The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 marked the beginning of the flow of billions of dollars that would be spent on programs to improve achievement in basic skills.
Within the past few years, however, a frustrated public has questioned the impact of that massive financial commitment. While there have been loudly trumpeted gains in reading scores in Philadelphia and in other major cities, we are still faced with nearly 20 percent of our adult population who function at a fourth-grade reading level.
Evaluations of funding efforts have been able to identify those elements associated with successful programs, yet 17 years after ESEA there has been negligible evidence of the use of those research findings in urban school systems. The challenge is no longer to discover what components work, but rather to replicate those approaches that we know to be related to school success. Briefly, here is what the studies have shown that can make a difference in helping students achieve.
- Large-scale research in Washington, Milwaukee, and England (as well as in numerous other places) indicates that students do well when their teachers, parents, and principals have high (but realistic) expectations for their performance. The recent adoption of a policy in the New York City schools, holding students to standards for promotion, is a good example of a way to raise expectation and increase reading performance.
The tendency until recently has been to blame students for low achievement, but perhaps it’s the professionals who have been most at fault in not narrowing the gap between researchers and practitioners. University professors often view research as an end in itself, without taking the necessary steps to influence what happens in the classroom, and the dichotomy between theory and practice is nowhere more pronounced than on the “separate floors” of large-city school systems. Evaluators decry the failure of those in instruction to use data in decision-making; curriculum specialists say that statistics, in themselves, are insufficient evidence of what constitutes success. While one office views its purpose as teaching, the other is concerned with learning--as if these two functions were at odds. Meanwhile, findings go unheeded to the detriment of the consumers (i.e. the students).
With the prospect of still-decreasing funding for schools and less support for public education, affixing blame is self-indulgence we can ill afford. Instead, these no-cost, easily observable factors associated with success must be institutionalized within school systems. The most important issue is not which office should administer programs, but rather that top-level leadership insist on utilizing what has worked toward increased achievement for all students. Certainly, our nation’s children deserve no less.
