A Study of ESEA, Title I Impact Components on Urban Elementary Schools and Their Pupils.

Autor/in	Brown, Edward K.
Institution	Philadelphia School District, PA. Office of Research and Evaluation.
Titel	A Study of ESEA, Title I Impact Components on Urban Elementary Schools and Their Pupils.
Quelle	(1972), (89 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Accountability; Arithmetic; Basic Skills; Behavioral Objectives; Demography; Disadvantaged Youth; Educational Administration; Elementary Education; Elementary School Students; Evaluation Methods; Factor Analysis; Federal Programs; Mathematics Curriculum; Models; Program Evaluation; Reading Ability; Resource Allocation; Student Motivation; Urban Education; Urban Schools + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Verantwortung; Addition; Arithmetik; Arithmetikunterricht; Rechnen; Basic skill; Grundfertigkeit; Demografie; Benachteiligter Jugendlicher; Bildungsverwaltung; Schuladministration; Schulverwaltung; Elementarunterricht; Faktorenanalyse; Analogiemodell; Programme evaluation; Programmevaluation; Reading competence; Lesekompetenz; Ressourcenallokation; Schulische Motivation; Stadtteilbezogenes Lernen; Urban area; Urban areas; School; Schools; Stadtregion; Stadt; Schule
Abstract	A systematic study of the composition and dispersement of Title I projects assigned to elementary schools in Philadelphia was conducted. Categorical variables were identified from four major derived variables (program density code, school aggregate fund, pupil service component, achievement-growth differential score) and four major demographic variables (school staff, average daily attendance, per pupil and per teacher expenditures). Content analysis of the four program densities revealed (a) that four distinct implementation patterns (models) existed and (b) that the thrust of each model was programmatically different. The four implementation models were identified as (1) Educational/Cultural Enrichment Experiences; (2) General Instructional and Supervisory Support System; (3) Intensive Instructional and Supervisory Support System; and (4) Remediation Programs. Assessment of Pupil outputs provided by each model indicated that although significant differences were present between the grades, the anticipated levels of output were not achieved. However, six rational procedural alternatives for increasing the capability of the schools to increase their achievement levels within each model are provided. Findings suggest that traditional evaluation techniques are not suitable for assessing the programmatic effect of, or for developing operational management information about federal programs. (Author/AG)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC