Editors' Introduction
Sam Stringfield and John Hollifield

Does Chapter 1/Title I "work" to produce improved student achievement? This is perhaps the most important K-12 policy question facing the U.S. Government each year.

The evidence grows stronger every year that students who have been placed at risk of academic failure are capable of succeeding in school. JESPAR is among the journals that regularly publishes articles about Title I schools and programs in which highly disadvantaged students regularly achieve high test scores, show high attendance rates, and/or show positive attitudes toward school and learning.

At the same time, large-scale studies of the effects of Title I have not generated the kinds of positive findings that have evolved from studies of individual schools and programs. The final results of the Prospects study, the most recent national study (Puma et al., 1997), were not encouraging, reiterating the basic finding of previous national studies — that Title I has helped keep educationally disadvantaged students from falling further behind, but the variation in quality of projects and the emphasis on paying for teaching aides and pull-out programs has not helped educationally disadvantaged students close the achievement gap between themselves and more advantaged students.

This issue of JESPAR presents several valuable pieces that move us toward a better understanding of the effectiveness of Title I as reflected in both national studies and in examples of success in individual schools and districts. The articles especially reflect that we have entered a new Title I era -- an era that, among other improvements, is leaving behind fragmented pull-out programs and moving forward into the use of effective schoolwide programs, and an era in which national evaluations will begin to show the same kinds of results that are now seen in individual schools and districts.

Mary Jean Le Tendre and Melissa Chabrán provide several practical examples of uses of Title I and other federal resources to help solve students’ problems in the area of mathematics.

One of Le Tendre and Chabrán’s examples concerns the Memphis City Schools’ Restructuring Initiative. As this issue goes to press (May 1998), outcome data are being released from the 2nd year of the Memphis restructuring effort. Those data show that the initial 34 schools, each of which is implementing one of eight specific school restructuring design, are producing substantial academic achievement gains for Memphis’ largely disadvantaged students (Ross et al., 1998). The Memphis initiative reflects years of development work by the New American Schools (Kearns & Anderson, 1996) and other design teams, careful implementation led by Memphis’ Superintendent, Dr. Gerry House, and rigorous, scholarly evaluation research. This coordinated effort provides one example of how evolving science, professional judgment, and the use of effective programs are blending to improve the academic achievements of America’s students placed at risk.

Virginia Plunkett rightly points out the dangers of extreme positions in a variety of educational areas, and advocates for multi-level alignment of goals and actions. If we are to progress, she points out, we can’t focus just on self-esteem or just on achievement, we can’t require perfect spelling in a first draft, or ignore proper spelling forever. We must present a clear, accurate, common-sensical, jargon-free picture of our schools, Ms. Plunkett concludes, in order to "gain and keep the public’s confidence as well as assuring that our children are getting the best we have to offer."

McDill and Natriello continue their valuable series of reviews of research on diverse aspects of education for students placed at risk (see, for example, Natriello, McDill, & Pallas, 1990), providing a 32-year history of studies of Title I/Chapter 1 effectiveness. This is a cautiously encouraging review that should be required reading for persons interested in the history and the future of compensatory education.

To date, the available options for improving students’ performance in high schools have been frustratingly few. McPartland, Balfanz, Jordan, and Legters present a detailed description of a program and its effects in the field of high school improvement. The authors are working with Patterson High School in Baltimore to produce a high school restructuring model that can be taken to scale in schools serving large numbers of students placed at risk. Because of low performance and low attendance, Patterson was one of the first two schools in Maryland to have been declared "reconstitution eligible." Into this context, the authors brought the Talent Development High School model. Their results, including better attendance, fewer drop-outs, more students successfully matriculating on schedule toward graduation, and both student and faculty perceptions that the quality of Patterson High School’s life has improved, constitute a strong step forward to the evolving scientific base for high school restructuring.

As we noted, the final results of the Prospects study (Puma et al., 1997) were not encouraging. However, in more refined analyses of the same data set presented in two articles in this issue, Borman, D’Agostino, Wong, and Hedges conclude that Chapter 1 often did have positive results. In particular, they note the advantages of active Chapter 1 coordination, a finding that should bode well for the new Title I, which focuses much more on whole-school interventions. The three book reviews complement the articles in this issue. Thompson’s review of Nettles and Perna’s (1997) The African American Education Data Book, Volumes 1-3 highlights the invaluable extensiveness of that remarkable effort. The "jargon-free" style and the overall breadth of data presented are certain to "aid greatly in understanding the educational factors contributing to success of African Americans. Although all of the information presented is not positive, clearly. . . to know is to be able to act."

White-Hood’s review of Miron’s (1997) Resisting Discrimination: Affirmative Strategies for Principals and Teachers can provide valuable, practical guidance to persons committed to improving the education of students placed at risk.

This issue completes Volume 3 of JESPAR. The editorial team would like to thank all of the persons who have submitted manuscripts for review, and all of our generous reviewers. (The list of reviewers for volume 3 is presented at the back of this issue.) No journal succeeds without substantial help from a diverse group of reviewers, and JESPAR is particularly blessed. We have also been blessed with three consecutive, superb assistant editors. As was the case when working with Cary Berkeley and Sam Kim before, JESPAR’s editors take great pride and professional satisfaction in working with our current assistant editor, Florence Snively.

Beginning with our next issue, Volume 4, Number 1, JESPAR will be published in an expanded format. The quantity and quality of submissions has been so strong that, in spite of rigorous peer-reviewing, we must add pages. Thanks to all of the scholars who have contributed manuscripts for review. And thanks to you, the readers of the Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk.

References

Kearns, D., & Anderson, J. (1996). Sharing the vision: Creating New American Schools. In S. Stringfield, S. Ross, & L. Smith (eds.), Bold plans for school restructuring. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Natriello, G., McDill, E., & Pallas, A. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged children: Racing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers College.

Puma, M., Karweit, N., Price, C., Ricciuti, A., Thompson, W., & Vaden-Kiernan, M. (1997). Prospects: Final report on student outcomes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Services.

Ross, S., Sanders, W., Wright, S., & Stringfield, S. (1998). The Memphis Restructuring Initiative: Achievement results for years 1 and 2 on the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS). Memphis: University of Memphis.