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.

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.

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 role of college admissions representatives in the college application process by students' income and academic achievement

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Enyu Zhou
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Academic Achievement ◽  
High School Students ◽  
College Choice ◽  
Low Income ◽  
College Admissions ◽  
School Students ◽  
College Application ◽  
High Achieving Students ◽  
High Achieving

[ACCESS RESTRICTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT AUTHOR'S REQUEST.] College access is one of the most studied areas in higher education, and yet college enrollment rates remain problematically stratified by socioeconomic status (SES) (Baum, Ma, and Payea, 2013). Low-income high-achieving students apply to different sets of colleges compared to high-income high-achieving students. Most low-income highachievers do not apply to selective universities. The lack of information regarding the college application process, college cost and financial aid was a reason why low-income high-achieving students fail to apply to selective colleges (Hoxby and Avery, 2013; Hoxby and Turner, 2013). This study examined the relation between contact with college admissions representatives as a source of information and college choices by high school students. In particular, it focused on how these relations vary across the spectrum of SES and academic achievement groups. The sample for this study drawn from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS: 2002) from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This study used the Hossler and Gallagher (1987) three-stage college choice model, Perna's (2006a) multi-layer college choice model, and Tierney and Venegas' (2009) cultural ecological theory for its theoretical framework. This theoretical framework provided guidance to understand the relation between college information and college application behavior of high school students. Logistic regression, fixed effects, and propensity score weighting (PSW) models were used to examine the relation between contact with college admissions representatives and college application. These models by SES and academic achievement were also used to identify differential effects of contact with college representatives across SES and academic achievement. Overall interpretation of the results suggested that there was a positive relationship between contact with college admissions representatives and college application. Aligning with the literature, this study also found that students' demographic characteristics, academic preparedness and other information sources were strongly associated with the probability of college application. However, the influence of college representatives did not vary across SES and academic achievement significantly. Results of this study provided valuable insights on the role of college admissions representatives on college application, which can lead to better insights on improving college choice strategies for high school students. The study concluded with discussions and implications for theory, practice, and future research.

scholarly journals Academic Undermatching of High-Achieving Minority Students: Evidence from Race-Neutral and Holistic Admissions Policies

2015 ◽  
Vol 105 (5) ◽  
pp. 604-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra E. Black ◽  
Kalena E. Cortes ◽  
Jane Arnold Lincove
Keyword(s):  
Minority Students ◽  
Low Income ◽  
White Students ◽  
The United States ◽  
Postsecondary Institutions ◽  
Admissions Policies ◽  
High Achieving Students ◽  
Flagship Universities ◽  
High Achieving ◽  
High School Performance

College is a pathway to social mobility in the United States. Yet too often high-achieving students from low-income and minorities families fail to apply to selective postsecondary institutions. Our study examines the extent to which academic undermatching occurs among high-achieving minority students by analyzing the application choices of students who undergo two distinct admissions policies. We find that minority students eligible for automatic admissions and those who undergo holistic admissions are both less likely to apply to elite flagship universities than white students, despite being equally qualified based on high school performance. Instead, minorities often opt for lower tier universities.

scholarly journals Recruiting and supporting low-income, high-achieving students at flagship universities

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 ◽  
pp. 101923 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodney J. Andrews ◽  
Scott A. Imberman ◽  
Michael F. Lovenheim
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
High Achieving Students ◽  
Flagship Universities ◽  
High Achieving

scholarly journals Why do Low-Income, High-Achieving Students not Apply to Top Universities?

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanisha Srivatsa ◽  
Henry Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Metropolitan Areas ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Status Quo Bias ◽  
High Achieving Students ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
The Status ◽  
High Achieving ◽  
Test Optional ◽  
Behavioral Heuristics

In this study, the behavior of low-income, high-achieving students when applying to prestigious universities is analyzed. It was postulated that this behavior is due to a lack of information provided to these students and the effect of several behavioral heuristics that influence these students’ application decisions — namely, availability, simulation, and the status quo bias. This paper focuses on the behavior of low-income, high-achieving students who do not apply to prestigious students and therefore behave in a manner typical to their income level rather than their ability. These students, who are less likely to attend magnet schools or live in major metropolitan areas, are often left out of initiatives and college resources available to high-income students. To address this disparity, two solutions are proposed to encourage income-typical students to apply to prestigious universities: the continuation of test-optional policies and virtual college tours.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document