Chapter Two: Literature Review
Ross and Charles’ recently conducted research reveals massive differences between non-Title 1peers and Title 1 students concerning their reading levels and proficiency levels (Charles, 2016). The study, therefore, explores the extent to which the school types (non-Title1 and Title 1) affect the performances of students from various districts in the United States and what features Title 1 programs provide that impact its success (George, 2016). This is achieved by analyzing the students’ math scores and CRCT 3rd-grade reading. Similarly, the study examines social, economic status, race, and gender and how such factors correlate to 3rd-grade reading scores and standardized math performance in non-Title 1 and Title 1 educational institutions. The literature review analyzes the research conducted by Ross and Charles on the performance of 2929 3rd grade learners in various Georgian suburban academic institutions (2013-2014) (Charles, 2016). Other works of researchers are also incorporated in the literature review with regard to educational institutions in Illinois, such as (Eastland Middle school and Farmington Central elementary schools) among others.
Again, the Title 1 program guarantees that all the United States children enjoy high-quality education. Title 1 is ranked among the central federally funded academic systems. Its basic principle is giving supplementary aids to schools with an increased number of students facing poverty, which further enables them to reach their goals. A Title 1 school, therefore, receives monetary aid for Title 1 learners. The population of Low-income learners’ is identified by the number of individuals enrolled in reduced and free lunch programs. The funds, therefore, aid educational institutions in achieving the academic progress of low-income learners by increasing program, parental, instructional activities, curriculum, and staff improvements.
Research (2015) provides that places with increased levels of Title 1 provisions were densely populated ($1466) compared to remote areas, which accounted for $1313. The findings extensively revealed an association between the kind of education institutions children are enrolled in and their school performance (George, 2016). The results of the study not only help in making a distinction between effective literacy for Title 1 and non-Title 1 learners but also enhances the information on school stakeholders, which is achieved through examination of students’ academic performances and evaluating trends useful in implementing future comprehensive decisions regarding improvement strategies for schools. Theoretical framework with regard to learning’ sociocultural theories is also discussed (Lev Vygotsky), which further connects and directs this case study regarding the topic under discussion. The literature review examined in depth the prominent instructional mechanisms implemented in schools with Title 1 systems and their contributions in promoting proficient academic performances.
Characteristics of Title 1 Programs
Pechman and Fiester, in their arguments, provide five vital characteristics for the Title 1 program’s success. This includes community and parent involvement, the continuation of professional developments concerning educational institutions, resources, and time essential for program and planning design, and most importantly, shared visions (Lezotte, 2001). In this case, Pechman and Fiester provide that having a shared vision should be ranked as a crucial notion in a school-wide study. The two clarify that the shared vision does not necessarily mean focusing on leaners in need of remediation for progress to be achieved but rather focus on the strong relationship among all teaching staff such that they can reeducate learners and sensitize in them the need for a higher common standard (Lezotte, 2001). This could be achieved through the implementation of instructional policies and new prospectuses. This also includes decision-making by academic administrators concerning the accurate resources needed and the perfect time to prepare Title 1 systems. The argument of Pechman and Fiester is further supported by Lezotte, who states that the principle of a shared vision is compelling and acts as a pathway through which the schools’ mission could be communicated to students, parents, and staff members (Lezotte, 2001).
Furthermore, the principle incorporated instructional effectiveness characteristics in Title1 system management essential in aiding the school in achieving progress. According to Loeb, Beteille, and Kalogrides, the arrangement of school-wide planning groups in successful Title 1 School involved co-leaders from societal and parent representatives, remedial education, regular education, and administration (Loeb et al., 2012). This reveals an existing relationship between the learner’s academic performances and their schools, development, staffing, retention, and school-wide planning group members’ effectiveness. This, therefore, raises the need to implement strategies for effective teacher collaborations, target apprentices interventions, and use of authoritative and sufficient data for progress to be achieved. Various sections requiring improvements in elementary educational institutions include incorporating instructional and curricula procedures, available instructional technologies, and reading curricula, among other sectors. The professor’s activities in elementary schools were vital in this case for the incorporation of efficient educational instructions, particularly during literacy time.
Like Lezotte, Isernhagen, in his study, reveals a connection between engaging the community and parents as critical factors for learner’s success and particularly those involved in Title 1 educational settings (Isernhagen, 2012). However, “engaging parents is difficult due to many demands placed upon families with children in Title 1 programs” (Bloniasz, 2019, p. 6). Ettema and Guthrie’s arguments agree with Isernhagen’s views on parents’ importance and community engagement in the Title 1 programs (Isernhagen, 2012). In this case, they mainly advocate for “accurately informing the general public and the policy community regarding the conditions of the schools” (Bloniasz, 2019, p. 22). This involves providing them with an outline of the school’s achievements and financing and how they influence each other. An analysis of the performance of Title 1 schools shows progress from 1990-2013 (Booth et al., 2018). For instance, within the 23 years (academic period), researchers revealed an increase in math performances by 22% accounts for improvement from 12-34 percent. The efficiency reading scores improved from 22-27%, which also marks an improvement of 5% points. The standardized tests data from South Dakota’s among other elementary schools are, in this case, incorporated in the literature review, after which an analysis can be conducted regarding the academic performance progress with regard to math and reading scores.
Similarly, the implementation of antecedent-based guidelines and provision of the correct working time, tools, and processes for teachers working in instructional levels, explains the success levels for Title 1 students compared to those in non-Title 1 educational institutions. This is because when teachers are given correct resources and instructions for enhancing learning, the instructors begin changing their techniques to meet all students’ needs irrespective of their proficiency levels. In their study (2013), Desimone, Smith, and Philips depict significant staff development as a vital strategy to enhance school-wide accord for programs involving Title 1; this entails visiting teachers’ classrooms, including the inclusive examination of curriculum matters, off and on grade level sessions. Exposing learners to creative thinking practices and problem-solving help enhance their reading masteries regardless of the subject under discussions.
From research, IAR, “Illinois Assessment of Readiness,” methods are considered the new math state and English arts assessments, particularly for Title 1 schools with students from grades 3 to 8. It involves the implementation of similar high-quality test examinations and Illinois educational standards with those learners and students who have been exposed to in the past years. Various interventions, in this case, involve the IAR valuations for all individual students, which would further guarantee increased student achievements’ understanding and consecutive success in examining student’s growth yearly. Forecasts reveal that towards 2021, IAR will have been incorporated in adaptive tests just like the “NWEA MAP” its significance is based on getting things done within a shorter period, roughly weeks or days rather than months. This ensures that evaluations can be done quicker, which further enhances decision making for much higher grades to be achieved. Research provides that (IHE) “Illinois institutes of higher education” is an ISBE initiative.
Conceptual frameworks
Highly performing Title 1 school attribute their success to effective processes of managing elementary schools, which entail close examination and evaluation of students’ academic performance. This is achieved through assessment strategies, including mastery skills examination, students ‘work portfolios, norm-referenced examinations, standardized tests, and teacher-designed examinations.
In this case, DDDM, “data-driven decision-making” theories in academic institutions, refer to administrators and teachers examining and gathering data systematically, which is useful in decision-making strategies to achieve progress and improve school and students’ productivity. DDDM processes were conducted at all levels from state and federal to that of individual learners and classroom levels. Research provides that after implementing NCLB, DDDM theories were implemented in measuring accountability (Lezotte, 2001). Similarly, the theories were incorporated as systems of management and teaching techniques; DDDM acted as a channel through which professors achieved detailed data concerning students’ academic performance, which further allowed them to concentrate on identifying and examining student’s needs. DDDM processes were also significant in analyzing crucial instructional mechanisms. Gandal and McGiffer provide that the correct implementation of the DDDM would provide efficient information to teachers since it provides detailed information concerning learners’ academic performances. However, there are various critics on testing student’s scores as an effective method in making analysis. Lee, Heritage, and Chen, for instance, argue that even though the annual examinations allowed instructors to analyze the student’s performances, there are instances of limited data on what the learners did well on and the reasons for their academic progress (Lee, 2012).
The expectations of Title 1
Research provides that the implementation of the program (Title 1) traces back to 1965 following the ESEA. Again, the main aim was based on minimizing the achievement gaps among minority students and their peers. From Title 1 principles, it is evident that educational institutions with increased numbers of students from poor families are provided with supplementary aids useful in reaching their goals. According to MacMahon, a school can only quality as Title 1 if more than 35 % of its students are enrolled in reduced and free lunch programs (MacMahon, 2011). According to the California Department of Education (2011), higher-performing Title 1 school mainly emphasize on a constructive relationship between the Title 1 integration remediation tactics, routine, and normal instructional actions as key in guaranteeing learners progress in particular content areas.
However, Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle argue that Title 1 alone is inadequate in eliminating the achievement differences among non-proficient and proficient readers, which further raises the importance of identifying components linked to an operative Title 1 reading systems in schools (Lodico et al., 2006). The three researchers further argued that for progressive Title 1 program examination, assessors should always be open to ongoing responses. This argument is similar to that of McNamara, who argues that determining practicality, relevance, and utility of examination studies is dependent on processes such as identification and selection of outcomes, specifying the observable measures implying progress, identification of the clients’ target goals, and reporting findings (McNamara, 2002). This, therefore, raises the need for Illinois schools, among others, to implement evaluation programs with which to examine and understand the program’s performance and methods of accomplishing results (McNamara, 2002). This would further result in the identification of vital instructional components and ways of incorporating effective reading systems in Title 1 educational systems.
Instructional Models
Results from various successful schools in Illinois among other California states provided that Title 1 programs gave learners the opportunities to receive extensive instructions, therefore allowing them to pay attention and give time to particular development areas.
In-class services are ranked among the most vital in instructional models and assessment of Title 1 learners through different measures. In this case, the developed schools in Illinois attributed their success to their students working in smaller teams in classrooms and incorporation of various supplemental materials in the normal curriculum. Title 1 instructors are also more likely to interact with the target learner’s one on one. Neal provides that inclusive models in classrooms also acted as pathways through which students had opportunities for examining, responding, and expressing their opinions on various content, which further engaged them in learning processes that further guaranteed their success.
Title 1 schools have implemented “pull out” programs in which instructors pull out learners from regular classes during certain sessions involving language and reading. Title 1 instructors also interact with target learners in smaller learning settings. Slavin, Lake, Davis, and Madden argue that for students with challenges in reading, one on one and small group instructional programs increases efficiency (Slavin et al.,2011). Wanzek and Vaughn further provide that for students having slighter reading deficiencies, incorporation of small groups is also significant (Wanzek, 2007).
Extended day programs. In this case, the importance of parental involvement in children’s’ academic performance is again explored. The extended day programs, in this case, require student’s caregivers to allow their children to participate in extended day programs, which is done after normal school sessions, particularly in the “instructional school year.” Such sessions take an hour and occur twice on a weekly basis (Wanzek, 2007). This model is supported by Nelson-Royes, who argues that extended day programs are effective in increasing students’ academic achievement (Nelson-Royes, 2013). Similarly, they acted as indications that learners gained more knowledge on receiving increased instructions and provided with more individual assistance. It also acts as a channel through which students ask questions regarding learning activities, therefore, more clarifications.
Extended year-summer programs. In this case, Title 1 learners are also offered individualized reading aid from Title 1 tutors with sessions of 45 minutes twice on a weekly basis. The programs also act as a pathway through which the teachers can reinforce concepts and skills in students. Learners participating in summer reading services show increased fluency in oral reading, pseudo, and regular symbol-sound interactions.
Resources and materials. Brozo, Moorman, Meyer, and Stewart, in their research, reveal that Title 1 instructors incorporated several academic resources, which aided learners in bridging the gaps regarding their reading growth (Brozo et al., 2013). The materials incorporated by Title 1 instructors were aimed at supplementing the normal academic reading curriculum. The materials implemented in this case can also be used in supporting various instructional approaches that emphasize writing, vocabulary building, comprehensive, phonics, and phonemic awareness.
Title 1 students’ achievements
From the research, West and Peterson (2007) argue that the operational Title 1 school-wide program initialed clear strategies and goals for learner’s academic progress, which further explains the literacy effectiveness of students in Title 1 schools compared to those non-Title 1 educational institutions. Isernhagen argues that to achieve students’ achievements, decision making was dependent on interventions regarding research-based classroom and incorporation of school-wide services based on accurate and real-time students information (Isernhagen, 2012). More importantly, strategies for academic achievement and development were incorporated in normal curricula school programs. This included the use of child created and collaborative discussions in improving read-aloud.
Improved reading services and programs in Title 1 schools incorporate the levels of the students’ social development, and in this case, various variables are considered. Such variables include follow up strategies which improve in-class reading programs, questions arising from learners after and in reading aloud sessions, classroom involvement in lessons, and literature focusing on students’ positive development. Generally, Title 1 schools implemented strategies to make all individuals perceive themselves as responsible for achieving the educational goals, therefore making them more willing to participate in school based programs. Therefore standard-based evaluations, instructional strategies facilitations, and educational resources act as the driving factors for Title 1 school progress.
According to Moore and Whitfield, the program (Title 1) also acts as a channel through which tutors can address the needs of all learners through the incorporation of more frequent, prolonged, and intensive intervention. From the study, various Title 1 school in Illinois, such as “Eastland Middle school and Farmington Central elementary school,” implemented 5 vital elements of examining learners academic achievements, this included, time-bound, result based, attainable, measurable, and specific (SMART) (Moore and Whitfield 2009). From the schools under discussion, the five elements enabled teachers to examine various instructional improvements in meeting the needs of individual learners. This is also in agreement with “the center for American Progress,” which stated that the implementation of a time-bounding academic period had increased the likelihood of boosting learners’ academic achievements, which would further minimize and eliminate the achievement gaps. In this case, “the center for American progress” also puts out some recommendations with which to incorporate 300 additional hours into standard academic year schedules and improving the learning period. The additional hours prove effective in achieving teacher collaborations, enrichment programming, and academic focus. Methodologies are depicted as important in allowing learners to achieve enhanced critical reading levels compared to those of their peers in non-Title 1 schools.
Title 1 schools also extensively engage in extracurricular activities and programs, which further helps low performing learners to achieve their proficiency expectations. Such activities involve academic support, everyday intervention blocks, daily tutoring, and foreign language and enrichment opportunities. Jackson and Lunenburg argue that assessment, instruction, and curriculum alignment offered a coherent learning vision, which guarantees achievement in social, ethical, and intellectual development. Fisher, Frey, and Nelson further provided that Title 1 educational institutions offered teachers with professional development and adequate time with which to examine the learner’s planning and working sessions (Fisher, 2012).
Origin of Education accountability
Examination of learner’s academic performances traces back to the 1960s, where NAEP is ranked as the initial program implemented in monitoring and regulating the learner’s progress in America, particularly for learners in Grades 12, 8, 4, and 3. “Kessinger, 2011” bases his arguments on the fact that Sputnik initiation more than 60 years ago in the Soviet Union greatly impacted the American educational systems whose effects are felt to date. The Sputnik initiation, in this case, stimulated various movements aimed at improving science and math in American educational institutions. Congress passed NDEA, “national Defense Education Acts” (1958), which resulted in the launching; this was mostly because civilians and policymakers alike felt that the US educational systems were lagging compared to those of the Soviet Union. As a result, the NDEA offered funding to educational organizations at every level to provide the nation with defense-oriented individuals who could then provide federal aids to engineering students, study centers, and foreign language professors. The other aim was based on providing financial assistance via the state’s sponsored loan curriculums. Kessinger further provides that the programs mainly emphasized foreign language, sciences, and math-related subjects, which is also evident in the contemporary acts where math and reading scores are analyzed in determining the effectiveness of Title 1 school programs on children’s academic performances (Bloniasz, 2019). From the research, the US government has implemented various reforms aimed at improving and providing its citizens with quality education following the Sputnik launching (Black, 1999). Research provides that the reforms’ main reasons were based on President Johnson’s aim to end poverty. This is because he was a tutor and had identified poverty as the main reason for children’s underperformances. Therefore, he trusted that giving students equal educational opportunities would act as a channel through which the students would increase their life’s productiveness and hence eliminate poverty in the process. Later on, ESEA, the “Elementary and Secondary Education Act,” was passed by congress in 1965, which is still effective currently (Bloniasz, 2019). “The war on poverty” was aimed at improving education, jobs, health, and skills and increasing access to financial resources, particularly for individuals struggling to meet their needs (McAndrew, 2009). The act’s effectiveness explains the decrease in poverty rates 45 years after its implementation from 25.8-16 percent (1967-2012).
Outlines of Title 1 funding
The United States education department provides an outline of how Title 1 funding should be achieved. Again, the primary purpose of the funding is to improve the academic performances of minority groups and guarantee that significant, equal, and fair educational opportunities are provided to push them to their full limits and hence increase their productiveness and progress. The guidelines include first guaranteeing that the instructional materials, curriculum, teacher training and preparations, accountability systems, and academic examinations conform with the challenging states’ educational standards such that administrators, parents, teachers, and students can examine improvement against the common prospects regarding students’ academic performances (Bloniasz, 2019). Secondly, it involves attaining the educational requirements of poorly achieving students in the nations’ schools with increased poverty levels, delinquent and neglected students, Indian children, the disabled, migratory children, and children with inadequate English proficiency. Thirdly, the Title 1 funding aim at closing the achievement gaps existing between advantaged peers and disadvantaged children and nonminority and minority learners by guaranteeing that all students are given equal opportunity to expand their skills. The fourth guideline entails holding States, local academic agencies, and schools responsible for enhancing every learner’s academic performance. The fifth includes targeting distributing funds sufficiently to alter challenging situations in local schools and educational agencies in need (Bloniasz, 2019). Finally, the provision of meaningful and substantial opportunities to parents acts as a pathway through which parents can engage in their children’s education, which further guarantees progress. Schools with more than 35 percent of their scholars getting reduced or free lunch qualify for Title 1 aids.
Summary
The information in this research is useful in understanding the role of instructional components in achieving academic progress and how such components further influence philosophies and leadership forms attributed to the success of Title 1 schools. Similarly, the data from the research can prove vital in implementing strategies to improve overall academic performance. For instance, Isernhegen, Etteman, and Guthrie, in their studies, reveal a connection between engaging the community and parents as critical factors for learner’s success and particularly those involved in Title 1 educational settings (Isernhagen, 201
2). In this case, such information is vital in developing strategies with which to involve community members and parents in school strategies. Title 1 interventions also offer supplemental services to educational institutions, which further guarantees help for students with poor academic performance. This is based on the fact that, when all personnel within a school setting are engaged in school activities, they perceive themselves as responsible for attaining the set academic goals and therefore achieving progress in the process.
From the research, extensive knowledge is provided regarding the roles of Title 1 schools in ensuring achievement gaps are closed and that all students are given equal opportunities, which act as a driving force to achieving progress. The literature review also provides an in-depth understanding of instructional models and their association with academic progress; for instance, in-class services are ranked among the most vital in instructional models and assessment of Title 1 learners through different measures. The impact of “pull out” programs implemented in the Title 1 program is also discussed. It involves instructors pulling out learners from regular classes during certain sessions involving language and reading, which is effective in evaluating individual student’s performances.
Most importantly, the research is useful in providing detailed information on the characteristics of Title 1 programs that contribute to their success. This is based on Pechman and Fiester’s arguments concerning the five vital characteristics of the Title 1 program’s success. This includes community and parent involvement, the continuation of professional developments concerning educational institutions, resources, and time essential for program and planning design, and most importantly, shared visions (Lezotte, 2001).
References
Act, No Child Left Behind. “Title I: Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged.” Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, George Washington University (2001).https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ERIC-ED465857/pdf/ERIC-ED465857.pdf
Bloniasz. (2019). Case Study: Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and National Service – A Review of Educational Support Needs and Curricula Development. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332341127
Bland-Washington, R. (2009). Are title I schools helping students make the grade? A comparison of grade 4 standardized test scores in the title I and non-title I schools in west Georgia.https://ir.ua.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/1972/file_1.pdf?sequence=1
Brozo, W. G., Moorman, G., Meyer, C., & Stewart, T. (2013). Content area reading and disciplinary literacy: A case for the radical center. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(5), 353-357.https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jaal.153
Department of Education, Washington, DC. Planning and Evaluation Service. Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I. ERIC Clearinghouse, 1999.https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/promisingresults/edlite-exsum2.html
Council of Economic Advisers. (2014). The War on Poverty 50 years later: A progress report. Washington, D.C. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/50th_anniversary_cea_report__final_post_embargo.pdf
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Close reading in elementary schools. Reading Teacher, 66(3), 179-188. https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/TRTR.01117
Galloway, E. P., & Lesaux, N. K. (2014). Leader, Teacher, Diagnostician, Colleague, and Change Agent. Reading Teacher, 67(7), 517-526. https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/trtr.1251
Jackson, S. A., & Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). School performance indicators, accountability ratings, and student achievement. American Secondary Education, 39(1), 27-44.https://www.jstor.org/stable/41406181
Isernhagen, J. C. (2012). A Portrait of Administrator, Teacher, and Parent Perceptions of Title I School Improvement Plans. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 17(1), 1-7.https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ978507
Lezotte, L. (2001). Leading indicators of effective schools: Part I. Instructional Leader, 14(5), 1-5.http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v4(2)/Version-1/D0421022033.pdf
Lee, J. & Reeves, T. (2012). Revisiting the impact of NCLB high-stakes school accountability, capacity, and resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 209-231.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0162373711431604
Lodico, M., Spaulding, D., & Voegtle, K. (2006). Methods in educational research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. http://repository.umpwr.ac.id:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/3715/Methods in Educational Research.pdf?sequence=1
Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Béteille, T. (2012). Effective schools: Teacher hiring, assignment, development, and retention. Education Finance and Policy, 7(3), 269-304.https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/EDFP_a_00068
McNamara, Carter. (2002). Basic guide to program evaluation. http://www.tgci.com/
MacMahon, B. (2011). The perpetuation of risk: Organizational and institutional policies and practices in a title 1 school. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS), 9(2), 199-215. http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/09-2-12.pdf
Moore, J., & Whitfield, V. (2009). Building school-wide capacity for preventing reading failure. Reading Teacher, 62(7), 622-624. https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1598/RT.62.7.10
Nelson-Royes, A. (2013). Tutors can improve students’ reading skills. Reading Improvement, 50(2), 48-53. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/prin/rimp/2018/00000055/00000001/art00004
Pechman, E., & Fiester, L. (1996). Creating good schools for children in poverty through title, I school-wide. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1(2), 171- 193. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327671espr0102_6
Spalaris, G. (2016). The Key Components of a Highly Effective Title I Reading Program.https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/2299/
Slavin, R., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2011). Effective reading: Programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1391-1466. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654309341374
Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087917
West, M. & Peterson, P. (2007). What Americans think about their schools. Education Next, 7(4), 12-26.https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA169636890&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=15399664&p=AONE&sw=w