Toward an Understanding of Unusually Successful Programs for Economically Disadvantaged Students

A conceptual framework based on prior research was used to study unusually successful compensatory programs in 4 schools (3 elementary schools and 1 middle school). The framework included 4 interrelated constructs: program effectiveness standards, school culture, curriculum, and teaching. Site visits were made to each of the 4 schools. During these visits, written documents were examined, interviews were conducted, and classroom observations were made. All 4 schools were characterized by clear purpose and high performance standards (program effectiveness standards); shared leadership, strong community support, and talented, hardworking teachers (school climate); opportunity to learn and curriculum integration (curriculum); and concern for students and nonacceptance of failure (teaching). Analyzing the data in terms of the framework enabled the researchers to describe the complex nature of success as well as the interplay among the constructs in producing it. It also allowed them to move beneath the surface differences among schools to the deeper level of similarities.

Although research on educational programs for economically disadvantaged students has been conducted since shortly after the passage of the Elementary and 118Secondary Education Act in 1965, both the purpose of and approach to the studies have changed. Most early studies focused on descriptions of the operation of Title I programs (e.g., Carlstrom, 1970; Carter, 1984) and the overall effectiveness of these programs (e.g., Connecticut State Department of Education, 1972; Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1987). Because the vast majority of the “operations” studies were conducted as part of mandated evaluations, the purpose was often to verify compliance to federal requirements; methodologically, the researchers made extensive use of questionnaire data. The “effectiveness” studies were often intended to justify or question program continuation or increased program funding. In these studies, researchers relied on standardized achievement test data and used a variety of Title I evaluation models to analyze the data (Thornton, 1980).

In the past decade, the intent of “operations” studies has shifted from compliance to understanding and from checking whether certain components are in place to determining which components contribute to or inhibit effectiveness. In addition, “effectiveness” studies have, to a certain extent, been replaced by “improvement” studies. That is, the emphasis is on progress over time rather than progress in comparison with some external standard (e.g., “control” schools). In combination, these changes in purpose have led researchers to spend time in schools and classrooms, conducting interviews and engaging in observations. Quasi-experimental studies have largely given way to case studies.

These more recent studies have led to the identification of a variety of factors associated with more successful programs for economically disadvantaged, or at-risk, students. George, Grissom, and Just (1996), for example, identified eight such factors: strong principal, site leadership team, and vision for school; quality core curriculum; quality Chapter 1 services; implementation spearheaded by a Chapter 1 coordinator; school autonomy and district support; professional treatment of teaching staff; positive administrator and teacher attitudes; and extensive parent and community involvement. Frazee (1996) also identified eight factors: clear vision, knowledge of curriculum, collegiality, high expectations, renewed professionalism, community involvement, strong leadership, and university partnership. Similarly, Allington and McGill-Franzen (1993) identified five factors: access to large amounts of high-quality instruction, collaboration and shared decisions, effort and time, multiple-answer rather than single-answer approaches, and commitment and beliefs. ¹

One problem with these sets of factors is that there is no coherent framework within which to understand and apply them. The interrelations among the factors and the relative importance of each to the overall success of the programs remain a mystery. This state of affairs exists despite the fairly obvious similarities among the factors identified (see Table 1). In an attempt to make sense of the existing knowledge base and to make the knowledge base more applicable to program improvement efforts, Anderson et al. (1994) developed a conceptual framework. Table 1 Critical Factors of Successful Programs.

George, Grissom, and Just (1996)	Frazee (1996)	Allington and McGill-Franzen (1993)
Strong principal, leadership team, and vision	Strong leadership; clear vision	Collaboration and shared decisions; commitment and beliefs; no single answer
Positive administrator and teacher attitudes	High expectations; collegiality	Commitment and beliefs; effort and time
School autonomy and district support	University partnership	Effort and time
Professional treatment of teaching staff	Renewed professionalism; collegiality	Commitment and beliefs; effort and time; no single answer
Extensive parent and community support	Community involvement	Effort and time
Quality core curriculum	Knowledge of curriculum
Quality Title I services; Title I coordinator as implementer		Access to large amounts of high-quality instruction; no single answer

To test the validity of the conceptual framework, four case studies were undertaken. The purpose of these studies was to answer three major questions:

119To what extent do unusually effective compensatory education programs include elements associated with all four components of the conceptual framework?

How different are the applications of these components across unusually effective compensatory programs?

To what extent do the data from the case studies support the multi-layered structure of the conceptual framework?