluators who and systems that use the AMA Guides. The Fifth Edition is nearly twice the size of its predecessor (613 pages vs 339 pages) and contains three additional chapters (the musculoskeletal system now is split into three chapters and the cardiovascular system into two). Table 1 shows how chapters in the Fifth Edition were reorganized from the Fourth Edition. In addition, each of the chapters is presented in a consistent format, as shown in Table 2. This article and subsequent issues of The Guides Newsletter will examine these changes, and the present discussion focuses on major revisions, particularly those in the first two chapters. (See Table 3 for a summary of the revisions to the musculoskeletal and pain chapters.) Chapter 1, Philosophy, Purpose, and Appropriate Use of the AMA Guides, emphasizes objective assessment necessitating a medical evaluation. Most impairment percentages in the Fifth Edition are unchanged from the Fourth because the majority of ratings currently are accepted, there is limited scientific data to support changes, and ratings should not be changed arbitrarily. Chapter 2, Practical Application of the AMA Guides, describes how to use the AMA Guides for consistent and reliable acquisition, analysis, communication, and utilization of medical information through a single set of standards.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document