| Geoffrey Borman
Johns Hopkins University
Title I and student achievement: An assessment of the most recent evidence
FINAL REPORT: Study 1: The primary purpose of the proposed project is to utilize the most contemporary data sources to investigate two questions: (1) Do students who participate in programs funded by Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 make significant progress toward reaching the achievement levels of their more advantaged peers; and (2) Do Title I students outperform similar students who do not receive compensatory services. In addition, the proposed series of analyses will document: (1) who receives Title I services; (2) how typical Title I programs are configured; and (3) in what ways, and to what extent, Title I programs supplement the learning opportunities offered through regular classrooms. This information will provide stakeholders from all levels of the education system valuable information concerning the nature and effectiveness of the federal government's largest single investment in elementary education. The project will make use of data from the nationally representative, congressionally mandated Prospects study. To supplement the analyses of Prospects, I plan to use the soon-to-be-released math achievement data from the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and the 1994 NAEP reading data. Study 2: Qualifications and Professional Development of Teachers in High- and Low-Poverty Elementary Schools: An Analysis of the National Prospects Data. Using the national Prospects study data for fourth-grade teachers, this study explored the distribution of teacher qualifications (years experience, highest degree earned, and comprehensiveness of certifications) and professional development opportunities (supportive inservices, staff collegiality, schoolwide support for innovation, and teacher policy influence) across schools of varying poverty levels. No differences in teacher qualifications were found across low-, middle-, and high-poverty schools, but there were significant differences in professional development opportunities. Teachers from the highest poverty schools had fewer development opportunities than did teachers from lower poverty schools. Additional analyses, which linked differences in qualifications and professional development to teachers' instructional efficacy and implementation of reformed instruction, revealed greater efficacy and instructional reform for teachers with improved professional development opportunities.
Back to Funded Research Grants Page |