Improving Low Performing High...

Improving Low-PerformingHigh Schools

Ideas & Promising Programs for High Schools

American Federation of Teachers

2AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

Table of ContentsImproving Low-Performing High Schools / 3Introduction / 3

Starting Points / 3Conduct a self-study / 3Consider a research-based reform program / 4Establish entry-level standards / 5Establish an intensive intervention system / 5Establish a safe and orderly learning environment / 6Establish high academic standards / 6Work to ensure that teachers are fully certified / 7Organize schools into personal communities / 7Create incentives for students to study and achieve / 8

Additional practices / 8Block scheduling / 8Other schedule changes / 10Interdisciplinary instruction / 10

Promising High School Programs / 11Introduction: Promising Programs for High School Reform / 12

Schoolwide Academic Programs / 13High Schools That Work / 13Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound / 14Community for Learning / 15

School Climate and/or Violence Prevention Programs / 17School Development Program / 17Quantum Opportunities Program / 18Consistency Management & Cooperative Discipline / 20Bullying Prevention Program / 21

Reading/English Language Arts Programs / 22Junior Great Books / 22Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction / 23

Remedial Reading Programs / 25Lindamood-Bell / 25Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction / 26Direct Instruction / 27

Dropout Prevention/College Attendance Programs / 29Upward Bound / 29Project GRAD / 30Coca-Cola Valued Youth program / 32

Footnotes / 34

Note on Program Selection Methods / 36

IntroductionRaising student achievement in the nation’s lowest

performing schools is one of the AFT’s highest priori-ties. Recent efforts to raise academic standards—and tomake students, schools, and staff more accountable fortheir performance against those standards—makes it apriority of growing urgency.

So how are excellent high schools created? Manypeople are able to give a good general answer. You needa disciplined and orderly learning environment; clearstandards and a strong academic mission; high-qualitycurricula and professional development aligned to thestandards; focused and effective leadership; a supportiveand collegial atmosphere; parental and communityengagement; an effective intervention system for stu-dents who fall behind; and so on. Unfortunately, manylow-performing schools have found it difficult to trans-late these general principles into an effective action planfor improvement.

Thus, many low-performing schools are turning toresearch for solutions. Instead of attempting to reinventthe wheel, faculty members are choosing to adoptreplicable, research-based reform programs that have aproven record of success in raising student achievementin similar schools. This reform strategy has been effec-tive for many low-performing elementary schools.Unfortunately, at the secondary level, strong research

and good options are much more limited. In addition,the root problem for many troubled high schools is thatentering students are unprepared to do the level ofwork required in high school. Thus, reform at the ele-mentary and middle school levels may represent thebest long-term solution. Still, these high schools needhelp desperately, and they need it now.

This paper attempts to meet that need by offeringseveral concrete ideas for reform. Some can be accom-plished by individual schools, acting alone; others willrequire district (or even state) support. Which and howmany ideas to pursue should depend on the particularcircumstances of your individual school and district.

Starting pointsBefore beginning the school improvement process,

schools should establish a reform committee to overseeand direct each step of the program selection phase.This committee should be comprised of representativesfrom the school’s major stakeholding groups, includingadministrators, teachers, guidance counselors, supportpersonnel, parents, and community members.

I. Conduct a self-study (audit) to identify theschool’s most pressing needs

Once a school has been identified as in need ofimprovement, an accurate diagnosis of the school’sproblems is vital. This, in turn, can help to suggest the


Improving Low-Performing

High Schools

most appropriate and effective solutions. The following should be examined as part of the

self-study process: instruction; curriculum; assessment;school management and leadership; professional qualifi-cations and professional development of staff; parentand community involvement; school discipline, safetyand security; instructional supplies and materials; thephysical plant and facilities; and the adequacy of thedistrict’s support for the schools.

At a minimum, an effective self-study processshould address the three general areas outlined below:

■ An accurate school profile should be developed; itshould include test score data, dropout figures, stu-dent demographics, teacher qualifications, etc.

■ The factors that promote effective schools should bereviewed, and a measure of their presence or absencein the school should be made.

■ The school’s compliance with federal, state, and dis-trict academic performance (or improvement)requirements should be reviewed.

II. Consider a research-based reform program One way to increase the odds of success is to emu-

late what has worked for others. Instead of attempting

to reinvent the wheel, faculty members can choose toadopt replicable, research-based reform programs thathave a record of success in raising student achievementin similar schools.

Increasingly, schools in need of major reform areopting for a comprehensive improvement model. These“schoolwide” programs typically offer a range of inte-grated components, such as clear standards and curricu-la, aligned professional development, and an interven-tion system for students who are in trouble. Many low-performing schools that have implemented such pro-grams—especially at the elementary level—have beenable to boost student achievement levels significantly.While secondary schools have fewer well-researchedprograms to choose from, several are worth serious con-sideration.1 For example, the Technical Center in St.Mary’s County, Md., adopted High Schools That Work(HSTW), a reform program that focuses on upgradingschool-to-career curricula. In 1990-91, senior SATscores averaged 869. By 1994-95, with a similar studentpopulation and 50 percent more students taking thetest, SAT scores had jumped 70 points to an average of939. During the same years, the dropout rate fell from7.2 percent to 3.6 percent, enrollment went up, anddiscipline problems were cut by half.

We also encourage schools to consider research-EG

HSP

RSA


Quick Reference AFT Resource KeyFOR POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT REFORM

American Federation of Teachers (1997). Raising Student Achievement: A Resource Guide for Redesigning Low PerformingSchools. Washington D.C. On the web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/rsa/guide/index.html

American Federation of Teachers (1997). Setting the Stage for High Standards: Elements of Effective School Discipline.Washington D.C. On the web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/elements/index.html

FOR DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF REPLICABLE PROGRAMSAmerican Institutes for Research (1999). An Educator’s Guide to Schoolwide Reform. Arlington, VA: Educational ResearchService. On the web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/schlwrfm.htm.

American Federation of Teachers (1998). What Works: Six Promising Schoolwide Reform Programs. Washington D.C. Onthe web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/six/index.htm

American Federation of Teachers (1998). What Works: Seven Promising Reading and English Language Art Programs.Washington D.C. On the web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/seven/index.htm

American Federation of Teachers (1999). What Works: Five Promising Remedial Reading Programs. Washington, D.C.On the web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/five/index.html

See attached description of High School ProgramsHSP

WWRR

WWR

WWS

EG

SS

RSA

based programs that target specific areas of difficulty—reading, math, science, discipline, etc. Depending onthe school, it may make sense to implement such pro-grams individually, or to use them in concert to create acomprehensive improvement plan.

In order to determine if a schoolwide or a specificsubject-area program can address their needs, schoolsshould investigate a variety of approaches. We recom-mend a systematic process of exploration, similar to theone outlined below.

Ideas■ Identify any programs that appear to meet the

school’s needs (as revealed by the school self-study)and that match the school’s goals and resources.

■ Examine the research to see if the identified programshave a track record of success in similar schools.Contact the programs’ developers to clarify any ques-tions.

■ Call a random selection of schools that are using theprograms; this will help you verify results and identi-fy any potential problems. In general, the weaker theresearch on program effectiveness, the greater thenumber of schools you should call.2

■ Once the search for programs has been narrowed to afew top choices, arrange for school visits and presen-tations by program developers for the entire staff.

■ Put the decision to a vote by staff, with supermajority(80 percent) approval necessary for adoption. Staffbuy-in has been proven to be an important factor tothe success of any reform program.

III. Establish entry-level standards for whatfirst-year students need to know and be able todo—especially in reading

The first essential step in raising high schoolachievement is to ensure that all students can build ona solid foundation. The best way to accomplish this isfor elementary and middle schools to graduate onlywell-prepared students—a goal that’s far beyond thepurview of high school staff. Even without this, howev-er, schools can use common entry standards as a meansto diagnose student problems quickly and to targetearly intervention programs.

Because reading is the main vehicle by which knowl-edge is disseminated across subject areas, it should be

the main focus of an effective intervention system.

Ideas■ Work with feeder schools to align curriculum and

assessments—including the establishment of readingand math “gateway” exams at the end of middleschool—to ensure that entering students are preparedto do high-school level work.

■ In the absence of a gateway exam, use entry-levelscreening and diagnostic tools—such as the Test ofWord Reading Efficiency (TOWRE), the MultilevelAcademic Survey Test (MAST), or any one of a num-ber of commercial reading inventories3—to identifystudents in need of immediate, intensive assistance.

IV. Establish an intensive intervention systemfor students who are struggling to meet thestandards

Unless every effort is made to provide early, quick,and effective intervention, struggling students are likelyto fall further and further behind as they proceedthrough the system. Indeed, research finds that themost effective remedial strategy is to prevent studentsfrom falling behind in the first place.

In addition to policies that promote early interven-tion and prevention, schools and districts must also beready to respond to the needs of students who havealready fallen far behind. This is often difficult, but it isnot impossible.

Ideas■ Place all students whose reading skills are

substantially below grade level into an intensive pre-entry “reading academy,” using a research-basedreading program.

■ In addition to a “reading academy,” establish anintensive, research-based reading intervention pro-gram—operating during, after, or before schoolhours—so that students who need continued assis-tance can receive it throughout the schoolyear.

■ Identify an intensive, research-based interventionprogram in math that can be offered to strugglingstudents.

■ Target assistance to low-achieving students, with anemphasis on increasing instructional time with a

HSP

RSA


trained adult—e.g., one-on-one tutorials, Saturdayclasses, before- and after-school classes, summerschool, and an extra period in the problem subjectarea (“double-dosing”).

■ Consider the adoption of a research-based dropoutprevention/tutoring program.

V. Establish a safe and orderly learningenvironment

Teaching and learning are almost impossible toachieve in an environment of disorder, disrespect, andfear. That’s why, in poll after poll, educators rankschool safety and discipline high on their list of educa-tion priorities. So do students, parents, and the generalpublic. Although school staff cannot entirely reverse thedeep-seated social and emotional problems of some stu-dents, there are many things that can be done to helpschools become safe havens for learning.

Ideas■ Ensure that all school staff—including teachers,

administrators, paraprofessionals, bus drivers, nurses,cafeteria workers, and other school-related person-nel—have access to professional development ineffective classroom and behavior management.

■ Enact a strong discipline code in which the rules ofstudent behavior, as well as the punishments for par-ticular violations, are clearly stated. To be most effec-tive, the code should be developed with parent andcommunity input, and must be widely disseminatedamong all school staff, students, parents, and thepublic.

■ Take steps to ensure that the code is consistentlyenforced. These include authorizing all school staff—not just administrators or administrators and teach-ers—to enforce discipline; issuing regular, honestpublic reports on implementation of the code; andcreating a discipline oversight committee, composedof parents, teachers, and citizens, to help monitorand guide enforcement.

■ Implement programs to modify studentmisbehavior.

■ Establish a continuum of quality short-, medium-,and long-term alternative settings in which chronical-ly disruptive or violent students can be placed. To be

effective, these facilities must address students’ acade-mic as well as their social and emotional needs.

VI. Establish high academic standards andprovide all students with challengingcoursework and the support they need to reachthe standards

In many high schools, students who aren’t assignedto a college-preparatory track leave school unpreparedfor a productive adulthood—without the knowledgeand skills they need to further their education or begina rewarding career. Yet, many school systems have beenslow to eliminate low-level, dead-end tracks, fearingthat demanding coursework will be too tough for thesekids. Such fears are usually misplaced. In most cases,setting the bar too low for students is much more of aproblem than setting the bar too high.

In one recent poll4, half of all American teenagersreported that their schools had failed to provide themwith challenging work; 65 percent of the students saidthey could work harder and do better if they tried.Several studies also confirm that, when challenged, stu-dents tend to rise to the occasion, especially when theyhave access to the kinds of special intervention and sup-port they need. For example, in states that have raisedtheir standards for high school math and science, stu-dent performance has increased without any corre-sponding increase in student failure or dropout rates.5

A follow-up study identified several districts that havebeen successful in eliminating low-level math, and inhelping struggling students to bridge the gap betweenbasic and college-prep coursework. The practices thesedistricts employ include designing a two-year course ofstudy for students who need extra time to master col-lege-prep algebra, and replacing the ninth-grade generalmath course with a class that gives students the founda-tional skills they need to do college-prep work.6

Ideas■ Provide intervention, remedial, and tutorial programs

(including before- and after-school classes, Saturdayclasses, double-dosing, and summer school) to allwho need them, but don’t give credit toward gradua-tion for remedial and other low-level courses.

■ Make four years of academic coursework in the coresubject areas—math (including algebra, at a mini-mum), English, social studies, and science—a gradua-

SS

HSP

SS

HSP


tion requirement for all students.

■ Develop transition courses for students who needhelp bridging the gap between basic and college-preparatory coursework.7

■ Arrange for common planning time for teachers andother instructional staff in the same subject areaacross grade levels. This can enable educators to care-fully construct and coordinate curriculum sequences,year by year, helping to end the reteaching of previ-ously learned material and to eliminate gaps in stu-dents’ knowledge base.

■ Make honors and Advanced Placement courses avail-able to all students.

■ Consider adopting a research-based dropout preven-tion/tutoring program.

VII. Work to ensure that teachers are fully certifiedin the subjects they teach

You can’t teach what you don’t know. While thismay seem obvious, many school districts aren’t orga-nized as if they believe this to be true. Too often, itseems that the only staffing priority is ensuring thatthere is a warm, adult body in front of the class. Atleast that’s what research seems to indicate.

According to a survey by the U.S. Department ofEducation, nearly one-fourth of all secondary teachersdon’t have even a college minor in their main teachingfield. In high-poverty schools, the percentages are muchhigher. More than one-third of students in such schoolswere found to have been taught by an unprepared mathteacher, and a staggering 71 percent were taught physi-cal science by a teacher with no background in the sub-ject.8

Ideas■ Aggressively recruit teachers licensed to teach in fields

where qualified candidates are in short supply.

■ Once teachers have been recruited, initiate programsto help ensure that they stay. Typically, 30 percent to50 percent of new teachers leave the profession with-in the first five years.9 However, with supervisedinternship/mentorship programs—such as those pro-vided to new architects, doctors, nurses, and engi-neers—it is likely that more new teachers will staywith the profession.10

■ Offer incentives so that experienced teachers who arethinking of retiring will consider staying.

■ Offer part-time teaching and flexible scheduling toretirees and teachers currently on child-care leave.

■ Negotiate incentives to encourage qualified teachersin shortage areas to volunteer to take on additionalclasses.

■ Give teachers the autonomy and flexibility to arrangeclasses of different sizes among themselves.

■ Provide incentives for teachers to earn a credential ina second field, and provide access to quality profes-sional development in the subject.

■ Recruit paraprofessionals with college credits andoffer them the support they need to obtain theirteaching credentials.

■ Initiate collaboration among the union, the district,and local colleges and universities to recruit under-graduates and to develop high-quality alternative cer-tification programs, such as those designed to attractretired military personnel to teaching. Work torecruit subject-area experts—scientists, mathemati-cians, engineers, etc.—in fields where there areteacher shortages. Then focus on ensuring that theseindividuals develop the necessary teaching expertise,including the use of quality internship/mentorshipprograms.

■ Organize cooperative relationships with neighboringschools, so that teachers and students can move todifferent schools for part of the day. Allow parents ofchildren in classrooms without qualified teachers totransfer their children to another school or class inthe district where there are enough qualified teachers.

■ If necessary, staff classrooms with qualified supervi-sors and administrators rather than with uncertifiedindividuals.

VIII. Organize schools into personalcommunities

Although there is still a lot of debate over the opti-mum high school size, research has consistently shownthat when a school is too big, serious problems oftenarise. Smaller schools tend to have lower dropout rates,better attendance, fewer incidents of violence, and more

HSP


student participation in extracurricular activities.11

Discipline problems can be more serious when studentssee themselves as being relatively anonymous. In a seaof faces, it is difficult for school staff to give personalattention to students, and kids begin to fall through thecracks. For example, early intervention systems onlywork when faculty members know each student wellenough to recognize when he or she is just beginning tohave problems.

As for academic achievement, the research suggeststhat at-risk students are at a particular disadvantage inoverly large schools. At the same time, one study indi-cates that the achievement of at-risk students also suf-fers when schools are too small to offer specialized ser-vices and a rich curriculum.12 According to the study’sauthors, a student body between 600 and 900 is theideal size for a high school—small enough to give stu-dents personal attention, but large enough to offer afull range of curricula and services.

Ideas■ Organize the school into separate “clusters,” so that

discrete groups of students share most of their teach-ers, lunch periods, break times, etc.

■ Reorganize the building into separate schools-within-a-school, each with its own leadership and subjectmatter/technical specialty.

■ For small schools and schools-within-a-school organi-zations, arrange with neighboring schools to shareaccess to specialists and shortage-area teachers.

■ “Loop” classes to ensure that students retain the sameteachers for the same subjects at least two years in arow.

IX. Create incentives for students to study andachieve

In all high-achieving Asian and European schoolsystems, secondary students know they must work hardand pass rigorous exams if they want to get into a col-lege, technical school, or an apprenticeship program.American students have no similar incentives. Our stu-dents know that many colleges have an open admis-sions policy and that most employers don’t ask to seehigh school transcripts. In too many cases, a diplomasignifies little more than high school attendance. Oneresult is that a high number of U.S. college students are

required to take remedial classes. Another result is thatquality businesses rarely hire recent high school gradu-ates. Instead, they wait until those graduates haveproven themselves over several years in low-level jobs,or they hire those with college or postsecondary voca-tional degrees.

If we want all students to work hard, they mustknow that effort and achievement count. Businessesand continuing education institutions should beencouraged to review transcripts, ask for teacher recom-mendations, and adopt hiring practices that rewardeffort and achievement.13

Ideas■ If the state or district doesn’t have one, develop a

high school exit exam (or a series of end-of-courseexams) that reflects high academic standards and isgrounded in the curriculum.

■ Design students’ school records to provide informa-tion about the rigor of coursework. Where available,attach course outlines to students’ academic recordsso that universities, potential employers, and parentsknow what was taught.

■ Encourage local businesses that do not currently hirenew graduates to consider doing so after reviewingtheir high school records.

■ Work with local businesses that are already hiringstudents for part-time work during school andemployment after graduation, encouraging them toreview high school records prior to making hiringdecisions.

■ Design school records so that they are readable anduseable by all stakeholders.14

Additional practicesIn addition to the practices outlined above, there are

a number of high-school reform ideas which, althoughwidely promoted, lack clear-cut research evidence todemonstrate their effectiveness. Here is a briefoverview:

I. Block schedulingAmong secondary schools, block scheduling is one

of the hottest reforms of the day. According to someestimates, between 25 percent and 40 percent of U.S.


high schools are already using or experimenting withblock, and its popularity appears to be growing.

In a nutshell, block scheduling is the process ofrestructuring the school day into fewer classes that eachrun for a longer period—typically four 90-minute peri-ods, instead of the traditional six to eight class periodsper day. Although there are many variations, two basicblock scheduling models predominate in the U.S. andCanada: (1) The most common model is the “Four-by-Four.” In this model, students attend at least three aca-demic courses daily. Students spend one period (about90 minutes) in language arts, a second period in math,and a third in either social studies or science. The socialstudies/science block is rotated every other day, everyother unit, by semester, or on some other basis.Physical education, music, and elective courses aretaken during the fourth period. (2) The other basicmodel is called “Alternate Day.” Students meet withteachers every other day for periods of 80 minutes to120 minutes. Other names for this model include A/B,Odd/Even, Day 1/Day 2, and Week 1/Week 2. Toensure that students cover the same coursework withfewer class periods, some schools also work on a com-pressed semester schedule in which what would tradi-tionally be a year’s worth of material is covered in anintensive half-year.

Despite its popularity, very little is known aboutblock scheduling’s effect on student achievement.Advocates cite the successes of individual schools, someof which report sharply higher grades and test scores,reduced disciplinary problems, and increased gradua-tion rates. Opponents note that many schools alsoreport negative results and point to a few Canadianstudies that show declines in student achievement.While no study is considered definitive, two of themost interesting—a large study by the CanadianMinistry of Education and Training, and one by theCollege Board in relation to performance on AdvancedPlacement tests—show no impact on student achieve-ment.

Given the lack of definitive research to guide reformdecisions, school staffs are advised to weigh blockscheduling’s potential benefits and pitfalls carefullyagainst the school’s particular needs and circumstances.If block scheduling is adopted, we also recommend thatall faculty members have access to extensive professionaldevelopment in the use of longer class periods. At itsbest, block scheduling may aid in the delivery of cur-

riculum and instruction; in and of itself, the practicewill do nothing to improve the quality of either. Somethings to consider:

Arguments in favor of block:■ Instruction is less fragmented, with greater time for

serious discussions, cooperative activities, labs, groupwork, and projects.

■ It allows for extended and variable instruction forstudents who may need additional support or havedifficulty learning in short “sound bites.”

■ If structured correctly, teachers work with fewer stu-dents at a time, which allows for more personalizedinstruction and an improved school atmosphere.

■ The usual 50-minute teacher preparation period isalmost doubled to 90 minutes, which means moretime to hone lessons, to collaborate with colleagues,and to work one-on-one with students.

■ With fewer class changes, the number of times thatthousands of teenagers are released into narrow hall-ways is reduced, thus cutting down on disciplineproblems, noise, and stress.

Arguments against block:■ Cognitive science shows that regular review, spaced

over a long period of time, is beneficial to long-termmemory of subject matter. Block scheduling dimin-ishes opportunities for review, especially where “year-long” courses are compressed into a single semester.Thus, the practice may actually serve to diminish stu-dent performance.

■ Ninety minutes is a long time to hold students’ atten-tion, and few teachers or other instructional staffhave been trained in how to use this period of timeeffectively.

■ Student transfers to and from schools with blockschedules can be highly problematic; in some sub-jects, an entire year’s curriculum could be lost as theresult of a mid-year transfer.

■ Missing one day of school under block can be likemissing almost a week under traditional scheduling.For students who miss a week due to illness or otherproblems, catching up may seem next to impossible.

■ Some block schedules actually result in less instruc-tional time, overall—e.g., a 50-minute class that


meets five times a week gives the instructor 500 min-utes every two weeks; a 90-minute class that meetson alternating days for two weeks (a total of fivedays) gives the instructor only 450 minutes.

II. Other schedule changesThere are several other reform ideas that aim to

maximize learning time, including proposals simply tolengthen the school year and/or school day. In additionto block scheduling, two of the most discussed reformsare year-round schools and late-start days.

Year-round schools in the U.S. have existed, in oneform or another, for more than a century. In recentyears, more and more districts have considered adopt-ing a year-round calendar as a way to ease overcrowd-ing. Today, there are many different variations on thetheme. In one model, for example, the school onlyneeds to accommodate 75 percent of the student bodyat any one time. Students and faculty are divided intofour groups, called tracks, which begin school in stag-gered 60-day sessions. Only three tracks attend schoolat one time, while the fourth takes a 20-day vacation,called an intersession. Partly for academic reasons, andpartly because the more frequent, short vacations mayoccur when both parents are working, many schoolsalso offer enrichment, elective, and remedial classesduring every intersession.

As with block scheduling, there is no definitiveresearch to show whether year-round schooling helps toincrease learning. Some year-round schools, however,report significant gains in student achievement, oftenattributed to more time for review and less timebetween grades during which material is forgotten.Implementing a year-round plan is no easy matter,however. There are some reports of teacher and admin-istrator burnout. And, unless the entire district is on ayear-round schedule, providing support services, such asbuses or food service, can become very complicated. Inaddition, many families resent the increased difficultyin scheduling family vacations.

Late-start days are a very recent idea, arising fromsleep research which shows that students in their mid tolate teens need more sleep than was previously thought,and that teens’ internal clocks tend to make them natu-rally late to bed and late to rise. Thus, current schoolschedules may result in sleep deprivation, which maycontribute to grogginess, lack of concentration, poortest performance, and increased disciplinary problems.

As a result, some researchers are recommending thatschools begin later, between 8:30 and 10:30 in themorning. With this in mind, a few schools are experi-menting with pushing back the start of school, but nodata are yet available that show how this reform isworking.

III. Interdisciplinary instructionInterdisciplinary instruction is another reform that

has been around for many years, has been defined tomean many different things, has a lot of anecdotalinformation showing that it has been done well orpoorly and no definitive research as to its effect on stu-dent achievement. By one definition, interdisciplinaryinstruction means rearranging the curriculum so thatstudents can apply the methods of different disciplinesto examine a central theme, topic, or era. Students, forexample, might study Enlightenment Europe in theirsocial studies class, Isaac Newton and the foundationsof physics in science, the Baroque and Neoclassicalschools in art, and so forth. In another definition, itmight mean folding two classes together into a blockand team-teaching the disciplines together—e.g., com-bining English language arts and history, so that stu-dents study the Civil War in the same class where theyread the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass andthe Red Badge of Courage.

At its best, interdisciplinary instruction can be astimulating approach to teaching and learning, encour-aging students to grasp concepts and make connectionsacross disciplines. But it must also be noted that with-out clear standards, which define the content knowl-edge and skills that students must master in each coresubject, interdisciplinary teaching easily can go astray.Strong standards in each of the core academic areas willensure that interdisciplinary approaches incorporate thedepth, breadth, integrity, and habits of mind of each ofthe disciplines involved. In other words, no matter howinteresting the teaching method, the subject matter stillmust be focused and rigorous for the approach to work.



ProgramDescriptions

Quick Reference AFT Resource KeyFOR POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT REFORM

American Federation of Teachers (1997). Raising Student Achievement: A Resource Guide for Redesigning Low PerformingSchools. Washington D.C. On the web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/rsa/guide/index.html

American Federation of Teachers (1997). Setting the Stage for High Standards: Elements of Effective School Discipline.Washington D.C. On the web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/elements/index.html

FOR DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF REPLICABLE PROGRAMSAmerican Institutes for Research (1999). An Educator’s Guide to Schoolwide Reform. Arlington, VA: Educational ResearchService. On the web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/schlwrfm.htm.

American Federation of Teachers (1998). What Works: Six Promising Schoolwide Reform Programs. Washington D.C. Onthe web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/six/index.htm

American Federation of Teachers (1998). What Works: Seven Promising Reading and English Language Art Programs.Washington D.C. On the web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/seven/index.htm

American Federation of Teachers (1999). What Works: Five Promising Remedial Reading Programs. Washington, D.C.On the web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/five/index.htmlWWRR

WWR

WWS

EG

SS

RSA


Why are some schools effective at educating moststudents, even those from disadvantaged, high-povertyareas, while others struggle fruitlessly to fulfill their aca-demic mission? How can schools replicate the successesof their more effective counterparts?

Researchers, working for years to answer these ques-tions, have described the characteristics of successfulschools—e.g., high expectation for all students; chal-lenging curricula; clear standards and a coherent,focused academic mission; high-quality professionaldevelopment aligned to the standards; small class sizes,especially in the early grades; an orderly and disciplinedlearning environment; a supportive and collegial atmos-phere; and an intervention system designed to ensurethat struggling students can meet the standards. But,while we now know a great deal about which reformsare effective, comparatively little is known about howto achieve them.

As many schools have discovered the hard way, sys-temic reform is very difficult—especially when it mustoccur simultaneously on many fronts, and is begunwithout benefit of high-quality curriculum materials,appropriate professional development, or readily avail-able technical assistance. In fact, a number of schoolshave learned firsthand that lasting improvement isimpossible without concrete, step-by-step implementa-tion support.

According to a study of efforts to raise academicachievement for at-risk students, the reform strategiesthat achieve the greatest academic gains are those cho-sen and supported by faculty, as well as administrators.Success is also dependent on the existence of a challeng-ing curriculum, and on paying a great deal of attentionto issues of initial and long-term implementation, and

to institutionalizing the reforms. This and other studiesalso have found that schoolwide reforms tend to bemore effective than pull-out or patchwork programs,and that externally developed programs—particularlythose with support networks from which schools candraw strength and tangible assistance—tend to do bet-ter than local designs.

Given these and similar research findings, we devel-oped the following criteria to help identify promisingprograms for raising student achievement, especially inlow-performing schools. The program descriptions aredesigned to provide a quick overview and classificationof research-based programs that, when properly imple-mented, show promise for raising student achievementsignificantly. Although each particular program has itsown strengths and weaknesses, all show evidence of:

■ High Standards. The program helps all studentsacquire the skills and/or knowledge they need to suc-cessfully perform to high academic standards.

■ Effectiveness. The program has proven to be effec-tive in raising the academic achievement levels of at-risk students in low-performing schools, based onindependent evaluations.

■ Replicability. The program has been implementedeffectively in multiple sites beyond the original pilotschool(s).

■ Support Structures. Professional development, mate-rials, and ongoing implementation support are avail-able for the program, either through the program’sdeveloper, independent contractors, or disseminationnetworks established by schools already in theprogram.

Promising Programs for High School Reform


High Schools That WorkOverviewAn initiative of the Southern Regional Education Board(SREB), High Schools That Work (HSTW) provides aset of strategies designed to raise the academic achieve-ment of career-bound high school students by combin-ing the content of traditional college preparatory stud-ies (e.g., English, mathematics, science) with vocationalstudies. The developers specify the following practices:

■ High expectations for student learning

■ Rigorous vocational courses

■ More required academic courses

■ Learning in work environments

■ Collaboration among academic and vocationalteachers

■ An individualized advising system

■ Active engagement in students’ interests

■ Extra help outside school and in the summer

■ Use of assessment and evaluation data to improvestudent learning

Program ContentHSTW encourages substantial changes in the curricu-lum to provide a more challenging high school experi-ence for students who are not planning to attend col-lege. Some of these curricular changes include settinghigh standards based on the National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP); enrolling career-boundstudents in college-prep academic courses; and discon-tinuing credit for remedial courses, such as math 101.

Students in an HSTW program are required to par-ticipate in an annual math, science, and reading assess-ment related to NAEP. Students must also maintainlogs and journals, participate in group problem-solvingexercises, and complete other tasks that monitor theiracademic growth daily.

Family and community, particularly local businessleaders, are essential to HSTW. Students, parents,teachers, community members, and business leadersserve on a school advisory council, which is responsiblefor providing feedback to the school on the programand for coordinating implementation.

Prior to implementation, the developer provides amandatory two-day workshop where school staff, par-ents, and members of the community develop a schoolaction plan. SREB staff members make at least two fol-low-up visits to the school during the course of the yearto help schools implement the action plan.

Professional DevelopmentIn addition to the action plan development workshop,required professional development in the first year ofimplementation includes a three-day training session inleadership and a three-day retreat for school leaders.

VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools 900Grade-level focus High school (9-12)First-year costs $48,000

High Schools That WorkDr. Gene Bottoms, Senior Vice PresidentSouthern Regional Education Board592 Tenth Street, NWAtlanta, GA 30318-5790Phone: 404/875-9211Fax: 404/872-1477E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.sreb.org Additional program summaries: http://www.ecs.org

For more information:American Federation of Teachers (1998). Six

Promising Schoolwide Reform Programs. Washington, D.C.:American Federation of Teachers. On the web athttp://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/six/index.htm

American Institutes for Research (1999). An Educator’sGuide to Schoolwide Reform. Arlington, Va.: Educational Research Service. On the web at http://www.aft.org//edissues/schlwrfm.htm

EG

WWS

SchoolwideAcademic Programs

HSTW staff and school staff also work together todevelop a customized staff development program, spe-cific to the school’s needs. Each year, SREB providestwo to four workshops to help schools address theseneeds. Some examples of past workshops include: indi-cators of progress and performance, learning throughprojects, using data to update the site action plan, anddeveloping syllabi. SREB also recommends that schoolstaff read At Your Fingertips: Using Everyday Data toImprove Schools (a 250-page workbook containing a six-step approach to monitoring school improvement) andthe Practitioners Guide to Getting to Work (a package ofstrategies, activities, and case studies for use by teachersand administrators). In the second and third years ofimplementation, the developer visits the school two tofive times to provide technical assistance and make rec-ommendations regarding next steps.

ResultsOverall, the research base on HSTW is strong. Of the10 studies that report results on student achievement,four use sufficiently rigorous methodologies to reporttheir findings. The remaining studies focus primarilyon implementation of the approach. Effects were stud-ied in a large number of schools, including original andreplication sites, and urban and rural schools. Thenumber and variety of the schools that have been stud-ied contribute to the strength of the research base.

The available research shows positive effects on stu-dents. Studies indicate the HSTW improves studentperformance on the National Assessment ofEducational Progress and a test developed by HSTWbased on NAEP. Studies of effects also demonstrate thatHSTW students, including vocational students, takemore academic courses (particularly in mathematicsand science) than students at the same schools didbefore the approach was implemented.

The positive results seem stable across a variety ofschools. Specifically, effects seem consistent acrossurban and rural schools and seem to persist for schoolsthat were not in the original set of pilot schools. Thissuggests that HSTW has positive effects and that theseeffects can be replicated.15

Expeditionary LearningOutward BoundOverviewFirst implemented in 1992, Expeditionary LearningOutward Bound (ELOB) is a comprehensive school-wide reform program for K-12. It is based on two cen-tral precepts: students learn better by doing than by lis-tening; and developing character, high expectations,and a sense of community is as important as developingacademic skills and knowledge.

Program ContentExpeditionary Learning Outward Bound includes fivecore practices:

1. Learning Expeditions—long-term, multidisciplinaryprojects that combine academic, service, and physicalelements.

2. Reflection and Critique—teachers working together toexamine their own instruction and students’ work.

3. School Culture—an emphasis on community and col-


VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools 65Grade-level focus K-12First-year costs $81,000

Expeditionary Learning Outward BoundMs. Meg Campbell122 Mt. Auburn StreetCambridge, MA 02138Phone: 617/576-1260Fax: 914/424-4280E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.elob.org

Mr. Greg FarrellOutward Bound USA100 Mystery Point RoadGarrison, NY 10524Phone: 914/424-4000Fax: 617/576-1340E-mail: [email protected]

For more information:American Institutes for Research (1999). An Educator’s

Guide to Schoolwide Reform. Arlington, Va.: EducationalResearch Service. On the web athttp://www.aft.org//edissues/schlwrfm.htm

EG


laboration, high expectations for all students, service,and diversity.

4. School Structure—reorganizing the school hierarchyto accommodate shared decision-making amongteachers and administrators and to develop relation-ships among staff, students, parents, and the com-munity.

5. School Review—assessing the student performanceand degrees of implementation as measured againstbenchmarks provided by ELOB.

ELOB helps schools implement organizational aswell as instructional changes. Organizationally, schoolsare required to commit to a system of shared decision-making. Instructionally, major changes must occur aswell. A defining component of the approach is that stu-dents engage in learning expeditions—extended studiesthat focus on a single theme, while incorporatinginstruction in different subject areas. Expeditions typi-cally involve service and fieldwork, and culminate instudent presentations or performances to families andcommunity members. Instructional staff are expected toalign expedition topics and goals with state and districtstandards and curriculum guidelines.

Another significant change that must occur underELOB is overhauling the daily schedule. Schools mustreplace the traditional 50-minute class period with aschedule that accommodates learning expeditions.Schools implementing ELOB also are required to pro-vide instructional staff with weekly common planningtime.

Professional DevelopmentProfessional development and technical assistance areintegral to the success of ELOB. A minimum of 15days of technical assistance are provided each year bythe developer—including a two-day leadership institute(designed to help schools assess their readiness toimplement ELOB) and a five-day summer institute forinstructional staff. In addition, faculty attend midyearmini-institutes (lasting two to three days) during whichthey plan their spring expeditions.

ELOB staff or experienced ELOB instructors pro-vide schools with on-site professional developmentfocused on helping teachers develop learning expedi-tions, aligning the expeditions with state standards,coaching teachers in the classroom, and providing assis-tance related to assessment. ELOB also encourages

schools to send one-quarter to one-third of their facultyeach year either to weeklong summer institutes or toparticipate in Outward Bound courses for educators, aswell as the national leadership conference for ELOBteachers and administrators.

Preliminary ResultsDespite the fact that this is a relatively new

approach, ELOB already has amassed a promisingresearch base on student achievement. Three studies,one of which was conducted by an independentresearcher, were reviewed. All three were sufficiently rig-orous to report their findings here.

The research results indicate that ELOB can help toimprove student achievement. Students tend to per-form well compared to state and district averages onstandardized tests, such as the Iowa Tests of Basic Skillsand the Georgia Curriculum-Based Assessment Test.Positive results have been found across subjects (e.g.,reading, writing, math, science, and social studies).

One study found significant two-year gains in stan-dardized test scores in reading and mathematics for stu-dents in grades 5 through 8. The other two studiesfound that students in ELOB schools improved onstandardized and state tests compared to district andstate averages in reading, mathematics, science, andsocial studies.16

Community for LearningOverview Established in 1990, Community for Learning is a K-12 schoolwide reform program developed by MargaretWang, director of the Temple University Center forResearch in Human Development and Education. Thisprogram—which arose out of research on the influenceof school, family, and community on student learn-ing—seeks to improve students’ academic achievement,behaviors, and attitudes and to promote independentlearning habits. The program encourages the coordina-tion of classroom instruction with community services(e.g., health, libraries, social services, and law enforce-ment) in an effort to improve individual student learn-ing.

Program ContentCommunity for Learning encourages a system of shared

decision-making involving school staff, parents, and thesurrounding community and employs the AdaptiveLearning Environments Model (ALEM) for instruction.ALEM is based on the premise that the key to highachievement is to continuously tailor instruction acrossall subjects to the particular needs of individual stu-dents. Students progress at their own pace, and teachersprovide regular feedback to students.

Instructional staff are expected to keep daily recordson performance, and teachers use grouping strategies(working with students individually and in small- orwhole-group instruction) and work to align school cur-ricula and instruction with district and state standards.Criterion-referenced assessments are used to assess eachstudent’s skill level. If students are performing signifi-cantly below or above expectations based on the assess-ments, the plan for instruction is modified.

Each district is required to have a staff memberwork part-time to coordinate among Community forLearning schools in the district and with communitysocial service agencies. Districts also are expected to cre-ate a school council leadership team and an instruction-al team.

Professional DevelopmentProfessional development activities begin before the

approach is implemented and continue throughout theschool year. In pre-implementation, all staff spend twoor more days discussing the Community for Learningapproach with school staff and community members,and school staff spend another one or two days assess-ing the particular needs of their school. Following theinitial training, the developer spends four days eachwith principals, facilitators, school staff, and districtstaff providing more detailed instruction in the meth-ods of the approach. Ongoing staff development duringthe school year consists of eight to 10 days of on-siteprofessional development and technical assistance forschool staff, additional training for the facilitator, andprogram evaluation assistance for district staff.

Preliminary ResultsThere are a substantial number of studies on the stu-dent achievement effects of this approach. Five of the13 studies reviewed were sufficiently rigorous to discusshere. Two of these, including one study that was theculmination of longitudinal research, were conductedby independent researchers.

Evidence of positive effects on student achievementis promising, based on the outcomes from the five stud-ies. One study, by the developer, found that studentsusing the approach had higher reading and mathemat-ics achievement than students not using the approach;and test scores in schools using the approach improvedwhile scores in similar schools declined. A second study,also by the developer, found that standardized test gainsin mathematics and reading were significantly higherfor students in Community for Learning schools com-pared to national norms. This study also found thatmainstreamed special education students inCommunity for Learning schools scored significantlyhigher than similar students not using the approach.

The only two rigorous studies conducted by inde-pendent researchers did not find such positive results.One study found no differences in student achievementwith respect to the amount of time spent inCommunity for Learning classes, and it found no sig-nificant differences in achievement across three years ofimplementation. These findings may be due to the stu-dents’ high levels of initial achievement. The otherstudy investigated differences in students’ rates ofprogress. This study found that Title I students andspecial education students in a Community forLearning school progressed at a significantly slower


VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools 92Grade-level focus K-12First-year costs

With new staff $157,000With current staff reassigned $82,000

Community for Learning Ms. Cynthia Smith, Director Information ServicesTemple University Center for Research in Human

Development and Education1301 Cecil B. Moore AvenuePhiladelphia, PA 19122-6091Phone: 800/892-5550Fax: 215/204-5130 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.temple.edu/LSS/cfl.htm Additional program summaries: http://www.ecs.org

For more information:American Institutes for Research (1999). An Educator’s

Guide to Schoolwide Reform. Arlington, Va.: EducationalResearch Service. On the web athttp://www.aft.org//edissues/schlwrfm.htm

EG

School Development ProgramOverview James Comer, a child psychiatrist at Yale University,founded the School Development Program (SDP) in1968. The approach is based on the theory that childrenlearn better when they form strong relationships withthe adults in their lives—including parents, teachers,and members of church and other community groups—in an environment of mutual respect. The main goal ofthe program is to develop in students the personal,social, and moral strengths necessary to achieve successin school. The School Development Program addressesthese issues with nine essential elements:

■ Three mechanisms (the School Planning andManagement Team, the Student and Staff SupportTeam, and the Parent Team)

■ Three operations (the Comprehensive School Plan,the Staff Development Plan, and Assessment andModification)

■ Three guiding principles (no-fault problem solving,consensus decision-making, and collaboration)

It is important to note that SDP currently is accept-ing new members only in school districts that eitheralready have or promise to have a sizable number ofschools using the approach and have a commitmentfrom the superintendent, board of education, and teach-ers union.

Program ContentSDP requires significant organizational changes. Threemechanisms, three operations, and three guiding princi-ples must be implemented, each of which affects schoolorganization, staff, and administration.

The first mechanism, the School Planning andManagement Team is composed of approximately 12

teachers, parents, professional support staff (e.g., socialworkers and school psychologists), and paraprofessionalstaff (e.g., classroom aides, secretaries, janitors). Thisteam is responsible for establishing policies that affectcurriculum, school environment, and staff development;carrying out school planning, resources assessment, pro-gram implementation, and evaluation of the curriculum;coordinating the activities of all individual groups andprograms in the school; and working with parents toestablish a calendar of social activities for the school.

The second mechanism, the Student and StaffSupport Team, is composed of teachers, school psychol-ogists, social workers, special education teachers, coun-selors, and other support service staff. It provides inputto the School Planning and Management Team on waysto integrate mental health principles into school man-


pace than regular education students. Because both ofthese studies compared different groups of studentswithin Community for Learning schools, they do not

show whether the approach as a whole is more or lesseffective than other approaches.17

VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools 700Grade-level focus K-12First-year costs

With new staff $45,000With current staff reassigned $32,000

School Development ProgramDr. Joanne Corbin, Director of Operations53 College StreetNew Haven, CT 06510Phone: 203/737-1020Fax: 203/737-1023E-mail: [email protected] site: http://www.info.med.yale.edu/comer Additional program summaries: http://www.ecs.org

For more information:American Federation of Teachers (1998). Six

Promising Schoolwide Reform Programs. Washington, D.C.:American Federation of Teachers. On the web athttp://www.aft.org//edissues.whatworks/six/index.html

WWS

School Climate and/or Violence Prevention Programs

agement to ensure that the school environment sup-ports the students’ learning and developmental needs.The third mechanism, the Parent Team, supports activi-ties to involve parents in the school.

The operations that must be put into place include:adopting a Comprehensive School Plan, which lays outspecific goals for the school in terms of both climateand academic areas; adopting a Staff DevelopmentPlan, which focuses teacher training on needs related tothe goals specified in the Comprehensive School Plan;and developing a monitoring and assessment system totrack progress toward meeting the school’s goals.

The behavior and actions of staff are expected to beguided by three principles: No-fault problem solving(finding solutions, rather than assigning blame), con-sensus decision-making (reaching consensus by majorityvote), and collaboration (principals must work with thevarious teams to lead the school reform process).

Professional DevelopmentIn the spring prior to the first year of implementation,SDP holds a training session at Yale University to ori-ent practitioners to the approach. School district partic-ipants in this weeklong session include district facilita-tors, principals from participating schools, and some-times teachers and parents. The following February, thesame group attends a second weeklong session toaddress instructional and other issues that arise duringimplementation. At the end of the first year, principalsmay attend a Principals Academy, also held at Yale.

Subsequent professional development activities arebased on the training needs associated with the school’sComprehensive School Plan and School Planning andManagement Team. SDP staff train local facilitators toprovide professional development at the school. SDPstaff visit schools twice a year to assess how well theapproach is being implemented, facilitate district meet-ings, and provide guidance and training.

ResultsBecause of SDP’s purpose and design, the outcomesmost closely associated with the program tend to benon-academic, such as better student self-concept and amore positive school climate. On academic measures,results have been mixed. Nevertheless, several studiesindicate that, when properly implemented, SDP canhelp raise student achievement in some low-performingschools. For example, the program was piloted in 1968in two inner-city schools in New Have, Conn. At the

time, they ranked 32nd and 33rd out of 33 elementaryschools in the district. By 1980, academic performanceat both schools was above the national average, and tru-ancy and discipline problems had declined markedly.There also have been a few studies in which SDP stu-dents have significantly outscored randomly selectedstudents in matched schools on standardized tests ofreading and math.18

Quantum OpportunitiesProgramOverview The Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP) wasdesigned as a youth development program to serve dis-advantaged adolescents over a four-year period, fromninth grade through high school graduation. Firstimplemented in 1989, QOP provides education, devel-opment, and service activities, coupled with a sustainedrelationship with a peer group and a caring adult, overthe four years of high school for small groups of disad-vantaged youth. The goal of QOP is to help high-riskyouth from poor families and neighborhoods to gradu-ate from high school and to attend college.

Program ContentQOP incorporates many features of past youth pro-grams, such as case management, mentoring, comput-er-assisted instruction, work experience, and financialincentives. These features form a comprehensive frame-work for schools to follow.

Because QOP is an after-school program, participat-ing schools are required to establish a dedicated QOPlearning center. The center, which must be located in aroom either at the school or a nearby location, must beat least 750 square feet and have electrical outlets and atelephone connection for a modem. This space is essen-tial since QOP involves a turnkey curriculum packagethat includes 72 individualized, self-paced coursesincluding lessons, activities, and tests covering K-12academics and functional skills at all levels; sevenadvanced multimedia computers with specialized man-agement and instructional software; one CD ROMlibrary with 80 selected multimedia CDs includingencyclopedias, books, academic and functional instruc-tional programs, electronic electives, and advanced



computing tools; four TV/VCR units and a collectionof 120 functional videos plus 25 commercial moviesused for video discussion development activities; oneprinter, one test scanner, and one modem.

In QOP, students (referred to as “Associates” by theprogram developers) are divided into groups of 25.Each group remains constant throughout the four-yearperiod, regardless of attendance. This is fundamental tothe QOP philosophy, “Once in QOP, always in QOP.”Each year, QOP participants are eligible for:■ 250 hours of education—participating in computer-

assisted instruction, peer tutoring, and assistance withhomework

■ 250 hours of development activities—participating incultural enrichment and personal development,acquiring life/family skills, planning for college oradvanced technical/vocational training, and jobpreparation

■ 250 hours of service activities—participating in com-munity service projects, helping with public events,and working as a volunteer in various agencies

Groups are led by a QOP coordinator who oversees

all aspects of the program. Each coordinator is responsi-ble for recruiting students, encouraging active participa-tion, brokering all service activities, counseling stu-dents, communicating with families, assisting with col-lege applications and aid, and tracking data. QOPinstructors and students share in performance-basedincentives. QOP offers students cash and scholarshipincentives to provide short-term motivation. Incentivesalso are provided for staff and agencies based on stu-dent participation hours.

Professional DevelopmentTraining sessions, conducted by OpportunitiesIndustrialization Centers of America (OICA), for QOPcoordinators and instructors take place once a year andlast four days, except for the initial training sessionwhich lasts six and a half days. Sessions, which are con-ducted in the QOP learning center, focus on the cor-nerstone elements of the program (education, develop-ment, service, and support) and include sessions onevaluation. Site-specific follow-up sessions also areavailable through OICA.

ResultsAn evaluation was conducted on the five sites that

implemented the QOP program throughout the fouryears that Associates and a control group were in highschool, with a follow-up one-year after QOP ended.Results indicate that Associates, especially those fromthe Philadelphia site, had more positive outcomes interms of educational attainment and social achieve-ment. In the year following the end of QOP, Associateswere more likely to have graduated from high schooland gone on to a post-secondary institution than con-trol group members, and Associates were less likely tobe dropouts.

Expectations for post-secondary education also werehigher for Associates than for control group members.One year after QOP ended, Associates and controlgroup members were asked whether they had receivedany honors or awards during the past 12 months. Theproportion of Associates receiving honors or awards wasnearly three times higher than the proportion of con-trol group members. At the end of high school,Associates were less likely than controls to report trou-ble with the police in the past 12 months. In a studyconducted two years after the program ended,Associates had half the arrests of controls. Associatesalso had fewer children than the control group.19

VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools 7 sites and 11 schoolsGrade-level focus High school (9-12)Costs The one-time charge for the QOP

turnkey curriculum package is$100,000. The total cost of operatinga model with fidelity for a four-yearperiod is approximately $10,600 perstudent (slightly more than $2,600per year), which includes stipendsand bonuses, opportunity accounts,coordinators, and program activities.

Quantum Opportunities ProgramC. Benjamin LattimoreOpportunities Industrialization Centers of America1415 North Broad StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19122Phone: 215/236-4500Fax: 215/236-7480 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/ or

http://www.oica.com

For more information:Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute ofBehavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder (1999).Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Quantum OpportunitiesProgram. Boulder, Colo. On the web athttp://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints

Consistency Management &Cooperative DisciplineOverview Consistency Management & Cooperative Discipline(CMCD) was designed to help schools establish andmaintain order in the classroom. Developed in the mid-1980s by H. Jerome Freiberg at the University ofHouston, CMCD attempts to increase student motiva-tion and self-discipline, and works to equip students toshare in the responsibility for classroom managementand discipline. CMCD provides a framework for schoolstaff to develop a site-specific plan to tackle theirunique discipline problems.

Program ContentAs the name suggests, CMCD contains two primarycomponents: (1) Consistency Management and (2) Cooperative Discipline.

■ Consistency Management focuses on classroomorganization and planning by the teacher and otherschool staff. The teacher is trained to organize allclassroom activities—from making seating arrange-ments, to passing out papers, sharpening pencils,taking attendance, using time, and providing equalopportunity to participate in class—to create anorderly and supportive environment in which allstudents can participate and learn.

■ The Cooperative Discipline component of the frame-work works to teach students to share in the class-room management role of teachers and paraprofes-sionals. All students are given an opportunity to serveas leaders. As they progress through school, studentsassume responsibility for classroom managementfunctions that range from passing out papers to assist-ing substitute teachers. Jobs are posted in the class-room, and students submit applications based oninterest. Each position is rotated every four to sixweeks. Under the program, students also are allowedto assume responsibility for resolving disputes, solv-ing problems, and making decisions. In this way, stu-dents gain the experience necessary to become self-disciplined and to act as responsible citizens of theschool community.

Professional DevelopmentCMCD includes a four-phase program for professionaldevelopment: awareness, implementation, follow-up,and sustaining support. The implementation phaseconsists of two on-site training sessions led by CMCD

staff during the spring prior to implementation. A sec-ond two-day workshop is provided before school beginsin August. The follow-up phase of staff developmentincludes four three-hour workshops held after schoolapproximately every two months between Septemberand March of the first academic year of implementa-tion. Sustaining support is provided in years two andthree, during which an orientation training session andoccasional workshops are provided to new teachers.During this phase, veteran teachers from the school areselected to become program facilitators, providing addi-tional training and support to new staff. CMCD staffare also available for additional schoolwide training asneeded.

ResultsMost evaluations of CMCD (primarily conducted ininner-city Houston schools) have shown positive resultsin the areas most closely associated with the program—i.e., reduced discipline referrals and an improvement inschool climate. A few studies have also found that theprogram has helped to raise student achievement insome low-performing schools.

One early study tracked five low-performing ele-mentary schools that had adopted CMCD and fivematched control schools over a three-year period. On


VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools 78 schools in seven statesGrade-level focus PreK-12First-year costs Price varies depending on size of

school. Approximate cost for a schoolof 500 students ranges between$49,000 and $98,000.

Consistency Management & Cooperative DisciplineH. Jerome FreibergCollege of EducationUniversity of HoustonHouston, TX 77204-5874Phone: 713/743-8663Fax: 713/743-8664E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Web site: http://www.info.med.yale.edu/comer

http://www.coe.uh.edu/~freiberg/cm/

For more information:American Federation of Teachers (1998). What

Works: Six Promising Schoolwide Reform Programs. WashingtonD.C. On the web athttp://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/six/index.htm

WWS


standardized achievement tests, statistically significantpositive effects were found for CMCD students. Amore recent evaluation compared the effectiveness of amath intervention in schools implementing CMCDand the math program and schools implementing themath program alone. Students in schools using thecombined approach outscored students in the math-only program schools.

While results are encouraging, only one indepen-dent study of this program has been conducted, thusfar, and achievement results were not measured. Thisevaluation looked at a blend of intervention programs,K-12, including Project GRAD, CMCD, Success forAll, and Move It Math. While the achievement effectsof CMCD were not quantified, teachers indicated that,after three years of using the program, a reduction indiscipline problems had increased daily instructionaltime by an average of 36 minutes.20

Bullying Prevention ProgramOverview The Bullying Prevention Program was developed in1983 in Bergen, Norway, to reduce the number of vic-tim/bully problems among primary and secondaryschool children. This K-12 program aims to increaseawareness and knowledge about behavior problems, toachieve active involvement on the part of teachers andparents, to develop clear rules against bullying behavior,and to provide support and protection for the victimsof bullying.

Program ComponentsThe Bullying Prevention Program involves the entireschool, from teachers and students to cafeteria workersand bus drivers. The core components of the programare implemented at the school level, the class level andthe individual level.

Schoolwide components include the administrationof an anonymous questionnaire to assess the nature andprevalence of bullying at each school, a school confer-ence day to discuss bullying at school and plan inter-ventions, formation of a Bullying PreventionCoordinating Committee to coordinate all aspects ofthe school’s program, and increased supervision of stu-dents at bullying “hot spots.” The CoordinatingCommittee is composed of a school administrator, a

teacher representative from each grade, a guidancecounselor and/or a school-based mental health profes-sional, and parent and student representatives.

Classroom components include the establishmentand enforcement of class rules against bullying, andholding regular class meetings with students. Classmeetings are used to engage students in a variety ofactivities, including role playing, writing, and smallgroup discussions.

Individual components include interventions withchildren identified as bullies and victims, and discus-sions with parents of involved students. Teachers maybe assisted in these efforts by counselors and school-based mental health professionals.

Professional DevelopmentAll members of the Bullying Prevention CoordinatingCommittee and the program coordinator receive an ini-tial one- or two-day on-site training to prepare them tolead teacher discussion groups and to assess the resultsof the initial questionnaire. Teachers and non-teachingstaff (e.g., cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc.) partici-pate in a half- to full-day in-service meeting to acquire

VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools Not availableGrade-level focus K-12First-year costs In addition to costs associated with

compensating an on-site coordinatorfor the project, costs for the programinclude approximately $130 per schoolfor the questionnaire and computerprogram, plus $60/teacher for class-room materials.

Bullying Prevention ProgramSue LimberInstitute for Families in SocietyUniversity of South Carolina937 Assembly StreetColumbia, SC 29208Phone: 803/777-1529Fax: 803/777-1120E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints

For more information:Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute ofBehavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder (1999).Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Bullying Prevention Program.Boulder, Colo. On the web athttp://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints

Junior Great Books (JGB)OverviewJunior Great Books (JGB), a supplementary literatureprogram for grades K-12, was launched in 1962 by theChicago-based Great Books Foundation, a nonprofitorganization that promotes reading and discussion ofthe classics. The goal of the program is for students todevelop the skills, habits, and attitudes of successfulreaders, allowing them to develop their analytic andinterpretive skills and to read for understanding, as wellas pleasure. The JGB program is shaped around discus-sion of literary texts and can be used in conjunctionwith both regular and compensatory education pro-grams.

Program ContentThe cornerstone of the Junior Great Books program is“Shared Inquiry.” Teachers engage students in formalinterpretive discussions, encouraging their search foranswers to fundamental questions about literary selec-tions. Teachers guide pupils toward developing theirown text-based analyses and understandings by posingprovocative, open-ended “how” and “why” questions for

which there may be several reasonable answers.The JGB anthologies contain a culturally diverse mix

of classic and modern literary and expository pieces.Texts (usually short stories or novellas) raise genuine

a deeper understanding of the program’s goals andmethods. This training is lead by program consultantsand members of the Coordinating Committee. Thedevelopers also offer yearly booster training sessions forteachers and staff who wish to participate.

ResultsResearch on the Bullying Prevention Program focuseson implementation sites in Bergen, Norway. After onlytwo years, schools in Bergen reported an overalldecrease in the frequency of bully/victim problems by50 percent or more. These results applied to studentsacross all grade levels. Schools using the approach alsoreported that school climate had improved, and antiso-cial behavior (e.g., theft, vandalism, and truancy) haddropped as well.

Case studies also have been completed in the UnitedStates (South Carolina), England (Sheffield), andGermany (Schleswig-Holstein). In South Carolina,results from the evaluation study suggest that the firstyear of the bullying program affects students’ involve-ment in bullying and antisocial behavior. After onlyseven months of implementation, students reported a25 percent drop in the frequency with which they bul-lied other children, while students in control schoolsreported a corresponding increase. As expected, therewas an increase over time in the frequency of self-reported antisocial behavior among control students,while for the intervention students, there was either noincrease or a slower rate of increase with regard to gen-eral delinquency, vandalism, school misbehavior, andpunishment for school-related misbehavior.21


Reading/English Language ArtsPrograms

VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools 9,500Grade-level focus K-12First-year costs Total cost per teacher is approxi-

mately $2,100 and includes train-ing, consulting, and materials.

The Great Books FoundationDeborah Mantia, Director of Program Development35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300Chicago, IL 60601Phone: 800/222-5870Fax: 312/407-0334E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.greatbooks.org


Works: Seven Promising Reading and Language Arts Programs.Washington D.C. On the webhttp://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/seven/index.htm

WWR

questions for teachers and students, and are limited inlength to allow students to read each piece at leasttwice.

The JGB program involves a six-step process. First,the instructor engages the class in a brief introductorydiscussion about an issue that will be encountered inthe text. The class then reads the literary selection forthe first time and, in discussion groups, shares ques-tions that arise from the reading. Next, students readthe text carefully a second time, making notes inresponse to interpretive questions posed in their discus-sion groups. The class discusses and interpretswords/phrases, often with multiple meanings, that areimportant to the text. The teacher leads studentsthrough a Shared Inquiry discussion, the culminationof the JGB process. Finally, students express their per-sonal reactions to a text by writing stories, poems, oressays related to the theme or literary form of the selec-tion.

Professional DevelopmentTeachers who participate in the JGB program arerequired to complete a two-day “Basic Leader Training”in which teachers receive a course manual, a grade-appropriate instructional guide, and various supportpieces. This course provides instruction in JGB’s SharedInquiry method, modeling, and practice discussions.

JGB also offers a follow-up support program forteachers and administrators to ensure successful imple-mentation. Follow-up activities include on-site consul-tations and training to provide teachers with guidanceand feedback and to establish and review benchmarksfor student performance. Schools implementing JGBare required to schedule six on-site/in-service days forparticipating teachers in each of the first two years ofimplementation.

Further professional development and technicalassistance are provided to schools using JGB in theform of a toll-free number with regional specialists andJGB’s web site (see Vital Statistics). JGB also offers twointermediate and three advanced-level workshops onintegrating the program into existing curricula, refresh-er courses, and peer coaching.

Preliminary ResultsAlthough research on the achievement effects of JGB asa classroom program is still preliminary, several inde-pendent controlled studies indicate that English lan-guage arts students may benefit from its use. On an

assessment of students’ critical-thinking abilities, onestudy found that high-achieving students using JGB aseither a mixed or a full-time alternative to basals scoredsignificantly higher than their control group counter-parts. Another study, involving Title I summer schoolstudents, concluded that JGB had a significant effecton the ability of low-achieving students to recall textualdetails with accuracy, including information aboutcharacters, events, and major themes. And a small studyinvolving 30 fifth-grade students found that both high-and low-performing students improved their readingcomprehension scores, as measured by a standardizedassessment.22

Exemplary Center for ReadingInstruction (ECRI)OverviewExemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI) is aresearch-based, K-12 instructional program designed toimprove students’ ability to read, understand, and com-municate in English. The program focuses on pre- andin-service professional development for teachers and ismeant to strengthen and supplement, not replace, exist-ing curricula. Teachers using ECRI are trained in a

VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools More than 700Grade-level focus K-12First-year costs Start-up cost for a school of 500 stu-

dents is about $7,000, including$600/day honorarium for ECRI staffand $228/teacher for required texts.

The Reid FoundationExemplary Center for Reading Instruction3310 South 2700 EastSalt Lake City, UT 84109Phone: 801/486-5083 or 801/278-2334Fax: 801/485-0561E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Web site: http://www.xmission.com/~ereid/ecri.htm

For more information:American Federation of Teachers (1998). What Works:

Seven Promising Reading and English Language Arts Programs.Washington D.C. On the web at http://www.aft.org/edis-sues/whatworks/seven/index.htm

WWR


highly structured, teacher-directed approach to instruc-tion that focuses on establishing high levels of studentmastery, maintaining on-task behavior, and providingample time for hands-on work and practice.

Program ContentECRI employs an integrated approach to teaching read-ing and English language arts, with a focus on individ-ualized instruction techniques and positive reinforce-ment. ECRI teachers learn strategies for instruction inword recognition; vocabulary; study skills; spelling; lit-erature; penmanship; literal, critical, and interpretivecomprehension; and creative and expository writing.Teachers are trained in the use of “directives” (scriptedlessons) designed to help increase student motivation,to make more efficient use of class time, and to intro-duce multisensory instructional techniques.

Students are assigned to reading groups based upontheir instructional reading level. In a typical ECRI les-son, teachers introduce new words and teach a compre-hension skill, a study skill, and a grammar or creativewriting skill. Lessons for secondary students includereviewing vocabulary and word recognition skills, aswell as applying “backup” skills such as proofreading.Throughout each lesson, teachers focus on elicitingresponses from students, providing time for supervisedpractice, teaching students to monitor their ownprogress and to schedule their study time, and address-ing errors as they occur.

High levels of student mastery (correct responses of83 percent to 100 percent) are expected from all stu-dents. Students demonstrate mastery through class par-ticipation, small-group discussions, written work, andregular curriculum-based assessments developed byECRI staff for use with classroom materials. Student

progress is measured individually, and no student isallowed to proceed to the next skills sequence until heor she has fully mastered the previous material.

Professional DevelopmentECRI provides a five-day seminar for teachers thatfocuses on basic ECRI techniques for reading and lan-guage arts instruction, effective scheduling of class time,and methods for diagnosing and correcting readingproblems. During the seminar, participants observedemonstrations, teach sample lessons, and pass profi-ciency tests on the use of new approaches. ECRI alsooffers intermediate and advanced seminars. In addition,ECRI staff are available to visit implementation sites todemonstrate and/or monitor implementations.

ResultsThere have been more than 20 years of field tests todemonstrate ECRI’s effectiveness in helping raise stu-dent achievement in reading and language arts, withbenefits for students from all socioeconomic, racial, andethnic backgrounds. When the program is properlyimplemented, students’ achievement gains can be stun-ning.

One early study found that the average achievementlevel of ECRI students in second grade was in the 95thto 99th percentile range, with Title I students averaging1.4 to 3.2 years’ gain for each year of instruction. Datafrom several other sites also indicate that ECRI is effec-tive for regular education students, as well as for specialneeds (bilingual, Title I, remedial) and special educa-tion students. There are also indications that ECRIinstruction accelerates the achievement of gifted andtalented students.23



Remedial ReadingPrograms

Lindamood-Bell (L-B)OverviewDeveloped in the late 1960s, Lindamood-Bell (L-B) haspioneered programs to help reading-disabled studentsdevelop the sensory/cognitive processes that underliereading, spelling, language comprehension, math, andvisual motor skills. This approach has extensive researchon its use in clinical settings but comparatively littledata on its classroom applications. A number of theseadaptations for struggling regular and special educationstudents are now available, including the LindamoodPhonemic Sequencing Program (LiPS), a highly struc-tured reading and spelling tutoring program for studentsfrom kindergarten through adulthood, and the HumanLearning Model (HLM), which can be implemented asa schoolwide program. Other classroom-based programsrelated to Lindamood-Bell include the Visualizing andVerbalizing Program, the Seeing Stars Program, theDrawing with Language Program, and the On CloudNine Math Program.

Program ContentStudents who are referred to L-B are administered aninitial needs assessment—a battery of tests designed toexplore the reading skills of the students, i.e., theirstrengths and weaknesses. This battery includes theresults of any state or district assessments that may havebeen previously administered. Once students have beenassessed, the intervention team designs an educationplan specific to the needs of each student. The results ofthe assessment determine the length of time the studentwill be involved in the program, the types of lessons tobe taught, and the individual skills that will be focusedon in each lesson. Although lessons are individualized,there are certain underlying characteristics shared withother multisensory, structured reading interventionapproaches. Specifically, each lesson is structured, pro-gressive, cumulative, cognitively based, and sequential.

L-B assumes that information from the eye, ear, andmouth can be used to identify, classify, and label sounds,leading to greater understanding of language. L-B works

to develop phonemic awareness and its application toreading and spelling in a specific progression. Studentsare first trained to be aware of consonants and vowels.Students then learn about the speech actions that pro-duce phonemes; and they learn how to identify, classify,and label phonemes; after this, the students choosemouth pictures to represent the phonemes. The nextstep is for students to learn which letters to associatewith specific mouth movements and sounds.

Students apply this knowledge to spelling and read-ing by using letters printed on tiles for spelling and thenusing their own writing skills to spell words. Studentsreceive instruction in distinguishing between phonetical-ly regular words from irregular words. In the final stage,students learn to read, beginning with lettered tiles, andthen moving on to print.

Fundamental to the L-B approach is the use of“guided discovery,” in which a teacher questions stu-dents in order to help them discover the alphabeticprinciple on their own, and students correct their ownwork.

Professional DevelopmentThe various classroom spin-offs of L-B offer a range ofprofessional development services. LiPS and HLM, inparticular, offer introductory courses and seminars on

VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools Not availableGrade-level focus K-12 and adultsFirst-year costs Not available

Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes416 Higuera StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401Phone: 800/233-1819 Fax: 805/541-8756Web site: http://www.lblp.com or http://www.proedinc.com


Works: Five Promising Remedial Reading Intervention Programs.Washington D.C. On the web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/five/index.html

WWRR

how to use the programs. Levels of training range frombasic introductory training through consultant certifica-tion. Teachers trained in HLM are expected to imple-ment the program after the initial training.

Preliminary ResultsMost research on the effectiveness of the Lindamood-Bell approach has focused on its use as an individual-ized instructional or tutorial program, usually in a clini-cal, not classroom, setting. Thus, results on its school-based applications are still preliminary.

Several studies indicate that this approach can beused effectively with dyslexic and severely disabled poorreaders of all ages. The same techniques have also beenmodified for use with small groups in classrooms oreven for whole-class instruction. One study comparedthe reading achievement of two groups of strugglingfirst-grade readers. The experimental group was taughtusing LiPS for four months, then phased back into theregular reading program. At the end of first grade, theLiPS students outscored control students on multiplereading measures. A follow-up study showed that theseachievement gains were sustained through the fifthgrade. Another study found LiPS to be an effectiveremedial program for middle-grade students with poorreading skills. And recently, researchers examined theeffect that different interventions had on reading-dis-abled first-grade students. The students were randomlyassigned to one of four programs. At the end of the sec-ond grade, students in the Lindamood group signifi-cantly outscored other students on program-alignedmeasures of reading ability.24

Exemplary Center for ReadingInstruction (Remedial Reading)OverviewAlthough Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction(ECRI) has been used mostly to enhance regular class-room reading and language-arts instruction, it also hasbeen used successfully as a summer school or after-school remedial tutoring program.

Program ContentSimilar to the ECRI method for teachingreading/English language arts, remedial ECRI is a mas-tery learning program that employs an integratedapproach with a focus on individualized instructiontechniques and positive reinforcement. Teachers usingECRI are trained in a highly structured, teacher-direct-ed approach to instruction with a focus on establishinghigh levels of student mastery, maintaining on-taskbehavior, and providing ample time for hands-on workand practice.

ECRI teachers learn strategies for instruction inword recognition; vocabulary; study skills; spelling; lit-erature; penmanship; literal, critical, and interpretivecomprehension; and creative and expository writing.Teachers are trained in the use of “directives” (scriptedlessons) that are designed to help increase student moti-vation, to make more efficient use of class time, and tointroduce multisensory instructional techniques.

High levels of student mastery (correct responses of83 percent to 100 percent) are expected from all stu-dents. Students demonstrate mastery through class par-ticipation, small-group discussions, written work, andregular curriculum-based assessments developed byECRI staff for use with classroom materials. Studentprogress is measured individually and no student isallowed to proceed to the next skills sequence until heor she has fully mastered the previous material.

Professional DevelopmentECRI provides a five-day seminar for teachers thatfocuses on basic ECRI techniques for reading and lan-guage arts instruction, effective scheduling of class time,and methods for diagnosing and correcting readingproblems. During the seminar, participants observedemonstrations, teach sample lessons, and pass profi-ciency tests on the use of new approaches. ECRI also


offers intermediate and advanced seminars. In addition,ECRI staff are available to visit implementation sites todemonstrate and/or monitor implementations.

ResultsFor an explanation of effect size (ES), see page 36.

ECRI can be used as a program to strengthen regu-lar classroom instruction or as a remedial intervention.There have been more than 20 years of field tests todemonstrate ECRI’s effectiveness in helping to raisestudent achievement in reading and language arts, withbenefits found for students from all socio-economic,racial and ethnic backgrounds. Research shows that theprogram is effective with regular education students. Inaddition, achievement gains have been found for TitleI, remedial, and special education students, as well asfor students who don’t qualify for special education butwho still have special needs. In studies of studentachievement effects, special education students madenormal curve equivalent (NCE) gains ranging from+7.76 to +23.29. Students receiving Title I servicesposted NCE gains from +7.99 to +25.66. And finally,students eligible for remedial services made gains rang-ing from +6.41 to +11.60.

The main evaluation of ECRI as an after-school

program used volunteers to tutor two groups of ran-domly assigned students who had reading difficulties.The experimental group was taught by parents who hadbeen trained to use ECRI, while the control group wastaught using a generic reading intervention. ECRI stu-dents received lessons in reading, writing, and spelling.At the end of the school year, students in both groupswere tested using a standardized test (Durrell Analysisof Reading Difficulty), which showed that ECRI stu-dents had made significantly greater gains (ES +1.21).

A second study included students from grades 2 to12. Prior to ECRI, remedial students had a shockinglylow achievement gain of only three months (.3) foreach year in school. Once ECRI was implemented,schools saw gains of 17 months in the Gates-MacGinitetest of oral and silent reading rates, and gains of 25months in oral reading comprehension and spelling.

Another study of the use of ECRI as a remedialreading program showed the results of students ingrades 1 to 6. This study included 114 students whowere not reading on grade level. At the end of theschool year, after approximately 45 hours of ECRIinstruction, results showed NCE gains in all grades,ranging from 11 to 19.88 NCE scores.

An additional study of the use of ECRI as a remedi-al program involved 17 students in Hawaii in grades 2to 4. At the end of the first year, the students showedNCE gains of 14.71.25

Direct InstructionOverviewFirst used in the mid-sixties, Direct Instruction (DI) isa highly structured (scripted) instructional approachthat is designed to accelerate the learning of at-risk stu-dents. Curriculum materials and instructionalsequences attempt to move students to mastery at thefastest possible pace. Although the early mastery ofbasic skills is a key element of the program, DI alsoaddresses students’ general comprehension and analyticskills. DI has a long history as an effective elementaryschool reading and/or schoolwide reform program, butalso has a reading intervention program—CorrectiveReading (CR), available for elementary, secondary, andadult regular and special education students, which canbe implemented separately.


VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools 109 schoolsGrade-level focus K-12Costs $39.95 (plus shipping) per 100

students. There is a recurringcharge of $0.26/student eachmonth for materials. Cost for theseminars is $600 per day for thetrainer, plus travel expenses.

The Reid FoundationExemplary Center for Reading InstructionDr. Ethna Reid3310 South 2700 EastSalt Lake City, UT 84109Phone: 801/486-5083 or 801/278-2334Fax: 801/485-0561E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Web site: http://www.xmission.com/~ereid/ecri.htm



WWRR

Program ContentAll DI lesson plans, including those for CR, have beenwritten, tested, rewritten, and polished in a cycle ofclassroom field-testing and revision that ends onlywhen trials show that 90 percent of students grasp alesson the first time around. With each lesson buildingon previously mastered skills and understandings,teachers are able to dramatically accelerate the pace oflearning, even for the most disadvantaged students.Though the lesson plans are highly structured, the DIprogram is meant to serve as a template that ensuresthat beginning teachers will be successful and that vet-eran teachers can fill any holes in their teaching skills.

The emphasis of CR is on both decoding and com-prehension skills. Before a student begins CR, an assess-ment is administered to determine his or her skill level.This assessment also acts as a placement test, ensuringthat students can be grouped and taught at the appro-priate skill level. Skills are taught in sequence until stu-dents have fully internalized them and are able to gen-eralize their learning in new, untaught situations. Eachlesson sequence is extensively field-tested to determine

the most effective and efficient way to lead students tomastery.

Reading/language arts lesson plans begin by focusingon phonemic awareness, and are followed by increas-ingly complex phonics and decoding lessons, which arefollowed by lessons that focus on comprehension andanalysis of content.

Professional DevelopmentDI is a commercially published program, and materialsmay be purchased by individual grade and subject or ina package suitable for schoolwide implementation.Professional development and implementation supportof differing levels of quality can be contracted from var-ious providers.

ResultsFor an explanation of effect size (ES) see page 36.

Although Direct Instruction has been evaluatedamong many populations over the years, the followingonly addresses the use of Direct Instruction as a reme-dial reading intervention or as a regular education pro-gram serving a student population composed of a verylarge proportion of struggling readers. One study fol-lowed the effects of DI on a rural population of third-grade students from 1973 to 1980. Results showed thatDI students outscored their counterparts in a compari-son group by ES=+.61. Another study of mildly retard-ed students showed DI students outscoring controlgroup students by ES=+.64. A third study, evaluatingthe effects of DI on both reading and spelling, showedDI students outperforming a control group byES=+.75. A fourth study also showed DI studentsoutscoring a control group in spelling and reading, thistime by ES=+.32.

A summary meta-analyses of Direct Instructionshowed overall large effect sizes for students in regulareducation (ES=+.82) and special education (ES=+.90).DI also showed large effect sizes when used with strug-gling middle and junior high school students(ES=+1.11).26


VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools 150Grade-level focus PreK-12First-year costs Cost of implementing the Direct

Instruction Corrective ReadingProgram schoolwide is approximately$25/student plus $8,000 for trainingand on-site technical assistance.

Association for Direct InstructionBrian WickmanP.O. Box 10252Eugene, OR 97440Phone: 800/995-2464Fax: 541/683-7543E-mail: [email protected] site: http://www.adihome.org or

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep



American Institutes for Research (1999). An Educator’sGuide to Schoolwide Reform. Arlington, Va.: EducationalResearch Service. On the web athttp://www.aft.org//Edissues/Schlwrfm.htm

EG

WWRR

Upward BoundOverviewUpward Bound (UB) is a federally funded educationprogram focused on increasing the academic and moti-vational levels of high school students so that they maygraduate from their high schools and pursue a collegeeducation. One of the six college entrance programsadministered by the U.S. Department of Education(collectively known as the TRIO programs), UB pro-vides opportunities for students ages 13 to 19 to suc-ceed in pre-college performance and ultimately in high-er education. First implemented in 1965 as a GreatSociety program, UB seeks to improve students’ acade-mic skills through intensive classroom instruction; toprovide education opportunities not usually available tolow-income youth; and to motivate students throughsuccessful high school graduation and matriculation topursue a post-secondary education.

Program ContentUB projects are required to provide a multiyear pro-gram of weekly activities during the academic year andan intensive summer program that simulates the collegeexperience. Programs are typically housed at institu-tions of higher education; public or private not-for-profit agencies; a combination of institutions, agencies,and organizations; and—in exceptional cases—sec-ondary schools. Schools wishing to participate in UBmust either join an existing UB program or submit agrant application to the U.S. Department of Education.

UB serves high school students from low-incomefamilies, high school students from families in whichneither parent holds a bachelor’s degree, and low-income, first-generation military veterans who arepreparing to enter post-secondary education. To enrollin a UB program, a student must fall into one of thefollowing categories: have completed the eighth grade,be between the ages of 13 and 19, or have a need foracademic support in order to pursue a program of post-secondary education. Two-thirds of participating stu-dents must be potential first-generation college students

and meet federal income guidelines. The remainingthird must either be potential first-generation collegestudents or meet federal income guidelines.

Programs are required to offer instruction in math(through pre-calculus), lab science, foreign languages,English, and composition. Students participate in anintensive six-week summer residential or non-residentialprogram held on a college campus and receive academicsupport services during the school year (typically onweekends or after school).

UB programs also must offer cultural, social andrecreational activities designed to foster personal growthand broaden student awareness and appreciation of theworld; an academic year follow-up program with week-ly grade-specific academic courses; bi-weekly tutoringin academic subjects; advising and counseling; monitor-ing and tracking of student academic and co-curricularactivities; assistance with college selection, admission,entrance exams, final examinations, and financial-aidapplications; and intervention methods to assist andencourage students toward positive achievement.

Professional DevelopmentWith the exception of professional development oppor-tunities at annual TRIO meetings or through federaltraining grants, project and target school staff are leftlargely on their own to develop and implement ideasfor improving program practice. However, studies sug-


Dropout Prevention/College Attendance Programs

VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools 3,300 high schoolsGrade-level focus High school (9-12)First-year costs Not available

Upward BoundHigher Education Preparation and SupportU.S. Department of Education600 Independence Avenue, SWWashington D.C. 20202Phone: 202/708-4804E-mail: [email protected] site:http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/OHEP/hepsss/upbound.html

gest that UB programs are reluctant to introduce sub-stantial innovations in their programs due to the factthat such innovations involve risks that could result inthe loss of the grant. Critics have suggested thatchanges to the federal regulations governing UB pro-grams and the grant renewal process are necessary inorder to ensure that project and target school staff aregiven more consistent opportunities to develop theirprofessional skills and the freedom to adopt new, moreeffective approaches to teaching and learning.

ResultsUB is the oldest and largest of the U.S. Department ofEducation’s TRIO programs and has been evaluated themost thoroughly. The first comprehensive evaluation ofthe program was conducted in 1976. This study, alongwith a follow-up study in 1979, focused on high schoolretention rates of UB students and the program’s effec-tiveness in preparing students for post-secondary educa-tion. Initial results demonstrated that UB participantsremained in high school at a slightly higher rate thantheir control group counterparts. Evidence also suggest-ed that the longer students stayed in the program, theless likely they were to drop out of school. Collegeattendance rates for UB students were considerablyhigher than those of the control group. Seventy-onepercent of UB students were eligible to attend collegefollowing graduation from high school, versus 47 per-cent of the control group. Of the eligible UB students,65 percent enrolled in post-secondary education.

A more recent evaluation (conducted byMathematica Policy Research, Inc.) looked at the short-term academic impact of UB on students during thefirst two years of high school, as well as length of par-ticipation, attrition rates, reasons for leaving the pro-gram, and what types of students benefited most fromthe program. In this study, eligible participants wereselected from UB applicants at 67 sites and assigned toeither a UB group or a control group. Analyses of UBrevealed that, though UB participants earned more aca-demic credits during high school than the controlgroup, grade point averages for both groups remainedvirtually unchanged, as were attitudes about highschool, and parental involvement. However, withrespect to GPA, it should be noted that students in thecontrol group were not required to take academiccourses and were less likely to do so. In other words,UB students were maintaining their GPA while takingmore rigorous academic courses. UB students also were

much more likely to enter college than their counter-parts—perhaps the most encouraging statistic toemerge from the study.27

Project GRAD (GraduationReally Achieves Dreams)OverviewProject GRAD was designed as an inner-city curricularinitiative aimed at producing college-bound high schoolgraduates of distinction. Launched by the HoustonIndependent School District in 1989, initial resultswere dubious in that more students were attending col-lege, but achievement levels were not rising. To balancethe equation, the developers decided to expand the pro-gram to include other systemwide reform efforts (e.g.,Success for All, University of Chicago School MathProject) in order to bring comprehensive systemicchange to an entire feeder system of schools. The over-all objectives of the program are to increase test scoresof students to exceed national norms and to reduce thedropout rate to acceptable levels. Project GRAD seeksto prove that the problems facing inner-city school sys-tems can be overcome with the right resources, strate-gies, and school-community collaboration.

Program ContentGuided by the philosophy that all pre-kindergartenthrough 12th grade students can be effective learners ifappropriate and timely programmatic interventions areinfused into the primary grades, Project GRAD servesas a framework for districtwide reform.

The program introduces into its primary and middleschools a strong curriculum designed to build students’self-discipline, confidence, and resilience; and thisworks to generate excitement about learning. Focusingon four interdependent and mutually reinforcinginstructional centers—mathematics, reading, quality ofinstructional environment, and parental/communityinvolvement—Project GRAD employs four establishedcurriculum models:

■ University of Chicago School Math Project (UCSMP)Secondary Component—designed by the University ofChicago, this program provides students with the fol-lowing sequence of mathematics courses: transitionmathematics, algebra, geometry, functions, statistics



and trigonometry, and pre-calculus and discrete math-ematics.

■ Communities in Schools (CIS)—a nonprofit, dropoutprevention program and social service agency thatprovides guidance, counseling, community outreach,and family case-management service to at-risk chil-dren. CIS works with students and their families tomake them aware of private and community resourcesthat can assist them with social, economic, health,and other needs.

■ Success for All (SFA)—a schoolwide reading and writ-ing program for students in pre-kindergarten to mid-dle school that emphasizes early intervention toensure that every student succeeds in reading through-out the elementary grades. Components of SFAinclude a reading and writing program, cooperativelearning techniques, tutors, eight-week assessments,pre-school and kindergarten instruction, family sup-port teams, staff support teams, and professionaldevelopment for teachers.

■ Consistency Management Program—a comprehensiveinstructional program tailored to respond to individ-ual campus needs that builds on shared responsibilityfor learning and classroom organization betweenteachers and students. Consistency management com-bines instructional effectiveness through consistencyin classroom organization with student self-disciplinedeveloped cooperatively. Components of theConsistency Management Program include preven-tion, caring, cooperation, organization, and commu-nity.

Key to the development of the program is the initia-

tion of a college scholarship program at each highschool within the system. The developers of the pro-gram work with corporations and foundations to spon-sor a scholarship program at the Project GRAD highschool prior to the installation of the program’s compo-nents. Typically the scholarship is a guarantee of a$1,000 college scholarship per year for students whomeet basic academic criteria.

Project GRAD is almost entirely funded by privateorganizations and individuals. Therefore, the availabilityof stable funding is essential to implementation, and aminimum of two years of funding is required to ensurethat implementation of the program can be sustained.

Professional DevelopmentProject GRAD offers extensive staff development to allfaculty members; and these development opportunitiesare ongoing, not one-shot workshops. Facilitators andtrainers conduct the staff development for the four sub-units of the instructional model, and a full-time facilita-tor is on staff to aid in the set-up and implementationof each of the programs. Project GRAD also offers prin-cipals’ leadership training, summer institutes, and theBridge Program (for incoming ninth-grade students).

Preliminary ResultsIn the years since its initial implementation in the Davisfeeder system of the Houston Independent SchoolDistrict, there have been several evaluations of ProjectGRAD’s effectiveness. Each of these studies, funded bythe University of Houston system and conducted byKwame Opuni, has focused on the program’s implemen-tation status, impact on curriculum and achievement,and impact on discipline—as well as on strengths andweaknesses of the project itself.

The early evaluations (for the 1994-95 and 1995-96school years) revealed tremendous gains in student mathand reading achievement, passing rates, and collegeattendance, as well as corresponding decreases in disci-plinary levels, student referrals, and instructional timeon task. The most recent evaluation (1996-97) followedsuit, unveiling another increase in achievement levels.Despite Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS)average percent passing rates rising across the school dis-trict, the Davis feeder system has kept pace, raising pass-ing rates in math from 36 percent in 1994 to 65 percentin 1997, and passing rates in reading from 56 percent(1994) to 69 percent (1997). At the secondary schoollevel (Davis High School), 10th-grade TAAS passing

VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools Three feeder patterns serving 42

schoolsGrade-level focus K-12First-year costs $10,000

Project GRADSharon L. Jacobson, Director of OperationsP.O. Box 2511Houston, TX 77252-2511Phone: 713/757-5973Fax: 713/757-3144E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.hern.org/~grad/

rates rose from 29 percent to 53 percent in math, andfrom 51 percent to 76 percent in reading. Furthermore,Davis High School’s graduating class increased its col-lege attendance rate from 54 percent in 1994-95 to 65percent in 1995-96.

Project GRAD also has had a significant impact onstudent discipline. Since its implementation in 1994-95, student referrals to principals’ offices have declinedby more than 71 percent in each of the schools. In justtwo years, referrals had dropped 48 percent in MarshallMiddle School alone. An assessment in 1996-97 of dis-ciplinary-related time saved by teachers due to profi-ciency in the use of Consistency Management &Cooperative Discipline practices, showed that teachersin the Davis feeder pattern were gaining 15 to 18 daysper year, saving the school district more than $425,000.Preliminary reports from replication sites in otherschool districts are also encouraging.28

Coca-Cola Valued YouthProgramOverviewDeveloped by the Intercultural Development ResearchAssociation in 1984, the Coca-Cola Valued YouthProgram (VYP) is a cross-age tutoring programdesigned to help students who are at-risk of droppingout of school. The program has seven tenets:

1. All students can learn.

2. The school values all students.

3. All students can actively contribute to their owneducation and to the education of others.

4. All students, parents, and teachers have the right toparticipate fully in creating and maintaining excel-lent schools.

5 Excellence in schools contributes to individual andcollective economic growth, stability and advance-ment.

6. Commitment to educational excellence is created byincluding students, parents, and teachers in settinggoals, making decisions, monitoring progress, andevaluating outcomes.

7. Students, parents, and teachers must be providedextensive, consistent support in ways that allow stu-dents to learn, teachers to teach, and parents to beinvolved.

Program ContentThe Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program works by plac-ing junior high and high school students in positions ofacademic responsibility as tutors to elementary schoolchildren. The program emphasizes elimination of non-academic and disciplinary factors that contribute to stu-dents dropping out of school. Generally speaking, VYPworks to develop students’ senses of self-control,decrease student truancy, and reduce disciplinary refer-rals.

Students who want to participate in the program arerequired to enroll in a special tutoring class, whichallows them to improve their own basic academic skills.VYP involves a range of instructional and administra-tive strategies designed to support the program.Curriculum for VYP is focused on preparing the sec-ondary school students to tutor elementary students.The objectives of the curriculum are to improve stu-dents’ tutoring skills, literacy skills, and self-concept.

Tutors are paid a minimum wage stipend, whichserves to reinforce the worth of students’ participationin the program; the student tutors work with three ele-mentary school students at a time for a total of aboutfour hours per week. Tutors are further rewarded fortheir participation with T-shirts, caps, and a certificateof merit for their efforts.


VITAL STATISTICSNumber of schools 90 schools in 17 citiesGrade-level focus Middle and high schoolCosts Cost per student/user (based on

25 tutors and 75 tutees) rangesfrom $150-$250 including tutorstipends, recognition awards, stafftraining, technical assistance, andevaluation.

Coca-Cola Valued Youth ProgramLinda Cantu, Director5835 Callaghan, Suite 350San Antonio, TX 78228-1190Phone: 210/684-8180Fax: 210/684-5389E-mail: [email protected] Web Site: http://www.idra.org


Schools choosing to implement the program mustfirst form a Valued Youth implementation team, whichincludes a program administrator, the principals of theelementary and secondary schools, a teacher/coordina-tor at the secondary school, an elementary receivingteacher representative, a family liaison, and an evalua-tion liaison. The team’s major responsibility is to coor-dinate and monitor project activities.

Professional DevelopmentVYP’s support strategy involves curriculum, coordina-tion, staff enrichment, family involvement, and evalua-tion activities. Technical assistance and training, offeredin the form of workshops, are focused on creating acohesive group that is dedicated and committed to thesuccess of the program and that has high expectationsfor the students and adults involved. Specific topicscovered in workshops include developing a tutor train-ing program, bilingual education, organizationalchange, involving parents in their child’s education, andclassroom management. A minimum of 10 training andtechnical assistance days are required.

ResultsThe main evaluation of the Coca-Cola Valued YouthProgram (conducted by Cardenas, Montecel, Supik,and Harris in 1992) compared 63 VYP tutors to 70students in a comparison group. Students in four SanAntonio schools were matched on the basis of age, eth-nicity, lunch eligibility, percentage of students retainedin grade; and scores on tests of reading, quality ofschool life, and self-concept. Although the studentswere not randomly assigned to the program, students inthe comparison group were slightly less disadvantagedthan the control group. They were less likely to qualifyfor free lunch or to have been retained in grade thanthe comparison group. Two years after the programbegan, 12 percent of the comparison students, asopposed to only one percent of the VYP students, haddropped out. Reading grades were significantly higherfor the VYP group, as were scores on a self-esteem mea-sure and on a measure of attitude towards school.29


Footnotes

1 To date, only a few high school programs have managed to amassstrong, independent evidence that shows they actually work inraising student achievement and that they can be replicated.Several more have been designed around respected theoreticalresearch. Some of these programs are at the pilot stage; some arealready in wide use. Many are the subjects of serious, indepen-dent evaluations, which the AFT is monitoring. Although theodds of success with these models are still unknown, some maywarrant exploration and experimentation.

2 Phone numbers for schools using several promising programs canbe found through the AFT Web page.

3 TOWRE is published by Pro-Ed; MAST is published by Psych.Corp.

4 Public Agenda (1997). “Getting By: What American teenagersreally think about their schools.”

5 Porter, A.C., et al. (1994). “Reform of high school mathematicsand science and opportunity to learn.” CPRE Policy Briefs(www.upenn.edu/gse/cpre/docs/pubs/briefs.html).

6 White, P.A., Porter, A.C., Gamoran, A., and Smithson, J. (1996).“Upgrading high school math: A look at three transitioncourses.” CPRE Policy Briefs(www.upenn.edu/gse/cpre/docs/pubs/briefs.html).

7 Ibid.

8 Out-of-field teaching and educational equity. October 1996.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

9 Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). “The current status of teachingand teacher development.” Briefing Paper: National Commissionon Teaching and America’s Future.

10 Smylie, M.A. (1994). “Redesigning teachers’ work: Connectionsto the classroom.” Review of Research in Education (20): Associa-tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

11 Irmsher, K. (1997). “School size.” ERIC Digest #11: U.S.Education Department. Cotton, K. (1996). “School size, schoolclimate and student performance.” School Improvement Series,Close-up #20: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory(NWREL).

12 Lee, V. E. and Smith, J.B. (1996). “High school size: Whichworks best and for whom?” New York: Paper presented atAmerican Educational Research Association (AERA).

13 For an overview of the various legal ways that employers canincorporate a review of school records in their hiring processes,see the Equal Employment Advisory Council’s Employer’s Guideto Using School Records in Hiring Decisions, by Robert E.Williams and Erin Quinn Gery. (202) 789-8650.

14 More information on this subject will be available in an upcom-ing publication from the National Alliance of Business (NAB)and on the web at http://www.makingacademicscount.org.

15 American Institutes for Research (1999). An Educator’s Guide toSchoolwide Reform. Arlington, Va.: Educational Research Service.On the web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/schlwrfm.htm.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 American Federation of Teachers (1998). What Works: SixPromising Schoolwide Reform Programs. Washington, D.C. Onthe web at http://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/six/index.htm.

19 Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (1999).Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Quantum OpportunitiesProgram. Boulder, Colo.: University of Colorado. On the web athttp://colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints.

20 AFT (1998), op. cit.

21 Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (1999).Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Bullying Prevention Program.Boulder, Colo.: University of Colorado. On the web athttp://colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints.

22 American Federation of Teachers (1998). What Works: SevenPromising Reading and English Language Arts Programs.Washington, D.C. On the web athttp://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/seven/index.htm.

23 Ibid.

24 American Federation of Teachers (1999). What Works: FivePromising Remedial Reading Intervention Programs. Washington,D.C. On the web athttp://www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/five/index.htm.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Slavin, R.E. & Fashola, O.S. (1998). Show Me the Evidence!Proven and Promising Programs for America’s Schools. ThousandOaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

The following program descriptions were designedto provide a quick overview of research-based pro-grams that, when properly implemented, showpromise for raising the achievement level of low-per-forming high schools students.

For this effort, we solicited program recommenda-tions from experts in the field and drew on the find-ings of a number of program reviews—includingwork previously conducted by AFT, the AmericanInstitutes of Research, Johns Hopkins University, theUniversity of Colorado, and the U.S. Department ofEducation. We then attempted to obtain descriptiveinformation and copies of all published evaluationstudies—including research designs, field-test data,and replication histories—from the developers of allprograms, thus identified.

All available materials were then reviewed againstthe following criteria:

■ When properly implemented, the program helpsstudents acquire the skills and/or knowledge theyneed to successfully perform to high academic stan-dards.

■ The program has been effective in raising academicachievement levels, especially for at-risk students,based on independent evaluations.

■ The program has been effectively implemented inmultiple sites beyond the original pilot school(s).

■ Professional development, materials, and ongoingimplementation support are available for the pro-gram, either through the program’s developer, inde-pendent contractors, or dissemination networksestablished by schools already in the program.

The standards by which program effectiveness wasgauged are as follows:

■ Evaluations demonstrate that the program can helpproduce educationally significant student achieve-ment gains, as measured in effect sizes. An effectsize (ES) is a standard means of expressing achieve-ment gains and losses across studies, showing differ-

ences between experimental and control groups interms of standard deviation. An effect size of +1.00indicates that the experimental group outperformedthe control group by one full standard deviation. Togive a sense of scale, this would be equivalent to anincrease of 100 points on the SAT scale, two sta-nines, 21 NCEs (normal curve equivalent ranks) or15 points of IQ—enough to move a student fromthe 20th percentile (the normal level of perfor-mance for children in poverty) to above the 50thpercentile (in range with mainstream America).Because of differences among study designs andassessments, this can only be considered a “rough”measure of comparison. In general, an effect size of+.25 or more is considered to be educationally sig-nificant.

■ Ideally, evaluations include findings from matchedcomparison or large randomly assigned controlgroup studies—or, failing this, compare the stan-dardized test gains of program students to appropri-ate state- or nationally normed samples.

■ Evaluations include data from third-partyresearchers using independently developed assess-ments, as well as data from program developersusing program-designed tests.

■ Evaluations include and/or compare data from mul-tiple replication sites.

For programs in each category, profiles were pre-pared only for those that came closest to meeting theabove criteria. It should be noted, however, that theremay be additional programs that qualify for inclusionbut for which we were unable to locate adequate data.We hope to be able to include additional profiles forany such programs in future editions. It should benoted, as well, that in an effort to present a broaderselection of programs, a few were included that cameclose to, but did not quite meet the above criteria. Inthese cases, the preliminary nature of the data hasbeen noted in the profile text.

Note on Program Selection Methods

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,555 NEW JERSEY AVENUE NW / WASHINGTON, DC 20001-2079

JULY 1999

Improving Low Performing High...

Documents

Transcript of Improving Low Performing High...