"I

 

 

Ilflllllllllylfl/lllll/Il/II 1111/1/11

10166 4716

(0453's

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Impact of Compensatory Education Programs
on Equality of Educational Opportunity
in Desegregated Elementary Schools

presented by

Nelvia Moore Brady

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

D_0C_t_0_ta_te_ degree in Mom

Major professor

Date June 1980

 

C9 COpyright by
NELVIA MOORE BRADY

1980

THE IMPACT OF COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
ON EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

IN DESEGREGATED ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

BY

Nelvia Moore Brady

 

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services
and Educational Psychology

1980

 

7
Yr

h rrr r hr ,~
, .

ABSTRACT
THE IMPACT OF COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS

ON EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
IN DESEGREGATED ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

BY

Nelvia Moore Brady

The purpose of this research was to examine and
analyze the manner in which selected federal and state edu-
cational policies impacted upon equality of educational
opportunity at the local school district level with a spe-
cific emphasis upon the impact of compensatory education
programs in desegregated elementary schools. This research
examined the nature of the local guidelines and implementa-
tion practices resulting from Title 1 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (1965) and Article 3 of Michigan
Public Act 94 (1979) as these related to aspects of equality
of educational opportunity. More specifically, this study
examined the net effect of Title 1 and Article 3 in terms
of racial separation and differential treatment at the
local school level.

A review of the literature suggested that the com-
pensatory education programs implemented in the United

States might have a latent function of resegregation and

 

Nelvia Moore Brady

differentiation of students along racial and/or ethnic lines
which could serve to defeat the goals of equality of educa-
tional opportunity.

The study was conducted in a medium sized urban
school district located in a midwestern state. Three ele-
mentary schools were randomly selected from the district's
elementary schools and staff members from these schools
volunteered to be interviewed. Instruments were developed
to guide the interview sessions. In addition to the staff
of the sample schools, selected district personnel were
also interviewed. A variety of written district documents
were also reviewed.

Observations of the educational experiences of ten

students were made uSing the Student Educational Experience

 

Observation Form which was developed for this study. Stu-

 

dents' experiences were recorded by the observer in fifteen
minute intervals.

The findings indicated that the Title 1 and Article
3 selection procedures used in the district had, as a
latent function, resegregated students along racial and/or
ethnic lines at the district, school, grade and classroom
level. Further this resegregation was intensified by the
implementation of educational programs which pulled students
out of desegregated classrooms for compensatory instruction
in more segregated groups. Staff members were about as

likely to confirm this overrepresentation as they were to

 

 

fi—‘h
Nelvia Moore Brady

deny it and those confirming it attributed its existence
primarily to factors in the family backgrounds of the minor-
ity children involved in the compensatory education programs
under study.

Differentiation was found to exist in the learning

objectives set for compensatory education students, the

 

expectations held by staff for mastery of these learning
objectives and in the grade level of the instructional
materials used with these students. The data indicated
that the existence of compensatory education programs
exacerbated differentiation in the learning objectives that
were established, the expectations that were set and the
instruction that was provided to students involved in Title

1 and Article 3 programs.

 

 

 

DEDI CAT ION

To my parents, David and Jessie Moore and to my
favorite "Auntee," Helen Griffin whom I love

dearly and who have provided encouragement and
support throughout my academic pursuits.

ii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AC KNOWLED GME NTS

In order to complete any work of this magnitude,

the assistance and.encouragement of many peOple become

 

significant. My sincere appreciation is extended to Dr.
Richard Green of the Minneapolis Public Schools for encour-
aging me to pursue the doctorate degree and to Dr. Bruce
Williams of the Rockefeller Foundation for his assistance
in securing the financial resources that allowed me to com-
plete my studies. I am also thankful to both of them for

their friendship.

My deepest appreciation is due to the members of my
Doctoral Guidance Committee. My dissertation director, Dr.
Wilbur Brookover, provided constant support and guidance,
attention to detail and an emphasis on quality which chal—
lenged me to meet high standards. My doctoral committee
chairman, Dr. James Costar, was a source of much encourage-
ment throughout my doctoral prOgram and his confidence in
me never waivered. A special thank you is extended to Dr.
Robert Green for providing the material and human resources
from the College of Urban Development which were necessary
to complete this task. Most of all I appreciate his guidance
and friendship during those difficult times. My gratitude
is expressed to Dr. Frederick Ignatovich for his incisive

iii

 

 

 

 

inquiries and thought provoking suggestions which helped
bring focus to this research.

Very important to the completion of this task was
the cooperation of teachers, aides, principals and central
office administrators of the school district in which this
research was conducted. Without the assistance of these
individuals, this research could not have been completed.

I am indebted also to Leonard Bianchi for his
assistance in preparation of data for computer analysis and
to Roxanne Burgett for many hours spent typing this study.

My thanks are extended to my brothers and sisters:
Allen, Marian, Anthony, Daisy, Brenda and Jacqueline and to
my inlaws: Agienola, Brenda, Gail and Sharon. These indi-
viduals, through their support and understanding, have
helped me to know and more fully appreciate the importance
of family. My gratitude is also extended to my friends:
Dr. Carolyn Logan, Corine Moorhead, Hugh Brandon, Lillian
Holloman, Loisjean Komai, Sheryl Swope and Rachel Patrick
Who were always there when I needed them and especially to
Sharon Johnson Wheeler who shared my total doctoral experi-
ence. I owe a special gratitude to my friend, Dr. Cassandra
Simmons, for sharing her suggestions and invaluable insights
throughout this endeavor.

Most of all my sincere thanks, appreciation and
love are extended to my husband, Paul, who was the primary

source of strength, critical judgment, moral support,

iv

 

 

 

encouragement and loving companionship. He diminished an

arduous academic task and for him, I am grateful everyday.

 

 

”2..“ A

 

:IJ:[ST OF
CZIHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Need for the Study . . . .
Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . .
Background and Statement of the

Problem . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . .
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . .
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Historical Background . .
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act . . . . . .
The State of Michigan, Article 3,
Public Act 94 . . . . . .
Compensatory Education and Related
Research . . . . . . . . . . .
Compensatory Education and Resegre—
gation . . . . .
Compensatory Education and Differen—
tiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Setting . . . . . . . .
Description of the Sample Schools . . .
Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staff Description . . . . . . .
Description of the Students Observed . .

vi

Pag<

 

 

CHAPTER

Research Questions . . . . . . . .
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS . . . . . . . . .
Resegregationf . . . . . . . . . .

Eligibility Determination for
Compensatory Education
Programs . . . . . . . . . .

Racial Composition of Compen-
satory Education Enrollment

Staff Perceptions of Compensa-
tory Program Enrollment . .

Summary of Resegregation as a
Function of Selection and
Enrollment in Compensatory
Education Programs . . . .

Differentiation . . . . . . . . .
Learning Objectives . . . .
Expectations . . .
Instruction . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Differentiation . .

Exacerbation of Differentiation .

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . .
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion of the Findings . . . .

Limitations and Delimitations . .
Suggestions for Future Research
Reflections . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX

A. Compensatory Students Mastering DIGP
Objectives 1976-79 . . . . . . . . .

B. InStrunlentS o o o o o o o o o o o o o

C. Percent Minority Enrollment Title I
and Article 3 By Grade . . . . . .

vii

Page
77
79
81
82

82

82
87

94

101
102
102
108
111
117
119
123
123
125
127
132
134
139

144

144

145

190

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D. Responses--Why Minority Overrepresentation
Has Occurred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

E. Percent of Compensatory Education Students
Expected to Master Learning Objectives . . . 193

F. Responses--Differences in Curriculum
Covered by Compensatory Education Students . 197

G. Responses--Differences in Instruction . . . . 198

 

H. Responses—-Positive Outcomes of Compensatory
Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

I. Responses--Negative Outcomes of Compensatory
Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

J. Letter to Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

K. Consent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

 

viii

 

   

 

LI ST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1. District Instructional Guidance Plan

Reading/Mathematics Achievement in
Title I, May 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

 

3.2. District Instructional Guidance Plan
Reading/Math Achievement in Article
3 Programs, May 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3.3. Demographics of Staff Interviewed . . . . . . . 74

4.1. Selection Criteria, Title I and
Article 3, 1978—79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

 

4.2. Number of Children Who Participated in
Article 3 and Title I Activities by
Racial/Ethnic Group 1979-80 . . . . . . . . . 88

4.3. Title I and Article 3 Enrollment by
Racial/Ethnic Groups for Sample
Schools 1979-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

4.4. Title I Article 3 Minority Enrollment
by Grade in Sample Schools, 1979-80 . . . . . 93

4.5. Teacher and Aides Responses Concerning

Which Racial/Ethnic Groups Are Most

Likely to Leave Classroom for Com-

pensatory Education Instruction . . . . . . . 96
4.6. Racial Composition of Regular Classroom

Versus Pull Out Instructional Unit of

'Observed Compensatory Education Students - . 98

4-7. How Learning Objectives for Compensatory
Education Students Compare with Non-
compensatory Education Students . . . . 104

4.8. Differences in Learning Objectives Set
for Compensatory Education Students,
Responses for Teachers and Instruc-

tional Aides . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

ix

 

 

   

Table Page

4.9. Who Provides the Compensatory Education
Instruction Outside and Within the
Regular Classroom, Teacher and Aide
Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

4.10. How Instructional Materials Used With
Compensatory Education Students
Compare With Those for Noncompensatory
Education Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

4.11. Differences Noted in Instructional
Materials Used for Compensatory
Education Students by Personnel
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

 

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

In 1954 in the Brown v. Board of Education decision

 

(347, U.S. 483, 1954), the Supreme Court ruled that legal
separation by race inherently constituted inequality of

opportunity. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme

 

Court found, "amply supported by modern authority," that
compulsory racial segregation of children denoted "the
inferiority of the Negro group," that this "sense of
inferiority affects the motivation of the child to learn,"
and that such segregation therefore "has a tendency to
retard the educational and mental development of Negro
children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they
would receive in an integrated school system" (Bruno, 1972,
p. 48).

"To separate (Negroes) from others of similar age
and qualifications solely because of their race generates
a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community

that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely

ever to be undone" (347 U.S. 483, 1954).

 

Prior to this decision it was a widely held View
that educational policy was clearly and easily separable
from legal matters. Determination of educational policy
was left in the hands of the educators while the courts

dealt with the law (Fischer, 1979). The Brown v. Board of

 

Education decision began a new era of relationship between

 

the law and educational policy which accelerated in the
1960s and continues to grow (B. Levin, 1975).

The legitimate interests of the federal government
in education are primarily encapsulated in the equal pro—
tection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which states
that no state shall "deny any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws." The court's interpreta-

tion of this amendment, in Brown v. Board of Education and

 

subsequent cases, is the basis for the development of a
public policy of equality of educational opportunity and
school desegregation. Equality of educational opportunity
was not a concept new with the Brown v. Board of Education
decision. The idea had been present since the early days
of public education in America, when its meaning encom-
passed the idea of providing a free and common education

to all children (Coleman, 1969). This concept was expanded
and educators began to include the idea that equal educa-
tional opportunity encompassed the idea of providing educa-
tional experiences that would meet the needs of pupils pre-
paring for different occupational futures. As early as 1908,

the Superintendent of the Boston schools stated "Until

recently (the schools) have offered equal opportunity for
all to receive one kind of education, but what will make
them democratic is to provide opportunity for all to receive
such education as will fit them equally well for their
particular life work" (Bowles, 1972). This concept pre-
vailed and was particularly evident during the Sputnik era

(Spring, 1976). In 1954, as a result of Brown v. Board of

 

Education, a concept of equality of educational opportunity

 

developed that focused upon the idea that equality required
racial desegregation of the schools.

A concern about equality of educational opportunity
led Congress to mandate in the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
that the Commissioner of Education conduct a study to assess
the "lack of equality of educational opportunity" being
afforded to minority and other groups in the United States.
The Equality of Educational Opportunity Report, widely
known as the Coleman Report, added a new dimension to the
concept of equality of educational opportunity that had
been implied in Brown v. Board of Education but overshadowed
by the focus of that case on school desegregation. This
report, not only measured equality in terms of inputs such
as physical facilities, teacher characteristics and racial
mixture, but included a measure of outputs based upon
results of school achievement tests (Mosteller and Moynihan,
1972).

Thus, a concept of equality of educational oppor-

tunity has emerged that not only considers the idea of a

 

common desegregated educational experience for all children,
but one which gives consideration to educational results
(Coleman, 1968) and more recently to equality of access to
post-school rewards of formal education (Ogbu, 1978).

The Brown v. Board of Education case, the Equality

 

of Educational Opportunity Report, and the subsequent
increased Federal interest in public school education pro—
duced a rapid proliferation of federal educational legis-
lation. Federal aid has exerted programmatic or financial
leverage in certain areas of national policy (Berke, 1972)
and the government has taken an active role in providing
children with improved education through financial support
to state and local education agencies.

Federal, state and local policies, the resultant
legislative and court ordered mandates and local educational
practices occur within the broader framework of a national
commitment to thquoal of equality of educational oppor-
tunity. Kouzes and Mico (1979), in discussing the policy,
management and service domains of various human service
organizations, have noted that because each of these domains
operates by different principles, structural arrangements
measures of success and work modes, their various inter-
actions create conditions of discord and dysfunction.
Schools, as examples of human service organizations, are
not exempt from the potential impact of the interactions of

the various needs and goals of each domain.

 

The way these various policies interact at the
local school level may have an impact upon the attainment
of the goal of equality of educational opportunity. This
interaction may either help or hinder desegregation in terms
of the racial mix within the school, its classrooms and
programs and may lead to differentiation of students along

racial lines.

Need for the Study

 

There is always a need for administrators to examine
the consequences of their decisions. Too often, in the
area of educational policy, decisions are based on past
experience without the benefit of specific research at the
local level. Most studies of national and state policy
focus on samples constituted as microcosms of the larger
unit (Berke, 1972). Rarely is the local school the unit of
analysis. Consequently, studies of policy implementation
that focus on the smaller unit are needed.

Information to establish new goals can be learned
from research directed at showing the gaps between purpose
and consequences (Merton, 1949). An examination of the
disparity that may exist between policy intention and the
actual implementation can assist in redirecting policy-
makers as they search for more effective means of reaching
goals and as they develop new goals.

In addition, there is the need to View the conse-

quences of policy on the unit the policies were intended to

 

 

 

impact and to examine what happens to intent as it filters
down the administrative structure of public school systems

in the United States.

Conceptual Framework

 

When policy is made, it is made with the idea in
mind that it will have some consequence. That is, it is
always formulated with some intent and neither policy nor
intent can be determined by looking only at the outcomes
(Weaver, 1975). Thus, from a functional analysis perspec-
tive, any policy may have diverse consequences, both func-
tional, nonfunctional and dysfunctional for the system and
for individuals, subgroups or other units within the system.
Exploration of the consequences of policy can provide a
fuller understanding of the various structures and their
relationships to each other.

To View federal and state educational policy from
a functional perspective is one means of understanding the
relationships between equal educational opportunity and com—
pensatory education programs.

The concept of function refers to observable objec—
tive consequences or results as distinguished from the
notion of intention, motive, or purpose of some activity
or mechanism which is purely subjective (P. Sztompka,

1974). Functional analysis requires that there be a speci-

fication of the unit for which a given activity is

 

functional and that the activity is not bound to be func-
tional for the entire social or cultural system (Merton
1949).

Functional analysis presumes that social and cul-
tural mechanisms have multiple consequences, that is, the
consequences may be functional (adaptive or adjustive for
a given system), dysfunctional (maladaptive) or nonfunc-
tional (irrelevant). The relative importance, then, of the
pool of potential consequences must be considered. Func-
tionalism also assumes that the same function may be ful-
filled by alternative mechanisms. Functionalism, as a frame
of reference, attempts to study social or cultural activ-
ities or mechanisms by their social, cultural consequences
or their relationship to each other. Functional analysis
may consist of establishing empirical interrelations between
parts of a system, or in showing the value for some unit of
a particular activity or finally, in elaborate accounts of
the purposes of formal social organizations.

An often confused concept in functional analysis
is that of the difference between the subjective category
of motive and the objective category of function. This
confusion requires a distinction between situations in which
the-subjective motive or purpose coincides with, and those
that diverge with the objective outcomes. The distinction
is necessary to avoid the confusion between the conscious
motivations for social activities or mechanisms and their

ultimate consequences (Merton, 1949).

This distinction is clarified by consideration of
the concept of manifest and latent functions. Manifest
functions refer to those consequences for a unit which
contribute to its adjustment and adaptation and are intended
outcomes. Latent functions, on the other hand, refer to
either unexpected or unrecognized consequences of the same
activity on the unit in question. Unintended consequences
are of three types (Merton, 1949).

Latent functional - those consequences which are func-
tional for the unit but are unintended;

Latent dysfunctional - those consequences which are
unintended and are dysfunctional for the unit; and

Latent nonfunctional - those consequences which are
neither functional nor dysfunctional for the unit
and have no meaningful impact on the system.

Boulding (1956), in making a similar distinction,
states that the consequences of behavior are not necessarily
in conformity with the "image" that produces them. He dis—
cusses as latent the relationship between those processes
which seem to be relatively independent of the images held
and as manifest those processes which are sharply dependent
on the image.

The manifest-latent distinction has the potential
of providing an extension to the analysis of functions which
is beyond an investigation of intended purposes and allows

the researcher to delve into the realm of a diverse pool

 

 

<>f potential functional, dysfunctional and nonfunctional

(zonsequences.

Background and Statement of the Problem
Equality of educational opportunity, as a national

3E>olicy, has subjective purposes or motives as described by
't:he Brown v. Board of Education decision and a variety of
<:>ther court decisions and legislative acts that have
:1Eollowed. Similarly these other legislative acts contain
.ssubjective purposes. These policies, using the concepts
<:>f latent and manifest functions, can have consequences
'tzhat are both intended and unintended and both functional,
nonfunctional and dysfunctional for the subsystems or units
impacted. When the subjective motive or aim coincides with
1tihe objective consequence, we refer to the function as mani-
fest. When the aim and the function diverge the function
:i.s considered to be latent. As such, some policies may
.zreesult in guidelines and practices that coincide with the
(Dryerall aim of equality of educational opportunity and thus
<=<Jntribute to the adaptation and adjustment of schools and
£3<2fxmfl.districts. These constitute the manifest functions
(>15 ‘the policy. These same policies may result in program—
Ill"Eitic guidelines and practices that diverge with the
r16itional policy of equality and produce outcomes that are
rheaSladaptive and unanticipated, that are adaptive and unan—
tle<2ipated or that are meaningless to the intent or nature

(>15 tequality of educational opportunity.

 

10

In summary, three points are significant: (1) there

are anticipated and unanticipated results of federal and
state policies, (2) unanticipated consequences are not

necessarily undesirable, and finally, (3) the intent of a
:policy cannot always be gleaned from its consequences.

Merton cautions that there are pitfalls that must

be considered when investigating the consequences of pur-
jgosive actions. One problem is that of ascertaining the
zactual purposes of a given item (Merton, 1936). An attempt

‘flill be made to confront this problem by briefly discussing
1the aims of equality of educational opportunity, and the
Ipurposes of two legislative mandates, Title I of the Ele-

:nnentary and Secondary Education Act and Article 3 of Michi-

gyan Public Act 94. An attempt will be made to highlight

t:he motives or aims of these policies.
Mention was made in an earlier section that the
Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education

ciemslared that racial separation in schools denies Black

Eatzudents equal protection of the laws. This decision has

lleed.to a national policy of equality of educational oppor-
tllJJiity of which an important aspect is school desegregation.
vVIII-at then constitutes the goals of desegregation policy?

Certainly a primary goal of desegregation is the

1leLJ-{ing of the races in school facilities. Courts have

c>3r<3ered that districts achieve racial balance in the schools
k3}? reassignment of pupils and staff, busing, magnet schools

Eirldi a variety of other means (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg

 

L.‘

 

11

Board of Education). Courts have also ruled on racial
imbalance within classrooms of a desegregated school
(Hobson v. Hansen). The notion of racial balance and
<desegregation is only one aspect of the goal of equality
(Df educational opportunity. As an educational policy, in
zaddition to desegregation, equality of educational oppor—
1:unity encompasses goals that can be summarized into four
ggeneral types.

1. Improvement in self—esteem, aspirations and other
personality related dispositions of minority chil-
dren;

2. Improvements in academic achievement;

3. Reduction in interracial hostility and elimination
of racial intolerance;

4. More equitable access to educational resources and
post educational opportunities (Hawley and Rist,
1975).

In short, the relationship of desegregation and
eeqzuality of educational opportunity is intricate, "the
glllality of experiences seems to be as important as the
QIIJEintity of bodies" (Cbhen, 1974, p. 36).

The purposes of Title I of the Elementary and
S€E<20ndary Education Act of 1965 are cited in Section 101
tlrlfie Declaration of Policy which states that:

In recognition of the special education needs of

children of low income families and the impact that

concentrations of low income families have on the
ability of local educational agencies to support

12

adequate educational programs, the Congress hereby
declares it to be the policy of the United States

to provide financial assistance to local educational
agencies serving areas with concentrations of children
from low income families to expand and improve their
educational programs by various means (including pre-
school programs) which contribute particularly to meet-
ing the special educational needs of educationally
deprived children. Further, in recognition of the
special education needs of children of certain migrant
parents, of Indian children and of handicapped, neg-
lected and delinquent children, the Congress hereby
declares it to be the policy of the United States to
provide financial assistance to help meet the special
educational needs of such children.

The passage of this act served notice of the inten—
1:ion of the federal government to assume direct financial
.Jresponsibility for providing all children, particularly the
eaconomically disadvantaged, with services that would con—
1:ribute to their cognitive development. This goal, of
jEDroviding financial assistance to school districts to fund
sspecial services for low achieving children in poor schools
‘t:o improve their academic achievement, is in accord with
'trhe goal of equality of educational opportunity. This
statement of intent has an interest in improving academic
Eiczhievement and in providing for more equitable access to
educational resources.

Research suggests that a positive correlation exists
between poverty and race, (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
J—S><s7). Thus, ESEA Title I can also be seen as an act
intended to assist minority youngsters and as such assist
jLIl providing equity of educational opportunity. In short,

t111£e subjective aims and motives of ESEA Title I are con-

$stastent with those of equality of educational opportunity.

l._ ___

 

 

13

The State of Michigan, Article 3 of Public Act 94
(1979) entitled, Improvement in Basic Cognitive Skills, is
a compensatory education act which provides state funds for
programs

designed to improve the achievement in basic cognitive
skills of pupils enrolled in grades K to 6 who have
extraordinary need for special assistance to improve
competency in those basic skills and for whom the dis-
tricts are not already receiving additional funds by
virtue of the pupils being physically, mentally or
emotionally handicapped.

 

Article 3 considers as pupils "in need of substan-
tial improvement in basic cognitive skills," those who have
attained 40 percent or fewer of the state reading and mathe-
matics objectives.

With its emphasis on improvement in achievement,
the purpose of Article 3 is congruent with that of equality
of educational opportunity. Since it is designed for pupils
who have extraordinary need for special assistance to improve
competency in basic skills, and in the State of Michigan,
large numbers of minority and poor children fall into that
category, Article 3 can be seen as an attempt to provide
equity of educational opportunity. This situation was

observed in the study, Schools Can Make A Difference

 

(Brookover e; _1., 1977). In an examination of a represen-
tative sample of Michigan public elementary schools, this
research indicated that majority Black schools and low

socioeconomic White schools had mean school percentages of

Students attaining the state reading and mathematics

 

 

14

objectives which were significantly below the percentages
attained in White schools in general and in high socio-
economic White schools in particular.

It seems clear that both of the policies cited,
Title I of ESEA and Article 3 of Public Act 94 have purposes
that coincide with those of equality of educational oppor—
tunity. Because of various limits in defining and enforc-
ing federal and state policies, results of such actions
do not always conform precisely to intent (Derthick, 1970).
The problem, considering the concept of manifest and latent
functions, becomes one of examining the consequences of
these policies as they become implemented in the local dis-
trict (Wholey pp gl., 1973). Are the consequences
(guidelines-—de1ivery systems) of these purposive actions
(Title I and Article 3) those that would be anticipated
in that they would support the goal of equality of educa-
tional opportunity (manifest functions) or are they latent
and either functional, dysfunctional, or nonfunctional for
the unit (school) in relationship to the goal of equality?
More specifically the problem for this research focuses on
the consequences (guidelines--delivery systems) of these
purposive actions as they relate to resegregation and dif—
ferentiation. Are the guidelines and activities associated
with these purposive actions, Title I and Article 3, those
that would be anticipated in that they would support the
equality of educational opportunity goal (manifest func-

tions) or are they latent and either functional,

15

dysfunctional or nonfunctional for the unit in relationship

to the goal of equality of educational opportunity.

Purpose of the Study

 

The primary purpose of this research is to examine
and analyze the manner in which selected federal and state
educational policies impact upon equality of educational
opportunity at the local school district level with a
specific emphasis upon the impact of compensatory education
programs in desegregated schools. This research will examine
the nature of the local guidelines and implementation prac—
tices resulting from Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (1965) and Article 3 of Michigan Public Act
94 (1979) as these relate to aspects important to the con—
cept of equality of educational opportunity. More specif-
ically, this study will systematically examine the net
effect of Title I and Article 3 in terms of racial separa-

tion and differential treatment at the local school level.

Research Questions

 

The following questions will be addressed to deter-
mine the latent functions of Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and Article 3 of the Michigan Public
Act 94 at the local school level as related to the overall
goal of equality of educational opportunity with a specific

interest in the aspects of resegregation and differentiation.

16

Resegregation

1.

Do the district and school criteria established for

Title I and Article 3 eligibility have a latent

 

function of resegregation?

Do the practices and procedures used in determining
which students receive Title I and Article 3 services
have a latent function of resegregation?

Do the practices and procedures which determine the
location of Title I and Article 3 instruction have

a latent function of resegregation?

Differentiation

 

4.

Does differentiation exist as a latent function of
the objectives established for Title I and Article
3 students?

Does differentiation exist as a latent function of
the expectations held for Title I and Article 3
students?

Does differentiation exist as a latent function of
the instruction provided to Title I and Article 3
students in terms of (a) who provides the instruc-
tion, (b) level of instructional materials used,
(c) curriculum covered.

To what extent does the presence of Title I and
Article 3 programs exacerbate the differentiation

of instruction?

 

17

Definition of Terms

 

Compensatory Education Proggams - refers to those

 

educational programs designed to reduce educational inequal-
ity by improving the academic performance of disadvantaged
children. References to compensatory education are to both
Title I and Article 3.

Differentiation - refers to those school practices

 

which render differentiated judgements of academic worth or
potential and which create classes, classifications or cate-
gories of students. Differentiation may be accomplished by
setting differential objectives, use of different instruc-
tional methods, materials and expectations.

Equality of Educational Opportunity - a concept

 

which refers to equality of access to school resources,
both physical and curricular, equality of school perform-
ance, and desegregated educational environments.

Resegregation - the disproportionate assignment and

 

overrepresentation of minority group children within
particular programs, classes or groups in a desegregated
school.

Regular Instruction - students receive instruction

 

only from the regular teacher in the subject.
Pull Out - students receive instruction from the
regular teacher and are pulled out of the regular classroom

to receive compensatory instruction.

18

Premier

The background of and introduction to the concept
of a national goal of equality of educational opportunity
have been described in Chapter I. Equality of educational
opportunity has been discussed within the framework of
manifest and latent functions and a discussion has been
presented which shows the relationship between the national
goal of equality of educational opportunity and the goals
of Title I of the Elementary and-Secondary Education Act
and Article 3 of Michigan Public Act 94. The purpose of,
the need for and the research questions addressed by this
study are reported along with definitions of terminology
important to an understanding of the research and the
related literature.

Chapter II will provide a more detailed description
of the compensatory education policies, Title I and Article
3, as well as a review of the literature and research per-
tinent to the subjects of compensatory education, resegre-
gation and differentiation.

In Chapter III the setting for the study will be
described, the research methodology will be examined and the
instruments used will be described and explained. Results
of the study will be put forth in Chapter IV. Chapter V
will be concerned with the statement and discussion of con-
clusions of the study, the implications of the results and

recommendations for future research endeavors.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

In this chapter the literature important to a study
of the impact of compensatory education programs on aspects
of equality of educational opportunity will be examined.
Historical background information will be presented to show
the framework within which the concept of compensatory edu-
cation later emerged. A detailed explanation of the com—
ponents of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act and Article 3 of Michigan's Public Act 94 will be pre—
sented. The second half of this chapter will focus on
literature and research in compensatory education and how
compensatory programs relate to resegregation and differen—

tiation.

Historical Background

 

The early 1960s brought a new educational focus to
the United States in relationship to its efforts to improve
the achievement of minority and poor students. This strat-
egy, which closely followed in time the Brown v. Board of

Education decision favoring school desegregation, was one

of compensatory education.

 

 

20

Compensatory education programs are premised upon
the belief that individual academic inequalities are not
genetically determined but are socio-cultural in origin.

The belief is that some children perform poorly in school
because of deficits or differences in their family or cul—
tural background. It is felt that low income and minority
children do not perform well in school because of "disorgani-
Zation in their family structure, inadequate childrearing
patterns, underdeveloped language and other unique cultural
features" (Persell, 1977, p. 76). Educational researchers
who support this View report that low achievement can be
attributed to
a basic failure of the socialization process in the
home . . . early childhood experiences in poverty
environments create enduring personality formations
that are inimical to effective achievement striving
not only in the classroom but, indeed, in virtually
all areas of life (I. Katz, 1969, p. 13).
A victim of his environment, the ghetto child begins
his school career, psychologically, socially and
physically disadvantaged. He is oriented to the
present rather than the future, to the immediate
rather than delayed gratification, to the concrete
rather than the abstract.. He is often handicapped
by limited verbal skills, low self esteem and a
stunted drive toward achievement (C. Dolce, 1969,
p. 36).

These children have, as a group, been referred to as
"culturally deprived" and this description includes the
economically disadvantaged and racial and ethnic minorities,
such as Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Native Americans and Mexican-

Americans. Compensatory education programs are designed to

either remediate or prevent the assumed deficits that cause

21

these children to fail in school (Bloom, 1965). These pro-
grams are intended to provide services which will remedy
the damages imposed by the home or cultural environment so
that these children can have an equal opportunity for suc-
cess in the schools.

Impetus was given to the concept of compensatory
education during the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson.
President Johnson's programs during the era of the Great
Society were based upon a belief in the self-fulfilling
prophecy related to poverty. According to this idea, the
factors that cause poverty are so interrelated that it is
almost impossible for the causes not to become the conse-
quences as well. President Johnson's War on Poverty,
announced January 8, 1964 in his State of the Union mes-
sage, made it clear that a "chief weapon of the battle would
be better schools, better health, better homes and better
training and job opportunities" (Spring, 1976, p. 198).
Thus education was seen as an important link in the chain
of poverty. Improvements in the education of poor and
minority youngsters became the key to providing them equal—
ity of educational opportunity.

Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act

 

 

The theory of a poverty cycle and the possibility
of education as a means of breaking the cycle, provided the
rationale and the strategy for a major governmental focus

on the education of the disadvantaged child. In 1965,

 

 

22

Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of which a major component, Title I, focused on the poverty
child as the subject in the funding of a program of com-
pensatory education. Title I became the major educational
component of the War on Poverty. ‘

As previously noted, Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 Declaration of Policy
states:

In recognition of the special education needs of
children of low income families and the impact that
concentrations of low income families have on the
ability of local educational agencies to support
adeguate educational programs, the Congress hereby
declares it to be the policy of the United States to
provide financial assistance to local educational
agencies serving areas with concentrations of children
from low income families to expand and improve their
educational programs by various means (including pre-
school programs) which contribute particularly to
meeting the special educational needs of educationally
deprived children. Further, in recognition of the
special education needs of children of certain migrant
parents, of Indian children and of handicapped, neg-
lected and delinquent children, the Congress hereby
declares it to be the pplicy of the United States to
provide financial assistance to help meet the special
educational needs of such children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although the originators of Title I were concerned
with the broad philosophical ideas of the cycle of poverty,
redistribution of educational resources, the elimination
of cultural deprivation and educational disadvantagement
or other general kinds of societal goals, the act itself
specifically cites three fundamental purposes. These
purposes were spelled out in detail in a National Institute

of Education (NIE) publication, Evaluatipg Compensatory

 

23

Education: An Interim Report on the NIE Compensatory Educa-

tion Study (1976) and are summarized as follows:

 

(1) To provide financial assistance to school districts
in relation to their numbers of low-income children
and, within those districts, to the schools with
the greatest numbers of low-income students.
(2) To fund special services for low achieving children
in the poorest schools.
(3) To contribute to the cognitive, emotional, social
or physical development of participating students.
These three purposes represented the priorities of
a variety of competing interest groups and political con-
stituencies and any of them, depending upon one's political
persuasion or interest, may be viewed as the "raison d'etre"
of the legislation (Bailey and Mosher, 1968). Although the
second the third purposes, those of service delivery and
student development, relate most directly to the concept
of compensatory education, the funds allocation embodied
in the first purpose warrants special attention, since
Title I represents the source of the largest amount of
federal aid to elementary and secondary education and was
the first major federal effort at financial assistance to
local schools.

Title I provides funds to school districts under
state plans approved by the U.S. Office of Education.
During the Act's first year, Congress appropriated 775

million dollars to state and local education which accounted

 

«.—.—-a|~_

n—

 

._.._“.:-r

24

for five-sixths of the total funds authorized under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (E.S.E.A.) (Bailey
and Mosher, 1968). In 1978-79, the cost of this program to
the federal government exceeded two billion dollars (HEW
Publication No. OE 79-01043). Funds are allocated with

the goal of directing them to the school districts and
schools serving large numbers of low income children.

The formula used in allocating funds is complex but,
in general, provides that each school district receive for
each formula--eligible child, a percentage of the average
expense of educating a child in the state where the district
is located. The largest percentage of formula eligible
children are those aged five to seventeen years, whose
families are considered poor based on the official govern-
ment measure of poverty, the Orshansky Index. The remainder
of those children considered eligible, based on the formula,
are from families with incomes above the poverty level, who
receive aid under the Aid to Families with Dependent Chil-
dren Program, children in institutions for the delinquent
or neglected and children who are supported by public funds
and living in foster homes. The formula is applied at the
county or Local Education Agency level. Since Title I has
not been fully funded since its first year, the percentage
of the average state expenditure received varies from year
to year. Although 40 percent is authorized by statute

(Public Law 95-561, Section 111 a), in 1977 districts

25

received only 16 percent (NIE, 9-30-77), of the state
expenditure for each eligible child.

In order to insure that Title I funds are dis—
tributed according to the statute, there are a number of
regulations attached to the funds allocation process and
the federal government monitors the states to insure com-
pliance with the rules.. Similar rules and regulations guide
the local education agencies in distributing these funds to
schools and pupils. The primary concern is that funds are
used for the intended beneficiaries and that the funds
actually supplement the expenditures for that population
(NIE, 9-19-77).

Funds allocation requirements to both SEAS and
LEAs in the areas of eligibility and targeting exist to
insure that districts, schools and students, that receive
funds are indeed those the legislation was intended to
serve. Districts and schools in attendance areas which
have a high density of poor children, are defined as eligi-
ble and children who are educationally disadvantaged within
those schools should be the recipients of the services.

Maintenance of Effort (P.L. 95—561, Section 126a),
requires that state and local educational agencies maintain
their level of fiscal effort and do not decrease their
funding level while receiving Title I funds. This require-
ment is designed to insure that states and districts do not
substitute Title I funds for general aid, that federal

assistance is indeed supplemental and that the financial

26

responsibilities for basic education do not transfer to the
federal government (NIE, 9-19-77).

Excess cost provisions, added in 1974, stipulate that
funds allocated under this Title can be used only to support
the excess costs of the programs associated with the Title
(P.L. 95-561, Section 126b), and are designed to meet the
special educational needs of educationally deprived chil-
dren in low income areas. Title I funds, thus, must pay
only those costs for services beyond the normal instruc-
tional expenditures. A related regulation, the supplement,
not supplant rule (P.L. 561, Section 126C and d), requires
that children in Title I must receive the level of funds
they would receive if Title I did not exist. Like the
maintenance of effort requirement of district level spend-
ing, the supplant provision is necessary to insure, at the
student level, that Title I, services and programs supple-
ment and not replace those that are normally provided with
state and local funds.

Comparability provisions added in 1971 to address
problems noted in the local administration of Title I,
require that a LEA receive funding only if state and local
funds will be used in the district to provide services in
the Title I areas which are at least comparable to those
services provided in areas in the district, not receiving
Title I funding (P.L. 95-561, Section 126e). This means
that the level of services in Title I schools must equal or

exceed the average level in Non—Title I schools. The

27

measures of comparability most frequently used are pupil/
teacher ratios and per pupil expenditures.

State and federal regulations are designed to carry
out the intent of the statute and, though restrictive in
some respects, are deemed necessary by the legal boundaries
of the statute. These regulations exist, in part, because
of past district and state misuse of the Title I funds to
provide general aid for district wide needs (Berke and
Kirst, 1972) and avoidance of the intent of equality of
educational opportunity by improving education in existing
segregated schools (DSLCohen, 1969). States and local dis-
tricts are responsible for program monitoring to make sure
that minimum standards are met, for complaint resolution,
auditing, technical assistance, dissemination of informa-
tion, record keeping, fiscal control, fund accounting,
enforcement, reporting, etc. (PL 95-561, Section 171-174).

In addition to the funds allocation requirements,
there are a number of program development requirements
which detail the method that districts must use in the
design and implementation of their programs. Described in
Section 124, these requirements for design and implementa-
tion of programs include the following:

1. Assessment of Educational Needs - requires that an

LEA must conduct an annual needs assessment, to

identify those children who have the greatest edu-

cational need, decide upon the focus of the instruc-

tional program and specify the needs of partici-
pating children.

28

2. Planning - a formal plan must be established for the
program which specifies the activities and services
designed to accomplish the outcomes desired from
the needs assessment.

3. Sufficient size, scope, and quality - minimum pro—
gram expenditure levels are set such as to insure
that projects are of sufficient size, scope and
quality to give reasonable likelihood of success
in meeting the needs of the targeted children.

4. Coordination with other programs - the school dis-
trict must demonstrate that it has made efforts to
avoid duplication of effort and that the various
other state and federal programs and projects com-
plement each other.

5. Evaluations - LEAs must periodically evaluate the
effectiveness of programs funded under Title I in
relationship to meeting the special education
needs of educationally deprived children. These
evaluations must also include objective measure-
ments of educational achievement in basic skills
and must address the purposes of the programs.

6. Information Dissemination - procedures must exist
for acquiring and disseminating to teachers and
administrators significant information on promising
educational practices developed through Title I
projects.

7. Sustaining Gains - programs must include components
designed to sustain the achievement of children
beyond the school year.

8. Participation - teachers, school boards and parents
must be involved in the planning and evaluation of
projects and programs.

9. Training of Education Aides - any aides, including
volunteers must have well developed and coordinated
programs of training.

The above program development regulations and the
funds allocation rules provide a framework for SEAs and LEAs
{as they develop and implement projects under Title I. SEAS
and LEAs have the flexibility of imposing additional regu-

lations as long as they are within the context of the

29

federal framework. As a consequence, the funds allocation
and program development processes differ as they are imple-
mented in the various states and local school districts.

The State of Michigan, Article 31
Public Act 94

 

 

Title I is not the only source of funding for, or
enacted legislation, which focuses on the "disadvantaged"
or "deprived" child. Since 1963, when California enacted
the first state compensatory program (NIE, 9-19-77), other
states have begun to appropriate funds to school districts
to meet the special educational needs associated with those
children. In 1971, the Michigan State Board of Education
began to ask support from the state legislature for funding
of programs to provide additional support to compensatory
education in the State of Michigan. The legislature
responded in the 1971 session and appropriated $22,500,000
for compensatory education during the 1971-72 school year.
In 1979-80, $32,936,500.00 was allocated (Article 3, section
31). This program, once called Section 3, then Chapter 3,
and now Article 3, is part of the Michigan School Aid Act.

The State of Michigan, Article 3 of Public Act 94
(1979) entitled, "Improvement in Basic Cognitive Skills,"
is a compensatory education act which provides state funds
for programs . . .

designed to improve the achievement in basic cognitive
skills of pupils enrolled in grades K to 6, who have

extraordinary need for special assistance to improve
competency in those basic skills and for whom the

30

districts are not already receiving additional funds
by virtue of the pupils being physically, mentally, or
emotionally handicapped.

This article considers "in need of substantial
improvement in basic cognitive skills," those pupils who
have attained 40 percent or fewer of the state's reading
and mathematics objectives.

Funds are allocated at the rate of $250.00 per
eligible pupil to districts which have 15 percent or more
of their K-7 pupils attaining 40 percent or less of the
reading and mathematics objectives over three years as
measured by the Michigan Educational Assessment Program.
Allocations to eligible districts, as determined by the
formula, are distributed in descending order to districts
with the greatest concentrations of eligible pupils, until
the appropriated funds are exhausted. Like Title I,
Article 3 has several statutory requirements, most of which,
like Title I, are designed to insure that the funds support
special services for the intended students and that they
do not serve as general school aid. Section 35 of Article
3 includes the following requirements:

(a) The district has applied for the funds on a depart-
ment form.

(b) The district must show comparability among schools
within the district.

(c) The district must involve parents, teachers and
administrators in program planning and implemen-
tation.

(d) Not less than 50 percent of the funds must be spent
in areas that have high concentrations of low income
pupils as described in Title I legislation.

31

(e) Pupils selected must be educationally deprived and
selected from among the lowest achievers.

(f) Programs must have performance objectives and these
objectives must be evaluated.

(g) Services must be specific to the needs of the
participating children and must be supplementary.

(h) Records of compliance must be kept.
Like Title I, Article 3 programs are monitored to
insure compliance with the requirements and state rules and
regulations further specify how districts must meet the

requirements of the statute.

Compensatory Education and Related Research

With the large dollar amounts expended on compensa-
tory education, it seems reasonable that evaluation and
research efforts would focus on the results of these pro—
grammatic efforts. In fact, in both the programs cited,
evaluation is required by statute.

The findings of early research on compensatory edu-
cation and achievement have been summarized by Averch (1972)
as follows:

(a) Beneficial results are rarely found in the large
scale studies though a few short run smaller sur-
veys tend to show modest positive effects.

(b) Pupils from the more disadvantaged economic back-
ground seem to have greater progress in highly

structured programs.

(c) The short run gains fade away rapidly if not
reinforced.

(d) The level of funding is not a sufficient condition
of success.

32

In 1974 Congress expressed concern for evaluation
of compensatory education programs, especially Title I.
This concern was due, in part, to the fact that early
studies of compensatory education had focused only on
achievement and that the results of these studies had at
best been discouraging (Berke and Kirst, 1972). The con-g
cern of Congress was expressed through the Education Amend-
ments of 1974 (Public Law 93-380) which directed the
National Institute of Education to conduct a comprehensive
study of compensatory education programs. Congress
requested that NIE examine the accomplishments of compensa-
tory education programs over the previous ten years and
seek information as to how they might be improved. In
response, NIE examined the legislation and contracted for
research to judge whether Title I and, to a lesser degree,
other state compensatory education programs had met the
objectives of: the allocation of funds, the delivery of
services and the development of children.

In the area of services to children, the primary
focus of this review, the results of NIE's research reported
by the National Advisory Council of Education of Disadvan-
taged Children, indicated that 90 percent of all school
districts received Title I funds, which are used primarily
in the elementary grades and serve over six million children
with program emphasis primarily in basic skills instruc-
tion. However, the survey noted that only 66 percent of

eligible children are served due to limited funding.

33

The instruction for Title I students was largely
individualized and in small classes averaging nine students
in reading and twelve in language arts and mathematics. An
average five and one-half hours per week were spent in
special instruction. Various instructional approaches were
examined in the Instructional Dimensions Study (Kischner
Associates, 1977). Overall, the IDS results indicated that
children had made significant achievement gains. However,
since the classrooms studied were not selected randomly, it
cannot be concluded that overall compensatory education stu-
dents are gaining. In general, the NIE findings do not
indicate that success is pervasive or that the problems
reflected in early research had been solved.

The Instructional Dimensions Study also examined
the location of instruction and found that first graders
did better when mainstreamed rather than in a "pull out"
instructional program.

Pull out instruction was found to be the prevailing
practice primarily because it is the simplest means of
insuring that Title I children are indeed receiving supple-
mental services. According to the Kischner study, 75 percent
of the children in compensatory education reading programs,
41 percent in language arts and 44 percent in mathematics
receive pull out instruction. This method removes com-
pensatory education children, at least temporarily, from
the mainstream of noncompensatory education students. The

study noted that while most compensatory education students

34

are in heterogenous homerooms, 24 percent of these students
receive all of their instruction in groups comprised of
only compensatory education students. Though this pro-
cedure may insure that the programs are indeed not sup-
planting, it constitutes a type of homogenous grouping,
based upon academic ability.

Grouping practices in a school are a product of
organizational decision making as to both vertical and
horizontal organization. Vertical organization refers to
the school plan or arrangement by which students progress
upward in the school program.

The range of choices for vertical organization
include graded or traditional groupings, nongraded grouping
or some combination of the two such as a continuous progress
organization. Horizontal organization determines how stu-
dents are grouped within individual classrooms. There are
two basic categories of horizontal organization, homogenous
and heterogenous placement patterns. Heterogenous groups
are arranged based on such things as random assignment,
alphabetical assignment or any other plan not concerned with
the individual qualities of the student. Quite the oppo-
site of this is homogenous placement by which students are
brought together in groups based upon some shared charac-
teristics among the students. In compensatory education,
low achieving children are placed together for instruction.

This type of grouping the most common form of homogenous

35

grouping in public schools, is termed ability grouping
(NBA, 1968).

Ability grouping is the practice of arranging groups
of students in different sections or classrooms within a
grade and assigning different teachers to these groups
(Mills and Bryan, 1976). Students are placed on the basis
of their performance on standardized tests, past academic
performance, teacher, counselor or administrative recom-
mendation or some combination of these criteria. The
anticipated consequence is to create groups composed of
students who have the most similarity in terms of certain
factors which are felt to affect learning. According to
Rosenbaum (1976, p. 5), "ability grouping selects on the
basis of ability, differentiates instruction by quantity and
intensity of work and attempts to suit work to each stu-
dent's unique intellectual abilities." The goal of such
grouping is instructional improvement. The practice in
compensatory education programs is similar. Students are
tested and the lowest achievers are provided with compensa-
tory education services, primarily outside the regular
classroom.

Another type of homogeneous grouping is referred
to as tracking. Those school selection systems that attempt
to "homogenize classroom placements in terms of students'
personal qualities, performance or aspirations" are termed
tracking (Rosenbaum, 1976, p. 6). Tracking is particularly

prevalent in secondary schools where students are assigned

36

to curriculum groupings such as College Preparatory, Busi—
ness or General, based on a variety of factors, of some-
times questionable validity.

In both ability grouping and tracking the plan is
that the resulting composition of student groups are
increased in homogeneity on some specific characteristic,
be it test scores, post high school plans, past academic
performance, etc. However according to the Findley and
Bryant study (1971) on ability grouping approximately 82
percent of the districts studied used test scores as the
sole basis or one of the criteria for student placement.

The primary purpose of ability grouping is said
to be to improve instruction and consequently learning,
by reducing the range of differences in academic ability
within each classroom. This is indeed the case in compensa-
tory education programs. Many advantages and disadvantages
have been cited for this type of grouping by its supporters
and opponents. Mills and Bryan (1976, pp. 4 and 5) cite

the following:

Advantages

 

1. It permits students to move at their own learning
rates. ‘

2. It allows students to compete on a more equitable
basis.

3. It makes curriculum planning easier for teachers
by reducing the range of students to teach.

4. It makes possible for each student to taste some
success.

10.

37
It improves student self image in the groups that
are ahead.
It decreases discipline problems.

It simplifies scheduling procedures for the
administration.

It is favored by parents, especially those of more
talented students.

It makes it possible to have both remedial and
enrichment~programs.

It permits the more efficient purchase and use of
materials.

The same advantages are often cited for compensatory educa-

tion programs.

Disadvantages

 

1.

It reduces, for students placed in groups that are
average or behind, the stimulation and leadership
provided by the students who are in groups that
are ahead.

It stifles the socialization process, making stu-
dents who are ahead more snobbish and the students
who are behind feel like second class persons.

It encourages some teachers to expect less from the
students in groups that are behind and then in turn
teaches them less.

It may result in segregation of students by race or
family income.

It fosters unhealthy self concepts among students
placed in groups that are behind.

It destroys the challenge of competition.

It creates morale problems for teachers assigned
to teach the groups that are behind.

It allows students little opportunity for movement
throughout the school years as a result of initial
grouping.

38

9. It may result in the assignment of the least able
and least experienced teachers to the groups that
are behind.

10. It prevents students who are ahead from becoming
sensitive to the problems of other students.

11. It results in decreased motivation, especially at
the average and below average levels. .

12. It is sometimes based on invalid criteria.

13. It occasionally creates parent pressure to assign
students to classes too advanced for the child.

14. It may concentrate students who have discipline
problems.

15. It has not been shown to improve learning and may
impede student progress in higher grades.

16. It implies that a student at low achievement at one
grade is a slow learner.

Similarly, many of the disadvantages associated with
ability grouping are also associated with compensatory edu-
cation programs.

Much research has been done on ability grouping to
determine the validity of these kinds of statements of
advantage and disadvantage. Research has considered the
effects of ability grouping on achievement, affective
development, opportunity, stratification, etc. Studies
have shown that due to ability grouping and homogenous
grouping practices, Black and White students lead almost
entirely separate lives in many racially mixed schools
(D. Cohen, 1974) and as a result of such practices, the
opportunities of minority students for higher occupational

and educational attainment are diminished (E. Cohen, 1975).

39

Compensatory Education and Resegregation

 

Compensatory education programs that place "dis-
advantaged" or "deprived" youngsters together for instruc-
tion have the potential for aiding in the process of reseg—
regation. This problem is magnified in the desegregated
school which attempts to provide equality of education
opportunity and compensatory education concommitantly.

Desegregation as a policy may vary widely in terms
of outcomes and the resultant racial mix of students within
particular schools. In addition, it is widely known that
desegregated schools display wide variations in the way in
which students are distributed in various classrooms and
programs within the racially mixed environment. In some
desegregated schools, classrooms and programs may be such
that minority students are evenly distributed while in
others, within the same desegregated district, minorities
may be concentrated in some classrooms and programs while
being underrepresented in others.

Minority over or underrepresentation in classrooms
and programs may result from intentional efforts to produce
resegregation. Resegregation may also happen by chance or
may be a latent function of the implementation of specific
programs or policies such as compensatory education. Place-
ment practices within the desegregated schools have an
important impact upon the racial composition of classrooms
and programs within the desegregated environment. One of

the most frequently used placement practices for bringing

40

about resegregation is class placement by ability (Levin and
Moise, 1975).

Data on the racial composition of compensatory edu-
cation programs suggests that these programs can have reseg-
regative effects. Glass (1970) has expressed the concern
that pull out instruction, a type of placement based on
ability, produces this effect. NIE data shows that
nationally, of the compensatory education students, 34
percent are Black compared with 19 percent of total enroll-
ment; 10 percent are Spanish surnamed compared with 5 per-
cent of total enrollment and 54 percent are White, compared
with 75 percent of total enrollment (NIE, 7-31-77). NIE
data also indicate that there is a significantly higher
proportion of minority group children in classrooms which
contain compensatory education students than in the dis-
tricts as a whole. The disproportionalities cited remain
basically constant across grades, although there is a
slight reduction in the percentage of White compensatory
education students and a comparable increase in Blacks in
grades 6-8 (NIE, 12-30-76).

Students who score low on standardized tests and
are thus placed in compensatory education proqrams are dis-
proportionately from low socioeconomic and minority groups.
As tests are the primary tools used for placement, the
result is that the compensatory education groups have com-

positions that are disproportionately minority and lower

41

socioeconomic status. Thus, resegregation results in those
schools that have been previously desegregated.

Placement practices may have the effect of reinforc-
ing discriminatory treatment of minority and poor children
by placing them into these low ability groups. School
systems which assign a disproportionate number of minority
group children to special education classes or to lower
ability compensatory groups are being required to justify
the imbalance (Oakland, 1974).

This problem has provided the basis for some inter-
esting litigation. The most noteworthy case involving the
resegregative effects of ability grouping and tracking is

Hobson v. Hansen (269F. Supp. 401). This case involved an

 

assault upon the ability grouping and tracking practices

of the Washington D.C. School System. Plaintiffs alleged
that these practices, in defiance of the constitution, dis-
criminated against poor and Black children. They presented
evidence to show how these practices indeed resulted in

resegregating the races. The court held, in Hobson v.

 

Hansen, that a system of grouping which places minority
students in the lower curriculum groups and that inhibits
movement between groups is unconstitutional. Judge Skelly
Wright ordered the abolishment of the Washington, D.C. track
system. The court further concluded that any system of
ability grouping, which fails to bring the great majority

of children into the mainstream of public education, denies

42

those children equal educational opportunity and, as such,
is unconstitutional.

A similar finding was noted in Larry P. v. Riles

 

(343 F. Supp. 1306, 1972), a case filed against the San
Francisco Unified School District. This case involved the
use of I.Q. tests for purposes of determining whether to
place Black students in classes for the educable mentally

retarded. Relying heavily on the Hobson v. Hansen decision,

 

the court ordered defendants to refrain from dependence on
I.Q. tests in placing Black students in EMR classes, if the
consequences of using this standard is racial imbalance in
the composition of the classes. The racial imbalance had
been demonstrated in the plaintiffs' statistics which noted
that 66 percent of all students in the San Francisco Unified
School Districts EMR programs were Black in comparison to
a Black population of only 28.5 percent overall in the dis-
trict. Similar overrepresentation was noted state wide.
Research studies designed to determine the effects
of racial mix in the classroom, have tended to support the
courts' decisions on the importance of racial balance in the
classroom. In a study of over 5,000 ninth grade Black
students, James McPartland (1968) found that
controlling for the percent of Whites enrolled in the
school does not eliminate the effect of differences in
classroom racial composition on Negro students
achievement. . . . This means that regardless of the
racial composition of the school, the average achieve-

ment of Negro students increases with the proportion
of their classmates who are White (pp. 95-96).

43

McPartland further stated (p. 98) that "an understanding of
the mechanisms which place Negroes in segregated classes
within desegregated schools is needed before the above
results can be accepted with confidence." Data show that
the likelihood of a Negro student having mostly White
classmates is a function of the program and of the track

or ability group in which he is enrolled. This supports the
notion that mere school desegregation does not provide for
equality of educational Opportunity without the further step
of desegregating the classroom. It suggests also, that the
negative impact of the segregated classroom may be greater
in the desegregated school than it is in those that remain
segregated. The above notion was supported by the U.S.

Commission on Civil Rights in its 1965 study Racial Isola-

 

tion in the Public Schools.

 

Hickerson (1963), in a California high school study,
attempted to learn whether minority and nonminority students
received similar kinds of educational experiences. He
found that proportionally, Negro representation in the
advanced English sections and the college preparatory curric-
ulum was lower than that of White, Mexican American, and
Filipino students.

Similarly, Rist (1978), in a case study approach to
analyze the integration of thirty Black students in the
Brush Elementary School in Portland, Oregon observed that,

despite the fact that the children were said to be "placed

44

in classes without regard to race, the Black students
usually ended up in the lower half of the class."

In a recent court ordered evaluation of the school
desegregation order in the Kalamazoo, Michigan Public
Schools (Green and Cohen, 1979), it was reported that Black
Junior High School students were overrepresented in the
slower reading classes while being underrepresented in the
regular English courses. These students were also under-
represented in the advanced mathematics courses and over-
represented in the regular and individual mathematics
classes. Racial disproportionality patterns were also noted
at the elementary school level where Blacks were overrepre-
sented in compensatory education programs during the years
1971 through 1978. In 1977-78 Blacks constituted 48.4 per-
cent of the enrollment in Title I classes as compared to an
overall elementary enrollment of 26 percent.

These figures are even more significant when one
notes that in 1977-78 other minorities accounted for 31.5
percent of the enrollment in Title I compensatory education
classes. Adding these two figures, it is evident that in
1977-78 minorities accounted for 79.9 percent of the
enrollment in Title I compensatory education in the Kalamazoo
Public Schools, while comprising only 30 percent of the
total elementary school population (Green and Cohen, 1979).

The National Institute of Education has included
placement practices as one of the mechanisms which enhance

resegregation in education. NIE views this problem as one

45

of its priority research concerns as educators begin to

deal with the second generation desegregation issues. In

an undated position paper on resegregation the institute
considered the long term effects of resegregative placement
practices "profound for life chances and adult opportunities"
(NIE, p. 22). As such, educators need be especially cauti-
ous that the schools are not using placement practices

which defeat the goals of equal educational opportunity
(Bash, 1961).

In a comprehensive review of the research on the
relationship between school desegregation and academic
achievement, Weinberg (1975) concluded that one of the
important factors which leads to dramatic gains in the
achievement of racial minorities in desegregated schools
is comparable desegregation at the classroom level and a
lack of rigid placement by ability.

The federal government is also concerned about
the impact of placement practices on the racial mix of stu-
dents in desegregated schools. In an effort to curtail
placement by ability, the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare established standards that require nondiscrimi-
natory tests and placement standards, and frequent reassess-
ment of mobility between groups. Districts may become
ineligible for certain funds if they maintain any practice,
such as ability grouping, that racially isolates students

(Mills and Bryant, 1976).

46

Even though the intent of these practices may not
be racially motivated and many are defended by school per-
sonnel as necessary for instructional efficiency and effec-
tiveness, the consequences indeed appear to disproportion-
ately relegate minority students to lower ability groupings,
such as compensatory education classes; and thus resegregate
them within the desegregated setting. "Substantial minority
overrepresentation in these programs is universally found,
no matter who undertakes the inquiry: education researchers,
litigants objecting to particular classification practices,
even state departments of education" (D. Kirp, 1973, p. 761).

Judge Skelly Wright, in his comments in Hobson v. Hansen,

 

sums up this behavior on the part of educators by stating
that "the arbitrary quality of thoughtlessness" can be just
as harmful and destructive to students as "the perversity of
a willful scheme" (296 F. Supp. at 496). Richard Nixon
termed it, "benign neglect." The courts and researchers
agree that such practices resegregate, are potentially
harmful to minority students and represent a denial of their

right to equality of educational opportunity.

Compensatory Education and Differentiation

 

Implicit in the idea of grouping and as such place-
ment practices is the concept of differentiation. Differ-
entiation refers to those school practices which render
differentiated judgements of academic worth or potential

and which create classes, classifications or categories of

47

students. Accomplishing differentiation includes such
practices as setting differential goals and objectives and
utilization of different instructional methods and curric-
ular materials which may ultimately limit student mobility
both within the school and in society. Although today's
American educational practices subscribe to the ideas of
differentiation, this has not always been the case.

Common Schools, the prevalent educational institu-
tion during the early nineteenth century, were built upon
a foundation of equity in education and to that end the goal
was to provide a common educational experience for all chil-
dren irrespective of background (Coleman, 1969). This
conception changed during the twentieth century as American
education began to educate children for differentiated occu-
pational roles in society (Hurn, 1978). This idea of equal—
ity became one of providing individual children with the
kind of program that best met their individual needs.
Coupled with the needs of an expanding industrial society,
the idea of differential education was enhanced and was
accomplished by a variety of placement procedures. Stu-
dents were tested, classified and assigned to programs with
curriculum designed to prepare them for "differential
destinies" (Brookover e; 31., 1974).

The importance of public education, as a means of
selection and channeling students through differential
educational experiences, was further enhanced in the 19505

by an emphasis on differentiated education for talented

48

youth and in the 1960s with a similar differentiation for
"disadvantaged" youth (Spring, 1976). Educational spokes-
persons, such as Dewey and Conant, were instrumental in pro-
liferating the idea of educating children according to indi-
vidual interests and needs. As a result, the concept of
equality became one of providing special educational pro-
grams that would provide equal chances for children of all
backgrounds. The differentiating functions, instead of the
unifying functions, became the mode (Gumbert and Spring,
1974) and individualization of instruction the primary
method. Reconciling this distinction between equality, as
equal access to a common curriculum, and individuality of
needs can be difficult in the classroom where teachers can—
not be sure whether the differentiation of work in order
to meet individual needs may not serve to recreate inequi-
ties which grouping was designed to avoid (HMI, 1978).
Brookover e5 31. (1974) have drawn this distinction
well in their presentation of two ideal types of educational
systems. A distinction is made between the equality-oriented
school and the differentiation-oriented school. In the
equality-oriented school, there is no formal identification
of differences or classification and labeling of students.
Students are randomly clustered and share common goals and
curriculum. On the other hand, in the differentiation-
oriented schools, there exists carefully planned systems
for identifying differences among students and policies and

practices which classify, label and assemble students for

49

individual instruction and differential goals and curriculum.
In the case of ideal types, rarely is a pure form present

in reality. Brookover ep 31. note, however, that the preva-
lent type of school in America fits the differentiation-
oriented model.

Based upon the idea of differences, students are
subsequently placed into programs, such as compensatory edu-
cation, which are designed to remedy these differences.
According to some, this practice serves to enhance the
differences rather than alleviate or diminish them.

The post Brown v. Board of Education era provides

 

still another focus on equality that is related to differ-
entiation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, ESEA, 1965, and
the Equality of Education Study placed emphasis on the
importance of educational outcomes as a measure of equality.
The idea that it was the states' obligation to provide equal
educational outcomes to all children began to receive some
acceptance. As in differentiation, it would appear that
the individualization of goals, curricular materials and
instructional methods, would not provide a situation that
affords equality of opportunity in the sense outlined above.
Attempts to provide equal educational outcomes may, in fact,
result in a denial of equal educational opportunity. This
position is well summarized by Brookover and Erickson.

The almost universal belief in limited learning abil-

ities and in the appropriateness of highly differenti-
ated levels of achieving much human behavior causes

50

many to believe that American education cannot and
should not be modified to enhance the achievement of
students labeled as slow learners. The current empha-
sis upon individual differences and the resulting
individualization of educational programs based upon
presumed differences in ability are not likely to pro—
duce change that will enhance the learning for all.
Most proposals for the improvement of American schools
are firmly based on this concept of wide differences
in ability to learn and the design of widely differen—
tiated and individualized programs of instruction.
Treatments and educational reform based upon this per-
ception are almost certain to enhance the differences
in learning rather than maximize the learning for all
(Brookover and Erickson, p. 384).

In short, treatment by differentiation or matching
individual differences and instructional strategies may
serve to maximize those differences. This situation is
particularly critical where ethnic group differences are
involved. Effectively providing specialized instruction
to certain students and not others, presents "prima facie
evidence of discrimination" against those children not pro-
vided the special instruction. They are denied equal pro-
tection of the laws (G. Ratner, 1974). These kinds of
assumptions about ability and remediation become apparent
when one carefully examines policy decisions such as those
that underlie programs of compensatory education.

An analysis of current educational policies at the
federal level reveals illustrations of quite conscious and
deliberate differentiation of students. While it is not the
intent of these policies to deny equal opportunity or harm
students, they may in practice do so.

Research conducted by the American Institute of

Research (AIR) on the degree of individualization and its

51

relationship to achievement, supports the Brookover—Erickson
statement. In their study of many federally supported pro-
grams, the institute researchers found no evidence that
individualization was substantially and positively corre-
lated with achievement. This data is interesting in light
of the fact that compensatory education programs focus on
individualization as a goal. In fact, the AIR data appears
to indicate that students enrolled in programs with the most
moderate emphasis on individualization showed the greatest
improvement (Longstep Study, 1976).

Similarly, AIR conducted a study to determine the
cognitive and the affective impact of bilingual education
on students in Spanish/English bilingual education projects
funded through ESEA Title VII. The results showed that the
fall to fall achievement gains in English, reading and in
mathematics computation were "neither significantly nor sub-
stantially different" from what would have been expected
without participation in a Title VII Project (AIR, 1978,

p. 13).

The Instructional Dimensions Study, mentioned pre-
viously (Kirschner, 1977), defined individualized instruc—
tion as the use of instructional strategies such as matching
students to curriculum levels by the use of pretests and
mastery tests, testing practices, assignment and grouping
practices, use of alternative learning routes for students
with learning difficulties and sequencing and pacing through

instructional materials. The study found that for both

52

compensatory and noncompensatory education students in
first grade reading and for the full sample of students in
first grade reading and math, "the individualization ele-
ment is not an important predictor of achievement as a
unique source."

These studies appear to suggest that there is
limited value, in terms of achievement gains, in programs
like compensatory education that differentiate among stu-
dents by individualization and differentiation.

In an investigation of mixed ability grouping prac—
tices in England, Her Majesty's Inspectorate, acknowledging
the existence of differentiation in objectives, teaching
materials and methods stated that: "It is important that
any differentiations in tasks and expectations on the part
of teachers are made in a spirit which does not suggest that
the work of these pupils is less worthwhile" (p. 65).

These investigators further stated that in mixed
ability classifications, certain difficulties remain for
the academically weak.

Where they are regularly withdrawn from lessons in
order to receive extra training in the basic skills,
their ability to benefit from the lessons in these
subjects they do attend is rapidly reduced to none.
It is clearly essential that there should be close
liaison between those responsible for remedial edu-
cation and staff in other subject departments and
that withdrawal programs are carefully coordinated
so as not to compound failure in some directions,
while attempting to treat it in others.

These comments appear to suggest that HMI was con-

cerned about the potential negative impact of differentiated

53

goals, objectives and curriculum on the student and the
problem associated with pull out instruction. Relating
these statements to the high percentage of pull out pro-
grams in compensatory education, one wonders if this policy
is indeed capable of providing any real benefits, inclusive
or exclusive of equal educational opportunity.

Instructional differences between groups were
observed by Heathers (Cited in Persell, 1977, p. 89), who
noted that teachers stressed the acquisition of facts and
used rote drill when dealing with "slow learners," while
using approaches that emphasized concepts and independent
projects with high ability students. Heathers also noted
a nationwide study by Squire which revealed that English
teachers used monotonous, humdrum and uncreative instruc-
tional methods with "slow learning" sections.

Persell (p. 90) also discussed a study by Keddie on
streaming in the British comprehensive schools. This study
highlighted the fact that students in different streams
received different educational content within the same
curriculum. For example, Persell notes that in a class in
economics the A-stream (High Ability Group) would be taught
how different types of taxation work, while the C-stream
(Lower Ability Group) would be taught how to complete a tax
form. Stein (1971), in expressing a similar notion, dis-
cusses how the kindergarten Black and Puerto Rican children
are taught "to hang up their clothes and take turns while

White children are taught numbers and letters." The

54

question might be posed as to whether the same or similar
differences exist in U.S. compensatory and regular classes.
As noted earlier, research in placement by ability
has tended to show that there are slight improvements in
the academic performance of the high ability students and
substantial losses for the average and low groups. The con-
clusion is generally that it was the classification by
ability that led to these changes in achievement. Little
consideration is given to the possibility that gains by the
higher groups may result from differential curriculum
content, goals, objectives and/or instructional methods
provided to these groups and not provided to the other
groups. It appears, from the studies cited by Persell, that
students in the higher groups have access to those instruc~
tional methods that are most valued in education, and that
they are also provided with curriculum content that is more
advanced. This may result, as in the instance of compensa—
tory education programs, in widening the gap in educational
achievement betweendifferentially treated students and

limit the potential for student mobility. Hobson v. Hansen

 

addressed the issue of limited student mobility within a
track system that provided a "watered down" curriculum to
lower ability students in the Washington, D.C. schools:

More importantly, each track offers a substantially
different kind of education, both in pace of learning
and in scope of subject matter. . . . For a student
locked into one of the lower tracks, physical separa-
tion from those in other tracks is of course, complete,
insofar as classroom relationships are concerned, and
the limits on his academic progress and ultimately, the

55

kind of life work he can hope to attain after gradua-

tion, are set by the orientation of the lower curric-

ulum. . . . In theory, since tracking is supposed to

be kept flexible, relatively few students should actu-
ally ever be 1ocked into a single track or curriculum.
Yet, in violation of one of its principal tenets, the

track system is not flexible at all.

The evidence cited appears to suggest that the
practice of placing students by ability may result in dif-
ferentiated curriculum and instructional methods which can
lead to an increase in achievement differences between the
students. Rosenbaum (1976) has noted that in addition to
the effect that tracking has on such variables as school
participation, friendship choices and social stereotypes,
this system also "actually influences students' IQs in ways
that support the operation of the track system" (p. 13).
Even though these practices may be instituted to serve
legitimate pedagogical aims or to meet the statutory
requirements of legislative mandates, such as Title I and
Article 3, they may in reality, function to restrict stu-
dent opportunities for mobility by locking them into dif-
ferential educational experiences which do little to
improve their skills and may even assist in maintaining and
promoting the variations that led to the initial placement.

Thus in compensatory education programs, placement may serve

to defeat the goals of equality of educational opportunity.

Summary

This literature review suggests that the compensa—

tory education policies and programs implemented in the

56

United States may have a latent function of resegregation
and differentiation of students which may serve to defeat
the goals of equality of educational opportunity. This
review further indicates that the implementation of com-
pensatory education programs such as Title I of the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act and Article 3 of
Michigan Public Act 94, may lead to grouping practices which
reduce the range of academic ability in the instructional
unit and may concentrate minority students in some class-
rooms and programs within a desegregated school. The out-
comes of this racial disproportionality, appear, in large
part, contrary to the national goal of equality of educa-
tional opportunity.

This chapter has also discussed the differentiation
practices that may occur with the implementation of com-
pensatory education programs. The research suggests that
these practices may result in denial of equal educational
opportunity by differentiating among students in the learn-
ing objectives that are set, the expectations held and the
instruction provided.

In Chapter III, the methods by which this phenom-
enon was examined in one midwestern school district will

be outlined and instrumentation will be explained.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Introduction

 

In this chapter the school district, in which the
study was conducted, will be described along with specifi-
cations regarding the sample schools selected from this
population. DemOgraphics on the participating staff mem-
bers will also be presented. The instruments and proce-
dures developed for data collection will be discussed.
Finally, the research questions and criteria for analysis

of the data will be put forth.

The Setting

 

This study was conducted in a medium sized, mid-
western, urban school district that had been ordered by the
court to desegregate. In September, 1971, the Board of
Education of this district appointed a Citizens Advisory
Committee on Educational Opportunity and charged them with
the task of developing a desegregation plan and timetable
for the district. Their report, modified by the Board of
Education, was adopted in June 1972 in spite of opposition

by a citizens group for neighborhood schools. The four

57

58

phase desegregation plan called for geographic clusters of
elementary schools, busing, and demographic studies of the
district to determine what schools had racially imbalanced
enrollments. The citizens group against this plan, mean-
while, successfully filed recall petitions against the five
Board members who voted for the cluster desegregation plan
and in the November 1972 election, these five members were
recalled from office. Later, five candidates endorsed by
the opposition group were elected.

The newly constituted board quickly voted to repeal
the cluster desegregation plan but the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People requested a restrain-
ing order and the judge issued a preliminary injunction
ordering the Board to reinstate the plan during the 1973-
74 school year. That school year saw the expansion of the
cluster desegregation plan and in the following year evalu-
ation indicated that the programs were working well.

In October 1975, the school board rejected a plan
calling for final desegregation of all elementary schools
and for the desegregation of a newly constructed elementary
building. The case went to trial in Federal District Court.

In issuing his opinion, the judge noted that the
district had been operating a dual school system and
ordered the district to submit a comprehensive desegrega-
tion plan that would end racial isolation in the district.
A Board appeal was denied in 1977 when a three judge panel

of the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued

59

a ruling upholding the lower court's 1976 finding of
liability against the district. Still determined to fight
the decision, the Board appealed the decision to the U.S.
Supreme Court which refused to hear it, leaving the district
obliged to fully implement desegregation.

The urban school district in question had a student
population in grades kindergarten through 12 of over 26,000
pupils in the 1979-80 school year. Of this total approxi-
mately 67 percent were Caucasian, 21 percent Black, 9 per—
cent Spanish surnamed, 1 percent Asian, and 1 percent of
American Indian descent. Approximately 23 percent of the
elementary students, 19 percent of the junior high students
and 12 percent of the senior high students were from fam-
ilies considered to be low income by the district's standard
of the proportion of the total enrollment from families
receiving assistance under the Aide to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) program.

The district was comprised of forty-one elementary
schools, five junior high schools and four senior high
schools. Twenty of the district's elementary schools were
involved in the 1975 U.S. District Court order to implement
the cluster desegregation plan. It employs over fifteen
hundred teachers and over one hundred principals and other
administrative personnel.

The district operated in 1978—79 with an annual
general fund budget of over sixty million dollars of which

about 80 percent came from a combination of state basic aid

60

and local property taxes. Federal and state compensatory
education programs operated in the district provided
revenues, during the 1978-79 school year, of over seven and
a half million dollars. -Among the federal and state com-
pensatory education programs in this district are Title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and
Article 3 of Michigan Public Act 94.

Part A of ESEA Title I, as it operates in this dis—
trict, is designed to assist underachieving students living
in low income areas. The purpose of programs funded under
part A are to increase these students' skill levels in read-
ing and mathematics. The district budgeted over two million
dollars for the program during the 1979-80 school year and
served over three thousand students. During the 1978-79
school year, the districtserved approximately 2,300 stu-
dents under the program of whom about 54 percent were non-
white. This was at a time when nonwhite students consti-
tuted 33 percent of the district's students.

Students eligible for programs funded under Title I
in this district are identified at the building level and
according to district guidelines should be selected based
upon lowest achievement in reading and mathematics. This
determination, by building staff, is made in several ways.
Selection of kindergarten and first grade students is pri-
marily based on teacher judgement. In grades two through

six the district staff outlined several possible means for

61

building staff to use during the 1979-80 school year. These
include the following:
(1) Past Participation in Title I Program.
(2) District Instructional Guidance Plan.
(3) Diagnostic testing from basal series or supple-
mental materials.
(4) Preschool testing for kindergartners.
(5) Michigan Education Assessment Program results for
upper elementary students.

Whatever means is decided upon ultimately building
staff must objectively rank order all students by grade and
those students who have been defined as having the greatest
academic need must be provided Title I services first.

The District Instructional Guidance Plan is used
to select the learning objectives for Title I students and
also serves as a means of evaluating the success the stu-
dents experience in meeting their objectives. This system
uses a mastery approach (test-teach-test) to learning which
is composed of 135 kindergarten through grade 6 reading
objectives and 155 kindergarten through grade 6 mathematics
objectives.

The instructional program of Title I, which provides
services in reading and/or mathematics has cognitive objec—
tives of sixteen new District Instructional Guidance Plan
reading and/or sixteen new District Instructional Guidance
Plan mathematics objectives for the school year. In 1979,

slightly over 50 percent of Title I students served in the

62

district gained sixteen or more objectives in reading while
nearly 70 percent gained sixteen or more District Instruc-
tional Guidance Plan mathematics objectives (Table 3.1).

District data indicated a substantial increase in
the percentage of Title I eligible students achieving six-
teen or more reading objectives from 1976-77 to 1978-79
while noting little change in mathematics achievement for
the same period (Appendix A). It should be noted that
Table 3.1 provides only information regarding the number of
objectives mastered with no indication of the level of these
objectives.

Like Title I of ESEA, Article 3 of the Michigan
School Aid Act provides formal assistance to districts for
programs designed to improve the cognitive (reading and
mathematics skills) skills of low achieving students. All
of the elementary schools in this district receive Article
3 funds. The district budgeted over $900,000 for this pro-
gram during the 1979-80 school year. During the 1978-79
school year over 3,000 students participated in Article 3
programs. Approximately 50 percent of these students were
nonwhite at a time when nonwhite students constituted 33
percent of students district wide.

Article 3 eligible participants are identified by
ranking all students in one building according to their
scores on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT). The quota
of Article 3 eligible students per building is set by the

district and is filled by selecting those students with the

63

 

 

m.mm m.o~ s.w m.m m.ma GOSH gums H manna
N.om m.m~ N.VH s.m s.mH moms manemmm H manna
mm>Huomflno mm>flyomflno mm>Huomnno mm>flpommno mm>womwmw COHUHHAU
one: no on mauoa mum ego .n .no no anemone
mo Hwnfisz
msflcflmw m mcflcflmo w mcflcflmw w mcficwmw w mmmum>¢ Honesz

 

.msma mm: .H manna
SH ucmfim>mfl£o¢ moapmfimnumz\mcflpmmm swam wocmpflsw HmcoflposuumcH DUMHDwHDII.H.m magma

64

lowest Stanford Achievement Test scores until the quota is
reached. Schools receive approximately two hundred dollars
for each Article 3 eligible student in the building and
funds may be used to provide those services considered
necessary by the local building staff to improve reading
and mathematics skills of the eligible students.‘

Like Title 1, Article 3 cognitive objectives and
evaluation criteria are based upon the District Instruc-
tional Guidance Plan and students are expected to gain
sixteen new District Instructional Guidance Plan reading
and sixteen new District Instructional Guidance Plan mathe-
matics objectives during the school year. In 1979, district-
wide, 51.6 percent of the Article 3 eligible students gained
sixteen or more objectives in reading while 65.6 percent
gained sixteen or more of the mathematics objectives (see
Table 3.2).

According to district data, the number of students
achieving sixteen or more objectives in Article 3 programs
has shown an overall increase from 1976 to 1979 (Appendix A).
Like Title I, the district gives no indication of the level

of these objectives.

Description of the Sample Schools

 

Due to the fact that the policies and programs under
consideration (desegregation, Title I and Article 3) exist
in this district primarily at the elementary level, the

population for this study was limited to elementary schools

65

 

m.mm m.HN m.m h.m m.wH vamm SDME

G.Hm m.s~ ~.eH e.o m.mH «Hmm manemmm

 

pmcflmw

mm>HpomflQO mm>flwomnno mm>fluomnno mm>fluomnno mm>auomnno amupaflzu m maoauud
ago: no es mfiuoa mum auo mo.nmnssz no sausage
mcflcwmw w mcflcflmw m mcflcflmu w mcficflmw w mmmum>¢ HmQEsz

 

.mnma we: .mEmHmOHm m macauufi
CH ucoao>mfi£o¢ apmz\mcflpnwm swam cocooflsw accowuosuumcH uoauumflaln.m.m manna

66

in the district. From a list of the district's forty-one
elementary schools, the researcher identified criteria for
grouping the schools.

First, schools were dichotomized based upon whether
or not they had been included in the cluster arrangement of
the desegregation plan. As mentioned, twenty elementary
schools fell into the former category leaving twenty-one in
the latter category. The twenty cluster desegregated
schools all received funds under the Emergency School Aid
Act (ESAA, 1972) which provides financial assistance

to meet the special needs incident to the elimination
of minority group segregation, to encourage the volun-
tary elimination, reduction or prevention of minority
group isolation in elementary and secondary schools
with substantial proportions of minority group students
and to aid school children in overcoming the educa-
tional disadvantages of minority group isolation
(Section 702, Emergency School Aid Act).

Secondly, the schools were divided based upon the
presence or absence of the ESEA Title I compensatory educa-
tion programs. Twelve schools involved in an ongoing
research project associated with a major eastern university
were excluded from this study. Finally, five additional
schools participating in other major research efforts or
special programs were also excluded. The remaining twenty—
four elementary schools comprise the population of schools
under study.

These twenty—four schools were grouped into three

categories as follows:

67

Category A

 

Those schools that had both ESAA programs and the ESEA
Title I programs. Seven of the twenty-four schools
fell into this category.

Category B

 

Those schools that did not have ESAA programs but did
have the Title I program. Eight of the schools fell
into this category.

Category C

 

Those schools that had neither ESAA or Title I programs.
Nine schools fell into this category.

It will be recalled that all of the elementary
schools in this district participated in the Article 3 pro—
gram. Each school in each category was assigned a number
and using a table of random numbers, one school from each
category was selected for the three school sample.

District evaluation personnel were informed of the
three schools selected for study and their approval as well
as the approval of the three school principals and a dis-
trict review committee was obtained. The schools are iden-
tified as School A, School B, and School C consistent with
the selection categories outlined earlier.

School A is an elementary school serving approxi-
mately 300 students in grade kindergarten through grade four.
The student population in 1979 was 56 percent Caucasian, 10
percent Latino, 32 percent Black, and 2 percent Asian.

Approximately 30 percent of the students were from families

68

receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
This percentage is slightly above the district AFDC per-
centage of 27.5.

The school receives funds from ESAA, Title I and
Article 3 as well as several other special categorical aid
programs (Migrant, Indian, Bilingual). In 1979-80 approxi-
mately $42,000 was budgeted for Title I and over $11,000
for Article 3 programs. The number of pupils expected to
participate only in Title I programs in 1979-80 was eighty-
four, none for Article 3 only, and fifty-nine students were
expected to participate in both Article 3 and Title I.

School B is an elementary school serving approxi-
mately 300 students in grades kindergarten through grade
six. The student population in 1979-80 was 61 percent
Caucasian, 9 percent Latino, 29 percent Black, and 2 percent
American Indian. Approximately 26.5 percent of the stu-
dents were from families receiving Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) which is slightly below the
district average of 27.5 perCent.

The school receives funds under Title I and Article
3 as well as several other categorical aid programs (Migrant,
Indian, Bilingual). In 1979-80, $57,202 was budgeted for
Title I and $16,085 for Article 3 programs. The number of
pupils expected to participate only in Title I for 1979-80
was 114, none for Article 3 only and eighty-two expected

in both programs.

69

School C is an elementary school serving approxi-
mately 350 students in grades kindergarten through grade
six. The student population in 1979 was 75 percent Caucas-
ian, 1 percent Latino, 24 percent Black and 1 percent Ameri-
can Indian. Approximately 18 percent of the students were
from families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) well below the district average of 27.5
percent.

The school receives funds under Article 3 and other
categorical aid programs such as Migrant, Indian and Bilin-
gual. In 1979-80, $13,731 was budgeted for Article 3
expenditures and seventy students were expected to partici-

pate.

Instruments

 

The instruments specifically developed for this

study included five interview guides and the Student Educa-

 

tional Experience Observation Form. Interview guides were

 

developed for use in interviewing central administrative
personnel, compensatory education instructional staff,
principals and regular classroom teachers (Schedules A and
B). The purpose of these five interview instruments was to
guide the interviews of district and local personnel in an
attempt to elicit responses appropriate to the seven~
research questions posed in this study. The interview
guides consisted of a variety of questions which focused on

aspects of resegregation and differentiation in the

70

compensatory education programs under study. The interview
guides were composed of questions which were designed to
allow for maximal flexibility in recording a variety of
interviewee responses. Common questions were included in
the interview guides of the various personnel types. Other
questions were also included which were directed at a spe-
cific personnel type and their particular roles in the
implementation of the programs under study.

The Student Educational Experience Observation Form

 

was developed for use by observers in recording student
educational experiences. The purpose of these observations
was to provide a first hand View of the implementation of
the programs under consideration. The format allowed the
observer to record periodically the demographics of the
students educational experience in terms of the subject
taught, size of instructional group, racial composition of
instructional group, location of the instruction, whether
instruction was regular or compensatory and who was pro-
viding the instruction.

The instruments were developed with the assistance
of Michigan State University, College of Urban Development
researchers, professors of sociology, education and geog-
raphy and school district evaluation personnel. Additionally
literature in the area of evaluation of compensatory educa-
tion programs and specific research from the National Insti-
tute of Education, Kirschner Associates and the Kalamazoo

Michigan School Desegregation Evaluation provided direction

71

for the development of specific items and response sets.

Copies of the instruments used can be found in Appendix B.

Procedures

 

Three basic procedures were utilized to obtain
the information reported in this study: the focused inter-
view, observations and review of related district docu-
ments, proposals and reports.

Individual focused interviews were conducted with
selected central office personnel, principals from the
sample schools, compensatory education instructional staff
and regular classroom teachers in the sample schools.

Using the interview guides, the interviewer elicited
responses to the items and recorded them. Teachers and
aides volunteered for the interviews and were paid a modest
honorarium for the time they spent with the interviewer.
Interviews were conducted with school staffs during the
Spring of 1979 before school hours, during the lunch hour,
and after school hours at the school building and lasted
from thirty to sixty minutes each. Central office inter-
views were scheduled during the normal work day and usually
at the central location. Three principals, thirteen central
administrators, thirty-one teachers and seventeen instruc-
tional aides were interviewed for this study.

Observations of students' educational experiences
were conducted with students randomly selected from the

target lists of compensatory education students at each of

72

the sample schools. The purpose of these observations was
to compare and contrast the educational experiences of stu-
dents involved in 0, 1 or 2 compensatory education programs
and to provide information to supplement the interviewer's

data. Observers, using the Student Educational Experience

 

Observation Form, conducted one day unobtrusive observa-

 

tions of these randomly selected students. Ten students
were observed in this study.

In School A four students were observed, one who
was involved in Title I and Article 3 programs, one
involved in only the Title I programs, one involved in the
Article 3 program only and one who was not involved in any
compensatory education program. In School B, four students
were observed, one student from each of the following cate-
gories: Title I program only, Article 3 program only,
Article 3 and Title I programs and no program participation.
In School C two students were observed; one was involved in
the Article 3 program and the other did not participate in
any categorical program. Observers recorded, in fifteen
minute intervals, the educational experiences of the
randomly selected children according to the following:

(1) Subject taught (study or free period, physical educa—
tion or recess, art or music, mathematics related activity,
reading related activity or other subject. (2) Location
of the instruction (within the regular classroom, hallway,
cafeteria, library, resource room or lab, special learning

room or other location. (3) Type of instructor (regular

73

teacher, specialist, aide, parent volunteer, students,
others). (4) Size of the instructional group. (5) Racial
composition of the instructional group, and (6) Whether the
instruction was regular or compensatory.

The third procedure used, that of reviewing written
materials, involved the gathering and reading of a variety
of district publications to locate information related to
the research questions. Among the most important documents
reviewed were the following: Title I and Article 3 funding
applications, compensatory education target lists, Title
I Needs Assessment, Principals Handbook of Compensatory
Education Programs, Evaluation of Elementary Categorical
Programs, Paraprofessional Handbook for Compensatory Educa-
tion Programs, Elementary Education Instructional Guidance
Plan Handbook, School District Achievement Analysis and
Appendices, and numerous memorandums and brochures regarding
such topics as school and student eligibility for compensa-
tory education programs, desegregation history and district

budgets.

Staff Description

 

The staff interviewed for this study consisted of a
total of thirty—one teachers, three principals, thirteen
central administrators and seventeen instructional aides.
All volunteered to participate. Demographic data for per-

sonnel in these categories is included in Table 3.3.

74

 

 

 

Am.O. O O H~.OOV O O .o.nm no .o.nm
.0.00 m .m.mmv H O AN.OO m umHHmHommm
Am.O~O OH .m.mmv H H0.000 m A0.0HO O muHomHo + mg no as
AO.mmO OH .m.mmO H A0.0HO m AH.O~O OH m2 Ho <2
.0.0HO O O O .0.0H. O muHomHo + 4m
H0.0. O O O Am.ov m mmmH no 4m
A0.00 O O O 1m.~H. O mHHOmHo mmmHHoo + .m.m
HO.mHO OH O O A0.0NO OH mmmH no .m.m
COHumoDUm mo Hw>wq
.H.mO N O A0.00 H 1H.NO H oHcmmmHm
AO.mOO OO H0.00H. m Am.HOO O AH.OO. Om manz
.O.H~O OH O A0.0m. O .0.0~. OH HomHm
000m
H0.00. OO O .H.OOO O A0.000 me onsmm
10.m~. mH H0.00HO m 10.mmv O .0.0HO m onz
xmm
Aucmoummv Anaconda. Awmmwuwmv Awwmwuwmv
Om n m u s n I
Hmuoa mammwocflum muoumuumflcflapfl mmcflé

moammo Hmnucmu paw muwnomma

 

.pmzwfl>nmucH wwmum mo

moanmmnmoEoolu.m.m manme

75

 

 

 

AN.OHV HH 0 As.hv H Hm.om. 0H whom» m swap mmoq

H0.0HO O O 1O.OOO O A0.00 O mamas Oum

HO.OO. OH O .O.OO. O 1O.OH. O when» OHIO

.H.OOO OH O HO.OHO O H0.000 OH mumms OHIOH

AO.mmv mH Ho.OOHV m HO.mHV m Hm.om. 0H muse» mH snap who:
mocmfluwmxm wumow

Hucmoummv Anamonwm. Aucmoummv Hucmouwmv

O@ u c m u a muo MM MHGHE mwmua

Hmuoa mHmmflocHHm u u . . pd p.¢

moHHHo Hmnucmo

paw mnmnomoB

 

.Ooseanoouu.O.O mHnme

76

The thirty-one teachers participating in the study
consisted of twenty regular classroom elementary school
teachers, five compensatory education teachers and six
other teachers including special education teachers, speech
teachers and one elementary school counselor. Eighty-seven
percent of the teachers were female and 74 percent were
Caucasian. Eight minority teachers were included in the
study, all were female and six were regular classroom
teachers. Approximately 71 percent of the teachers had
attained an educational level of masters degree or above
and 81 percent had seven or more years of teaching experi-
ence.

The principals were all male Caucasians with an
average of 23.6 years of administrative experience and had
attained at least a masters degree.

Central office administrators were primarily male
(54 percent) and Caucasian (62 percent) with 54 percent hav-
ing seven or more years of central office experience. All
were employed in positions directly related to the Title I
and Article 3 programs.

All of the instructional aides were female and 18
percent were minority. All of the minority instructional
aides were employed at School A. Thirty-five percent of the
instructional aides had less than three years of experience
and 59 percent had attained an educational level of a high

school degree or less.

77

Description of the Students Observed
The students observed in this study consisted of
eight fourth grade students and two third grade students.
Of these students, two were Latino, four were Black and
four were Caucasian. There were five males and five
females.> Seven of these students were enrolled in compensa—

tory education programs.

Research Questions

 

The following questions were addressed to determine
the latent functions of Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and Article 3 of the Michigan Public
Act 94 at the local school level as related to the overall
goal of equality of educational opportunity with a specific

interest in the aspects of resegregation and differentiation.

Resegregation

 

1. How are the children to be provided with compensa-
tory education services identified?

2. Who receives compensatory education services?

3. What is the location of the instructional services

provided?

Differentiation.

 

1. Is the aggregate of objectives expected to be
achieved during-the school year the same or differ-
ent for compensatory and noncompensatory education

students?

78

2. Are the expectations for mastery of objectives the
same or different for compensatory education and
noncompensatory education students?

3. Is the instruction provided for compensatory educa-
tion students and noncompensatory education students
the same or different in regards to
a. Who provides the instruction
b. Level of instructional materials
c. Curriculum covered

4. To what extent does the presence of compensatory
education programs in the sample schools exacerbate
the differences in instruction provided to compen—
satory and noncompensatory education students?

In order to answer the research questions regarding
resegregation, it was necessary to gather information from
district and school documents regarding the numbers and
racial and/or ethnic characteristics of students enrolled
in and eligible for the Title I and Article 3 programs.
Data was collected from the sample schools' compensatory
education target lists to determine the number of students
served and their racial and/or ethnic characteristics for
each grade as well as these same data for the school as a
whole. Questions were incorporated into the interview
schedules which addressed selection, eligibility and resegre—
gation. Respondents were asked to respond to questions
regarding the racial composition of the district, school or

classroom and to questions addressing minority student

79

representation in compensatory education programs. Observa—
tions also focused on the racial composition of the instruc-
tional groups in order to observe first hand whether or not
there were differences in the racial composition of regular
and compensatory education classes.

Interview questions were developed to determine if
differentiation existed as a latent function of the objec-
tives set for Title I and Article 3 students, of the expec-
tations held for these students and of the instruction pro-
vided to these students. Responses of the various personnel
types who were interviewed were used to make determinations
regarding the existence of differentiation in objectives,
expectations and instruction. Interview questions also
were developed to determine staff opinions regarding the
possible exacerbation of differentiation that may be a
result of the implementation of Title I and Article 3 pro-
grams. In instances where written documentation existed

on these topics, it was also incorporated into the data.

Analysis

This study represents one case of a school district's
interpretation and implementation of Title I of the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act and Article 3 of
Michigan Public Act 94. The purpose of the data collection
effort was to provide background information for a more
comprehensive study and will be presented in a descriptive

manner. The demographic data on student participation in

80

the two programs were not drawn from samples but repre-
sented totals for the school district. In this instance,
it was not appropriate to apply probability sample statistics.

For the determination of resegregation, the criterion
used was a variance of 15 percent or more from the district,
school or classroom racial composition. This standard
coincides with the Michigan Board of Education's "Guidelines
on Integrated Education Within School Districts" and has
been used by the Office of Civil Rights of the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare. The district, school or
classroom percentages of minority students were determined
and a 15 percent range of deviation above and below was
used to determine resegregation. Where minority partici-
pation and eligibility figures were within the range,
desegregation was considered present, above the range was
considered as resegregated and below represented segregated
White.

The decisions regarding differentiation were to some
extent arbitrarily determined. The interview data revealed
whether or not the various staff members applied differenti-
ated learning objectives, instruction and expectations to
compensatory and noncompensatory students. Since the
respondents were not a random sample of a total population,
the usual tests of significance were inappropriate. The
interview data was treated as information given by reason-
ably informed participants in the system. The criteria for

decision making regarding differentiation was based upon the

81

predominant evidence obtained from the various sources.
Where the informants agreed on the ways in which the pro-
grams operated, their responses were reported as the fact
for the district. Where disagreement existed among the
respondents, the discrepancies are reported as such.

The descriptive analysis will present combined
information from the three sample schools. Where discrep—
ancies exist between schools, they will be noted and

described.

Summary

This study was conducted in a medium sized, urban
school district located in a midwestern state. Three ele-
mentary schools were randomly selected from the district's
elementary schools and staff members from these schools
volunteered to be interviewed. Instruments were developed
to guide the interview sessions. In addition to the staff
of the sample schools, selected district personnel were
also interviewed. A variety of written district documents
were also reviewed.

Observations of the educational experiences of ten

students were made using the Student Educational Experience

 

Observation Form which was developed for this study. Stu-

 

dents' experiences were recorded by the observers in fifteen
minute intervals. In Chapter IV the findings of this study

will be presented.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Resegregation

In addressing the issue of resegregation the research
questions were directed toward examining the nature of the
selection process which determined student eligibility for
the compensatory education programs under study. Informa-
tion was elicited also regarding the outcomes of these
selection processes in terms of the racial-ethnic charac—
teristics of the students selected. Finally, the researcher
sought information regarding the location of the instruc—
tional services provided and the impact of these locational
decisions upon the racial/ethnic characteristics of the
instructional groups.

Eligibility Determination for
Compensatory Education Programs

 

 

Review of district documents clearly indicated the
importance that test data played in determining Title I
and Article 3 eligible students. Table 4.1 summarizes the
selection criteria used during the 1978—79 school year.
Below grade level achievement was specified as a selection
criterion for Title I and Article 3 students and the

82

   

83

.x poanumflo Hoonom .mmOH>me coHumsHm>m
mo unflwmo mhnmhmH .mEmnqoum HmUHHommumo mumucwEmHm mo coflumnHm>m ads

 

numE Ho\©am OCH
upmmu .B.4.m map OHo

mHHucmouom BHOO

may BonQ Ho um

on pupa mucmpsum .N

 

mm>auomnno name some mono
mUHQ Boa :mmuxwm upcmuum mEoosH
uo\Ucm mcflpmmu 30H m SH mpfimmn
AOHQ 3oz :wmuxflm meE musmpsum .H gum: Ho\cco mcHUmmm H mHuHB
gums
mm>HD bum mcflpmou CH
nomnno numE meo 3m: uww3oH mnu mcoEm
cmmuxflm pan ocfipmmn on umsE mmuoom
meQ 3m: cmwuxflm .B.m.m .mpsmpsum .H gun: can maflpmom m mHOHuum
mm>fluomnno m>HuHcmoo MHHODHHU coHuomHmm om>nmm Emumonm

Hmvmmud ucwucou

 

..OO-OOOH .O mHOHuua cam H mHHHs .mHumuHuo coHHomHmO--.H.O mHnms

84

Stanford Achievement Test, a standardized commercial test
in mathematics and reading, was used as the determining
measure. These measures were used only with students in
grades two through six as the test is not administered in
this district to kindergarten and grade one students. In
the instance of kindergarten and first grade students,
teacher judgement was used to satisfy the achievement
criterion.

The following year, in 1979-80, the district changed
its selection procedures for Title I eligibility due to man—
dates from the U.S. Office of Education and the Michigan
Department of Education. The mandates required first of
all that evaluations of ESEA Title I programs for grades
two through six be based upon norm referenced tests. The
district had previously used the District Instructional
Guidance Plan criterion referenced tests for evaluation.

The kindergarten and first grade procedures were not
affected by the mandates and selection remained based upon
teacher judgement and evaluation using the District Instruc—
tional Guidance Plan. For grades 2—6 however, the USOE and
MDE mandate required that the district no longer use the
same test for selection as it used for evaluation and that
the DIGP not be used for evaluation. Consequently, in

order to utilize the SAT, a norm referenced test, as the
pre- and posttest evaluation tool, it was necessary for the

district to make student selections using other instruments.

‘u‘

 

85

In a May 22, 1979 memo from the Office of Evaluation Ser—
vices to Title I principals the following statement was put
forth (Selps, 1979).

The selection of students in grades two through six must
be based on something other than the S.A.T. This is the
most difficult problem we will have to address. The
purpose of selection is to identify students with the
greatest academic need. The instrument must objectively
rank order all students by grade. After rank ordering
all students, those students who you have defined as

in most academic need must be provided Title I services
first. There exist several means which we can use
including the following:

 

 

1. Past participation in the Title I program.
2. District Instructional Guidance Plan 1
3. Diagnostic testing from basal series or supple— 1
mental materials.
4. Pre school testing for kindergartners.
5. MEAP results for upper elementary students.
Elementary administrators were asked to respond
to the May 22 memo by completing a worksheet which described
how their school would select Title I target students.
School A reported that they would use teacher judgement in
grade kindergarten and grade one, that the Gates-MacGinitie
reading tests would be used in the selection of second,
third and fourth grade Title I reading participants and the
DIGP mathematics tests would be used in those grades for
Title I mathematics selection. School B proposed the use
of teacher judgement and pre school testing (if needed) for
grades kindergarten and one, while using the Gates-
MacGinitie Reading Tests for Title I reading and Creative
Publications Placement Tests for Title I mathematics in

grades two through six. School C did not provide Title I

programs.

86

Article 3 student selection criteria for all
schools in this district was determined by ranking all
students in each school from highest to lowest on their
S.A.T. scores. A school quota was assigned from the Dis-
trict based upon funds available and was filled at the
building level by selecting students with the lowest combined
reading and mathematics scores on the S.A.T. Starting at
the bottom and moving up on the ranked list, students were
selected for the Article 3 program until the building quota
was reached.

The selection process described in school district
documents was verified in interviews with the principals.
All principals clearly indicated the means by which stu-
dents were selected for Title I and Article 3 participation.
Similarly, all central office administrators interviewed
were aware of the criteria. Teachers were aware of the
existence of compensatory education programs in their schools
and both teachers and instructional aides were familiar with
the selection processes used. When questioned regarding
familiarity with the criteria used to select students for
participation in the programs, 87.5 percent of the teachers
and instructional aides indicated knowledge of these cri-
teria.

All of the regular classroom teachers interviewed
indicated they had students in their classrooms who par-
ticipated in the Title I and Article 3 programs. Staff

members indicated knowledge of the tests used to select

87

participants for the programs and of the various cut off
points and quotas operating in their schools. Rarely were
criteria other than standardized achievement test scores,
criterion referenced test scores or teacher judgement cited
by respondents. In some instances instructional aides indi—
cated that economics (AFDC eligibility) was used as a selec-
tion criterion. This incorrect response occurred in 23.5
percent of the interviews with instructional aides.

There appeared to be a high level of familiarity
among staff regarding the criteria used for the selection
of Title I and Article 3 students and the information pro—
vided by these individuals as to the specific criteria used
for selection was highly consistent with the criteria put
forth in district literature. The criteria most likely to
be used were standardized or criterion referenced tests
and in kindergarten and grade one, teacher judgement was
used.

Racial Composition of Compensatory
Education Enrollment

 

 

The racial composition of the eligible group result—
ing from these selection procedures, is of particular
interest for this research. District data indicated the
number of children by racial/ethnic group who participated
in Title I and Article 3 activities during the 1979—80
school year (Table 4.2). These figures indicate that minor—
ity students comprised 48 percent of Title I only enroll-

ment, 59 percent of Article 3 only enrollment and 48 percent

 

88

 

 

HOO.O OOO.H OOO OO OOO.H OO O mHoHuHa.Hmuos
OOO.H OOO OOO OH OOO O . OHco O mHOHuHO
OO~.O OH0.0 OOH Om OOO.H OOH H mHuHH Hmuoe
OHH.O OHO.H OOO OH OOO OO OHco H mHuHH
OOH.O OOH.H OOO OH OOO OO H mHHHH Oam O mHoHuHa spam
HOUOH mpflnz ocflumq unflmd xomHm CMMMWMM¢

 

.omanOH msonw.oflcnum\HmHomm an moHuO>Ouo<
H oHuHe can m mHoOunm SO coummHOOunmm 0:3 cchHflno mo Honssz:l.m.O oHnt

 

89

of those enrolled in both Title I and Article 3 programs.

Of the total number of children participating in Title I,

48 percent were minority while total minority participation
in Article 3 was 53 percent. As previously indicated,
district K-12 minority enrollment during 1979—80 school year
was 33 percent. Based upon the 15 percent criterion for
resegregation as defined for this study, Title I enrollment,-
Article 3 enrollment and their combined enrollments must be
considered as resegregated.

The amount of district resegregation that can be
attributed to program involvement can be determined by sub—
tracting the percentage of minority students eligible for
the program(s) and the percentage of minorities for the
district at the grade levels the program(s) serve. This
results, using elementary level district minority percentage
of 35 percent, in program contributions to resegregation of
13 percent for Title I, 24 percent for Article 3 and 13
percent for Title I and Article 3 combined.

A similar situation existed in the compensatory
education enrollment figures for the three sample schools.
Table 4.3 indicates that of the 281 students participating
in Title I and/or Article 3 programs in the sample schools
during the 1979—80 school year, 153 or 54 percent were
minority students. This percentage is substantially greater
than the 33 percent district minority enrollment and the 35
percent district elementary school minority enrollment

indicating resegregation by program involvement in the three

90

 

mcHummOoOuHmm

 

mam hm O 5mm m cmHHOch HwQEsz
OO HH m. NO m. coopcmoumm Emumoum
anon Ho m mHoOuum .H mHuOB
mmH om m mHH m HO mcfiummOOHuHmm Honssz
m H ocH m scan on :moHHmE¢
p.23 .u H . d x Hm m>wpmz

 

.omlmhmH maoonom

mHmEmm MOM mmsouw oflcnpm\amflomm we ucoEHHoucm m SHOHund can H wHuOBnl.m.O manna

 

91

sample schools combined. This figure is also greater than
the 52 percent average minority enrollment in Title I
only, Article 3 only, and Title I and Article 3 combined
district—wide. The data also indicates that this dispro-
portionality is particularly attributable to overrepresen-
tation among Black students. These students while consti-
tuting only 22 percent of the district's elementary students,
comprised 42 percent of those students from the sample
schools who were enrolled in Title I and/or Article 3 pro-
grams. It will also be noted that though Caucasian ele—
mentary level enrollment figures were at 65 percent district—
wide, only 46 percent of those participating in Title I and
Article 3 programs at the sample schools were Caucasian.
The amount of resegregation contributed by program involve-
ment for the three schools combined is determined by sub-
tracting the combined school minority percentage enrolled
from the combined school minority percentage participating
in the compensatory education programs under study. In
this instance, 19 percent of the resegregation is con-
tributed by the program.

Minority overrepresentation can also be noted if
one considers the combined minority enrollment in the sample
schools as compared to minority enrollment in Title I and
Article 3 programs. Total minority enrollment at the three
sample schools duplicated exactly the 35 percent minority
enrollment district-wide at the elementary level. Of the

total number of minority students enrolled in the three

 

 

92

schools, 53 percent of the Latinos were involved in com-
pensatory education programs, 46 percent of the Black
students, 25 percent of the Native American students and

33 percent of the Asian students. Of the total Caucasian
student population in schools A, B, and C, only 21.3 percent
were involved in compensatory education programs.

When each school is considered separately, minority
overrepresentation is even more clearly evidenced. In
School A minorities constituted 63 percent of Article 3 and/
or Title I enrollment while representing only 44 percent of
the total school population. Similarly, in School B minor-
ities represented 39 percent of the school enrollment and
53 percent of the program's population. In School C, the
total school minority enrollment was only 25 percent while
these students represented 45 percent of the enrollment in
the compensatory education programs.

Racial/ethnic disproportionalities were also evi-
denced when data was examined by grade level. Table 4.4
indicates that in all except grades two and five minority
students constituted 50 percent or more of Title I and
Article 3 program enrollment. The range was from a minor—
ity representation of 38 percent in grade five to 64 percent
in grade four. Clearly these figures represent substantial
deviations from school minority percentages by grade and
thus, with the exception of grades two and five, represent

resegregation. The exception in grades two and five can be

 

93

 

ma Om mma Hmm mm mmm hmm HmuOB

 

mm mm OH om mm mm Hm w
m mm m Om mm om Hm m
mm Ow om 5O mm Om mma O
mm Hm mm hm mm mm mma m
b mO mm mm HO mm QMH N
mm mm mm mO Hm 0O hOH H
OH om OH mm mm om oma M
HCOEHHOHGM
NDOHOCHE m< .HB m< .HB ucmE unoE acme paws
Hmuoe pace IHHOHCM Iaaoucm Iaaoucm
was Md O HE huHHOCHS IHHOHGM mé .HB mfifluocaz wuHHOGOE IHHOHcm OUMHO
ucmoumm . Hmuoe
mocwHOMMHD muOHOCHE Hmuoe unmoumm Hmuoe
pamoumm

 

.OOuOOOH .mHoonum mHOEOO OH menus On HamsHHoucm OHHHocHz O mHUHHHa H mHuHsuu.O.O mHnms

 

94

attributed to low enrollment of minority students in these

grades in School C (Appendix C).

Staff Perceptions of Compensatory
Program Enrollment

 

Regular classroom teachers were questioned during
the interview sessions regarding the racial/ethnic compo-
sition of their classrooms and the racial/ethnic backgrounds
of students in their classrooms who participated in Title I
and/or Article 3 compensatory programs. The twenty regular
classroom teachers interviewed had an average of ten stu-
dents each involved in compensatory education programs, of
whom 55 percent were minority students. Compensatory educa—
tion teachers indicated that of 241 students served, 53.9
percent were minority. These statistics, reported by staff
members during their interview sessions, are consistent with
the 54 percent minority student participation that is noted
when examining data for the three schools combined.

Combining the data from the various sources it is
evident that minority students are overrepresented in com-
pensatory education programs whether the data is from the
district, the school or at the grade and classroom level.

The instructional services provided to the students
involved in the Title I and Article 3 programs in these
schools was primarily in the areas of reading and mathe-
matics. This instruction takes place in locations outside
of the regular classroom though teachers often indicate

that the special instruction is also reinforced within the

95

classroom. The most common locations outside the classroom,
as indicated by teachers and instructional aides in their
interviews, were special learning rooms (indicated by 64.6
percent of the respondents) and in hallways (indicated by
52.1 percent of the respondents). The special learning

rooms are generally located in far corners of the buildings,
on the top floor or near special education classrooms. This
pull out instruction, according to teachers and instruc—
tional aides interviewed, usually requires that participating
students leave the regular classrooms for up to forty—five
minutes each day. Forty-four percent of the teachers and
instructional aides stated that students were out of the
classroom for up to thirty minutes (43.8 percent) or thirty
to forty-five minutes (37.5 percent) and that they are likely
to be out of the classroom at a time when the other students
are receiving instruction in reading and/or mathematics.

The interest in whether or not minority students
were overrepresented in compensatory education programs was
combined with an interest in whether or not disproportionate
numbers of minorities were being pulled out of desegregated
classrooms and placed into more segregated learning situa-
tions. Teachers and instructional aides largely agreed
that the various racial and ethnic groups were equally
likely to receive this special instruction outside the
regular classroom (Table 4.5). Forty-seven percent of those
interviewed indicated that students of the various racial

and ethnic groups were equally likely to receive this

 

96

Table 4.5.--Teacher and Aides Responses Concerning Which
Racial/Ethnic Groups Are Most Likely to Leave
Classroom for Compensatory Education Instruc—

 

 

tion.
Number of Responses in Each
Racial/Ethnic Category Percent
Whites 3 5
Blacks 16 28
Hispanics 8 l4
Orientals l 2
Native Americans 2 4
Equally Likely 27 47
Total Responses (n = 46) 57 100

 

special pull out instruction. This response by teachers
and aides was interesting in light of the fact that dis-
trict, school, grade level and classroom data clearly indi-
cate that students involved in the compensatory programs
were more likely to be minority and consequently these are
the same students that are pulled out for the special com—
pensatory instruction.

The inconsistency in the staff response is amplified
when one examines the racial/ethnic characteristics of the
randomly selected students whose educational experiences
were unobtrusively observed. Sixty percent of these stu-
dents were minority and of those observed who participated
in compensatory education programs 50 percent were minority.

The observations also indicated that students leaving their

 

97

classrooms for compensatory instruction usually joined
instructional units composed of a larger percentage of
minority students than their regular classrooms (Table 4.6).

These students, observed using the Student Educa-

 

tional Experience Observation Form, spent from fifteen to

 

ninety minutes in compensatory education instruction with

a mean pull out instructional time of thirty-four minutes.
In all except one instance students received compensatory
instruction in a group more racially segregated than their
regular classrooms. In most instances, when compared to
the racial composition of the regular classroom the com-
pensatory instruction groups could be described as resegre—
gated, using the 15 percent variance definition.

Teachers and instructional aides were queried as to
their perceptions regarding this situation. After being
questioned as to the racial/ethnic characteristics of stu-
dents involved in compensatory education programs, the inter—
viewer asked the teachers and instructional aides whether
or not minorities were overrepresented in the compensatory
education programs in their schools. Of the forty-eight
teachers and instructional aides interviewed, twenty-two or
45.8 percent felt that minorities were overrepresented in
compensatory education programs in their schools. Almost
as many of the respondents (41.7 percent) felt they were
not. Twelve percent either did not know (8.3 percent) or
were uncertain (4.2 percent). Principals were also divided

in their responses; one felt that such overrepresentation

 

Table 4.6.--Racial Composition of Regular Classroom Versus
Pull Out Instructional Unit of Observed Com-
pensatory Education Students.

98

 

 

Percent Percent Percent Difference
. . . Minority in Minority Regular
Observations Minority Compensatory Classroom Versus
of Student in d . 1
Pull Outs Regular E ucation Pul Compensatory
Classroom Out Instruc- Education Pull Out
tional Unit* Instructional Unit
la 43.3 45.4 + 2.1
lb 43.3 0 -43.3
2a 53.5 100 46.5
2b 53.5 100 +46.5
3a 43.3 45.4 + 2.1
3b 43.3 80 +36.7
4a 57.1 75 +17.9
4b 57.1 75 +17.9
5 57.1 71.4 +14.3
6a 57.1 100 +42.9
6b 57.1 71.4 +28.6
6c 57.1 100 +42.9
6d 57.1 100 +42.9
7 22.2 Not pulled out for compensatory

education instruction

 

*0 or 100 percent represents one to one instruction
except in Observations 6a and 6c which represent small

groups composed of all minority students.

 

99

existed in his school, one that it did not and the third
was uncertain. Fifty-four percent of the central adminis—
trators felt that minority students were overrepresented in
the compensatory education programs in the school district.

The above question often elicited periods of long
silences and, in some instances, very obvious tension from
the interviewees. The responses appeared to result more
from personal or emotional bias than from a serious con-
sideration of the actual numbers of racial/ethnic minorities
participating in the programs. In numerous instances, when
the enrollment figures cited by the respondents clearly
indicated disproportionate minority enrollments, the response
as to whether this signified overrepresentation would still
be negative. It appeared that actual figures mattered little
in perceptions of overrepresentation. The presence of large
numbers of minority children in these programs was not per—
ceived as overrepresentation. In some instances interviewees
asked for clarification of the definition of overrepresenta-
tion and the definition of 15 percent variance was given.
Even in the instances in which data clearly indicated devi-
ations beyond the 15 percent range, respondents were as likely
to deny as they were to affirm the existence of overrepresen-
tation of minority students in the compensatory education pro-
grams.

The denial of overrepresentation among teachers and
instructional aides was somewhat clarified by those respon-

dents who affirmed minority overrepresentation in

 

100

compensatory education programs. These interviewees were
asked why this situation had occurred. The most common
response was that this overrepresentation was due to fac-
tors in the family background of minority students
(Appendix D).

Family background was described in terms of socio-
economic status, single parent families, poor living con—
ditions, lack of interest in education, high mobility, work-
ing parents and cultural differences among minorities.
These family background factors were considered as causally
related to low achievement and resultant placement in com—
pensatory education programs. They were also deemed to be
particularly characteristic of minority families.

The second most frequently cited reason for minority
overrepresentation in compensatory education programs was
related to program guidelines. Many of the interviewees
felt that the programs existed for minority students, pri-
marily with a particular type of family background, and
these were the students whose needs the programs were
designed to meet. The third most frequently cited response
was that minorities need the services more, that these were
the students who were not succeeding in school and who
required the compensatory services in order to attain some
minimal level of educational success.

The fourth category of responses cited prejudice,
racism (personal and institutional), cultural bias and dis—

crimination as the reasons for minority overrepresentation

 

101

in compensatory education programs. These individuals

felt that due to the operation of racism, system bias and
personal prejudice, minorities were disproportionally
assigned to compensatory education programs. Other reasons
given for this overrepresentation included the nature of the
identification and selection processes used by the programs,
the tests administered to determine eligibility and the

fact that the educational system is geared towards providing
disproportionate programs for minority children.

Summary of Resegregation as a

Function of Selection and

Enrollment in Compensatory
Education Programs

 

 

 

 

In summary, the data from the various sources indi—
cate that the selection and identification procedures used
to determine enrollment in Article 3 and Title I programs
in the school district under study are well understood by
staff members. Standardized achievement and criterion refer-
enced test scores and teacher judgement were the criteria
most frequently cited. The selection procedures used have,
as a latent function, resegregation of students along racial
and/or ethnic lines at the district, school, grade and class-
room level. Further, this resegregation is intensified by
the implementation of educational programs which pull stu-
dents out of desegregated classrooms for compensatory instruc-
tion in more segregated groups. Staff members are about as
likely to confirm this overrepresentation as they are to

deny it and those confirming it attribute its existence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102

primarily to factors in the family backgrounds of the
minority children selected for and involved in the com—

pensatory education programs under study.

Differentiation

An important aspect of equality of instruction in
elementary schools is the extent or degree to which students
are differentiated in order to provide different types of
programs to students in various classifications. This
research focused on differentiation of learning objectives
established for Title I and Article 3 students, the various
staff expectations for these students and differentiation
of instruction provided to these compensatory education
students. The aspects of the instructional program of con—
cern to this research were differences in terms of Egg pro-
vides the instruction to compensatory education students,

the level of the instructional materials used with these

 

children and the curriculum covered by Title I and Article 3
students during the course of the school year. This
research also sought to determine whether or not the exis-
tence of Title I and Article 3 programs in the district

exacerbated differentiation.

Learning Objectives

 

Investigation of the issue of differentiation in
the learning objectives for compensatory education students
as compared to those set for noncompensatory education stu-

dents, was addressed through interviews with various staff

 

103

members. It will be recalled that written district docu-
ments indicated that it was hoped that the Title I and
Article 3 students would gain sixteen new District Instruc-
tional Guidance Plan reading and/or sixteen new DIGP mathe-
matics objectives during the course of the school year. The
researcher was unable to locate similarly stated learning
objectives for noncompensatory education students and when
district personnel were questioned in this regard replies
were inconsistent. Some stated that all students were
expected to gain sixteen objectives, others referred to
twenty objectives as the goal for noncompensatory education
students. This discrepancy was never completely clarified
or resolved. It was, however, clear from the interviews
that all students were working toward DIGP objectives and
that compensatory and noncompensatory education students,
alike, had their learning objectives set using this plan.
Compensatory education students were more likely to be
monitored on their success or failure in attaining the
objectives due to evaluation requirements for Title I and
Article 3 programs. All personnel were asked how the learn—
ing objectives for the compensatory education students com-
pared with those for noncompensatory education students.
Table 4.7 summarizes the responses.

It will be noted from an examination of Table 4.7
that no clear picture emerges as to how learning objectives
for compensatory education students compare with those for

noncompensatory education students. It may have been

 

104

 

Hmzmcm oz

 

m H m H o o o chuHmocD
m m o mH m OH N o zocx u.coa
OO om mm m HO O OH m om NH pcmummmHQ
mm mm OOH m mm m HO O Om O oO m mean one
m MHu: O Oan O HHHHH w omlc
w Owns w mu: .chHEod mopHd mumnomwe I
mnmzomma
Hmuos mHmmHocHHm moHHHo HmcoHH HmHommm Hm comm
Hmuucmu losnpmcH Hwnuo O mu H

 

.mucmpsum SOHumospm wuoummcmmaoocoz

nuHB mummfioo mucwcsum :oHumospm huoumwcmmeoo How mm>Huomnno mchHmmH 30mII.O.O mHemB

   

105

worthwhile to determine what respondents meant when they
replied that the learning objectives were the same for all
students. It may well be that this response is indicative
of the fact that all students have the same learning objec-
tives in that they all work from objectives that are a part
of the District Instructional Guidance Plan. District docu-
ments depicting attainment of DIGP reading and mathematics
objectives by compensatory and noncompensatory education
students at each elementary grade level during the 1977-78
school year showed that "compensatory education students
show a higher rate of attainment on early objectives in the
hierarchy, while noncompensatory education students show a
higher rate of attainment on the later objectives" (H. Selps,
1979). This material indicates that though all students
are working toward the same set of learning objectives,
compensatory students are working on lower level learning
objectives. This distinction may help to explain the
inconsistencies in the responses noted in Table 4.7. Same—
ness might also have implied that compensatory education
and noncompensatory education students have the same number
of learning objectives. Again, this was not clear either
from the interviews or district documents.

The interviews did provide the opportunity to explore
the meaning attached to the response that the learning objec-
tives set were different for compensatory and noncompensa-
tory education students. Those responding that learning

objectives were different were asked to describe in what

106

ways the learning objectives set for compensatory educa-
tion students differed from those set for noncompensatory
education students (Table 4.8).

Table 4.8.--Differences in Learning Objectives Set for

Compensatory Education Students, Responses for
Teachers and Instructional Aides.

 

 

Number of Percent of Percent of
n = 26 ,

Responses Responses Cases
Lower Grade Level 18 43.9 69.2
Fewer 9 22.0 34.6
Based on Individual

Needs 13 31.7 50.0

Other 1 2.4 3.8
Total 41 100.0 157.7

 

Among teachers and instructional aides responding
to the nature of the differences between the learning objec-
tives set for compensatory education students as compared
to those of noncompensatory education students, the response
most frequently mentioned (43.9 percent of the responses)
was that the grade level of the learning objectives set for
compensatory education students was lower than that set for
students not involved in any compensatory education program.
Of the Central Office Administrators responding to the
differences in learning objectives, 50 percent of the
responses noted that compensatory education students had-

objectives at a lower grade level. As noted in Table 4.7,

107

principals did not cite differences on this variable.
In 22 percent of the teacher and instructional aide
responses, it was indicated that fewer learning objectives
are set for the compensatory education students and 31.7
percent of the responses revealed that different objectives
are set for all students based upon their individual needs.
The various data collected on whether or not dif—.
ferentiation exists in the learning objectives set for
compensatory education students is inconclusive when con—
sidered separately. However, by combining the various pieces
of data, it appears that the learning objectives set for
compensatory education students are at a lower grade level
than those set for regular education students. The data
does not, overall, appear to indicate differences in terms
of the number of learning objectives that are set for com-
pensatory as compared to noncompensatory education students.
It will be recalled from Table 3.1, that even considering
the level and number of objectives that are set for stu-
dents involved in compensatory education programs, their
achievement of these objectives is still far from perfect.
In summary, the data indicates that differentiation exists
in terms of the grade level of the learning objectives
set for compensatory education students. Compensatory edu-
cation students have learning objectives that are at a lower
grade level than those set for students not involved in

compensatory programs.

 

I i

108

Expectations

 

Determination as to whether expectations were dif-
ferent for compensatory and noncompensatory education stu—
dents was addressed by asking interviewees what percent of
these categories of students they expected to master the
objectives held for them. Regular teachers, compensatory
education and special teachers and instructional aides
responded to this set of questions during the interview
sessions.

The data obtained indicates that of the three per-
sonnel types, regular classroom teachers had the highest
expectations for compensatory education students, while the
lowest expectations for these students were held by instruc-
tional aides. The data also indicate that only instruc-
tional aides responded in the lowest category of expecta-
tions (0 to 19 percent expected to master the objectives
set for them). The great majority of regular classroom
teachers (85 percent) expected that 80 percent or more of
their compensatory education students would achieve the
objectives set for them. In contrast to this 85 percent
of regular teachers, only 73 percent of the compensatory and
special staff and 65 percent of the instructional aides felt
80 percent of compensatory education students would achieve
this level of success.

In terms of past experience regular classroom
teachers also were more likely than other personnel to have

had 80 percent or more of their compensatory education

 

109

students actually achieve the learning objectives set for
them. Fifty percent of the regular teachers but only 36
percent of the compensatory education teachers and 35 per-
cent of the instructional aides stated that 80 percent or
more of their compensatory education students had achieved
objectives set. Interestingly enough, regular classroom
teachers' responses were no different when questioned
regarding their expectations for noncompensatory education
students. Again, 85 percent of the regular classroom
teachers felt that 80 percent or more of their noncompensa-
tory education students would achieve the learning objec-
tives held for them.

Forty-seven percent of the instructional aides
expected that compensatory education students could achieve
60 to 79 percent of the objectives held for noncompensatory
education students while only 18 percent expected that these
students could attain 80 percent or more of the objectives
held for noncompensatory education students. This data does
not indicate the level of the objectives for which the
expectations are held. A summary of the responses regard-
ing expectations for mastery of learning objectives can be
found in Appendix E.

It appears, in summary, that instructional aides have
the lowest expectations for compensatory education students
and that when their experience is compared to that of regu-
lar teachers, compensatory education teachers and other

special teachers, fewer compensatory education students were

 

110

actually achieving the objectives held for them. These
data clearly support the notion of a self-fulfilling
prophecy regarding expectations and outcomes. Regular
teachers had the highest expectations and their experiences
indicated the most students achieving their objectives
while instructional aides had the lowest expectations and
experienced lower levels of results. It may also be
hypothesized that one group or another has different objec-
tives. If the aides are setting higher level objectives,
then this may account for the differences noted in expec-
tations.

The data does not support the notion that regular
classroom teachers differentiate in terms of their expec-
tations for compensatory and noncompensatory education stu-
dents, if one assumes similarity in the learning objectives
set for the two groups. If the objectives are different
and lower for compensatory education students as the previ—
ous section appears to indicate, the conclusion is that
regular classroom teachers expect the same percentage of
compensatory education students to achieve their lower
level objectives as they expect regular students to
achieve on their higher level objectives. Again, this
would indicate more differentiation in learning objectives

than in expectations for mastery.

 

lll

Instruction

 

Differentiation in the instruction provided to
compensatory education students was assessed in terms of
who provides the instruction for these students, the level
of instructional materials used and the curriculum covered
during the course of the school year. Data was collected
from the interview sessions in an attempt to determine if
differentiation existed on these variables.

It will be recalled that most of those interviewed
responded that the special instruction provided to com-
pensatory education students occurred outside the regular
classroom while some also indicated it was provided both
within and outside the regular classroom. When attempting
to find out who provides the special instruction to com-
pensatory education students, it was therefore important to
consider instruction both within and outside the regular
classroom.

Data from the interviews indicates that special
instruction provided to compensatory education students out-
side the regular classroom is most likely to be provided
first by instructional aides and second by subject matter
specialists (Table 4.9).

When the special instruction is provided within the
classroom it is most likely to be provided by instructional
aides. Data gathered from unobtrusive observations sup-
ports the interview data in that it indicates that students

pulled out of regular classrooms for compensatory instruction

 

 

 

 

 

¢.5HH o.ooa hm m.oma o.ooa vs Hmuoe
m.v w.m H m.oa m.m m mumnuo
m o o o N.m v.a H mhchSDm
l
o.nm H.v> om m.m> m.mv vm mopfld
m.v n.m H >.mm m.om hm umHHMAommm
>.Hm m.ma m m.ma m.m n Hmnomme
mommo mo mmmcommmm mmmcommmm mommo mo mmmcommmm noncommwm
uswouwm mo pcmouwm mo Honesz uqmoumm mo unmonmm mo HoQEdz
Amm n :V CHSDHB Ame n av mpwmuso

 

.mmmcommmm opfld paw umgomwe .EoouwmmHo Hmasmmm on»

canvas tam mpflmuso coauosuumcH :oflum050m huoummcmmEoo may wwpfl>oum onzln.m.v magma

113

were about equally likely to receive instruction from an
aide as from a specialist. In the thirteen pull outs
observed, six instructional sessions occurred with sub-
ject matter specialists while seven were with instructional
aides.

None of the students observed received their com-
pensatory instruction within the regular classroom.
When present in the classroom, instructional aides graded
papers, prepared dittos, watered plants and did other record
keeping and housekeeping tasks, rather than provide instruc-
tion. There was no indication that students not involved
in compensatory education programs received any instruc-
tion from aides or specialists. In fact, unsolicited com-
ments were often made citing the fact that aides and special-
ists only worked with Title I and Article 3 students. This
was viewed as a real problem with the Title I and Article 3
programs as implemented in the sample schools. It was felt
that many noncompensatory education students desired or
needed the assistance of these special staff members but
could not receive it due to program guidelines which limited
them to working with target students only. In one school
the reading specialist did spend one day per week providing
enrichment activities for noncompensatory education students.
Regular classroom teachers further indicated that they met
often (more than once a week) with the providers of the
special instruction in order to discuss their pupils' pro-

gress and instruction. The communication between these

114

personnel types was usually considered quite informal.
Responses for compensatory education staff supported these
results.

Interviewees responses regarding how the grade level
of the instructional materials used with compensatory
education students compared with that of the instructional
materials used with noncompensatory education students
revealed that 56 percent of teachers and instructional aides
noted differences in the instructional materials used with
compensatory education students and those used with non-
compensatory education students (Table 4.10). There was
Table 4.lO.--How Instructional Materials Used With Compensa-

tory Education Students Compare With Those for
Noncompensatory education Students.

 

 

 

Teachers and Central OffiCe
Aides Administrators
n = 48 n = 13
Frequency Percent of Frequency Percent of
Responses Responses

 

The Same 15 31.2 1 7.7
Different 27 '56.2 8 61.5
Uncertain l 2.0 2 15.4
Don't know 2 4.1 2 15.4
No Response 3 6.3 0 0.0

Total 48 99.8 13 100.0

 

115

no difference in the breakdown of responses by personnel
type. The majority of each group noted differences in the
materials used with the two categories of students.

Those interviewed noted that the differences in
instructional materials were primarily that compensatory
education students were more likely than regular education
students to use instructional materials below grade level.
These students were also more likely to use special com—
mercial learning materials such as instructional kits, film-
strips, games, flashcards, etc. and were more likely to use
materials developed by teachers (Table 4.11). Over 45
percent of those respondents noting differences in instruc-
tional materials cited that the materials used by compensa-
tory education students were more likely to be below grade
level, 23 percent noted more usage of special commercial
materials and 23 percent an increased usage of teacher-
developed materials.

The final aspect of instruction investigated was
differentiation in the curriculum or teaching units covered
during the course of the school year by compensatory educa-
tion students, compared with noncompensatory education stu—
dents. Fifty-six percent of the teachers and instructional
aides, 66 percent of the principals and 38 percent of the
central office administrators stated that the curriculum
(teaching units) covered was the same for both compensatory
and noncompensatory education students. Of those who said

it was not the same, the predominant difference noted was

116

 

5.0ma o.ooa vm h.oma H.00H ha H.0HN 0.00H hm HM#OB

 

 

 

~.ma m.m m «.ma m.HH N ¢.mH o.m m nonuo
a.mv m.mm ma «.ma m.HH m m.¢m m.mm 5H .>wo MHHmfloHWEEOU
H.mv w.mm ma o.m~ b.5H m w.am m.mm ma tomcam>mo Honomme
m.mm m.mv mm m.mh m.mm 0H m.om m.av mm Hm>wa momma Bonm
mommo .mmmm .mmmm mommo .mmwm .Qmwm mommu .mmmm .mwmm
m0 w m0 w m0 * m0 m w0 w m0 w m0 w w0 w m0 ¢
aw n a ma u a Hm u :
Hmuoa .Ep< moawmo Hmuucmo mmpfld paw mumsomme

 

.mm>B amccomumm an mucopgpm soflumospm
wuoummsmeou How pom: mamauwumz HmcoflyosuumcH CH pmuoz wmocmnmwmwoin.aa.¢ magma

117

that compensatory education students were working on a lower
curriculum level and were likely to receive extra drill,
more reinforcement and supplemental instruction. Some
respondents indicated that though compensatory education
students were covering essentially the same curricula, they
received less complex, more generalized exposure with less
conceptual depth (Appendix F).

Instruction provided to compensatory education stu-
dents appeared to be differentiated in terms of who pro-
vided the instruction. -Compensatory education students
were more likely to receive instruction from specialists
and aides. Instructional differentiation was also present
in the grade level of the instructional materials used.
Students involved in compensatory education programs were
more likely to use instructional materials below grade level,
special commercially developed materials and teacher—
developed materials. Differentiation did not appear to
exist in the curriculum or teaching units covered by com-
pensatory education students during the course of the school

year.

Summary of Differentiation

 

The data regarding differentiation supports the
following summary comments:
1. Differentiation exists in the learning objectives
set for compensatory education students. Students

involved in compensatory education programs have

   

118

learning objectives established at lower grade
levels than those set for students not involved in
compensatory education programs.

Differentiation exists in staff expectations for
mastery of learning objectives for students involved
in compensatory education programs. Compensatory
education personnel have lower expectations for
compensatory education students mastery of learning
objectives than the regular classroom teachers.

In addition, perhaps as a function of these lower
expectations, the previous experience of instruc-
tional aides and specialists indicates that fewer
compensatory education students actually achieve
the learning objectives that are set for them.
Regular classroom teachers do not differentiate

in expectations held for compensatory education
students compared to those held for noncompensatory

education students.

Differentiation exists in the grade level of the
instructional materials used with compensatory edu—
cation students. These students are more likely
than regular education students to use instructional
materials below grade level, special commercially-
developed and teacher-developed materials. Differ-
entiation also existed in who provides the instruc—

tion to compensatory education students. They are

119

more likely to receive instruction from subject
matter specialists and instructional aides. No
differentiation is noted in the curriculum covered

during the school year.

Exacerbation of Differentiation

 

It was of interest in this research to make assess-
ments regarding the extent to which the existence of the
compensatory education programs under review (Title I and
Article 3) exacerbated differentiation. Teachers and
instructional aides were asked if the instruction they pro-
vided would differ if the resources provided by compensatory
students programs did not exist. Nearly 90 percent of the
teachers and aides reported that their instruction would
differ if they no longer received these resources. Prin-
cipals and Central Office Administrators were asked whether
or not instructional programs in their schools and in the
district would differ under the circumstances outlined above.
All of the principals and 85 percent of the central office
administrators indicated that instructional programs would
differ.

It was felt by the largest number of persons that
the primary difference in the instructional program would
be the loss of staff. The personnel the most frequently
referred to were instructional aides. It was felt that the
loss of aides which would result if compensatory education

resources did not exist, would be manifested primarily in

120

decreased individualized instruction and instructional time
provided to the target students. There was concern that
without the instructional aides the regular classroom
teacher would have to manage a wider range of academic
abilities, have more reading groups and a larger class size.
Compensatory education program resource losses would result
in fewer supplies and materials, less testing, less rein-
forcement for slower students, lower expectations for target
students, less parental involvement and less staff inservice
training (Appendix G).

Another interesting difference noted was that less
time would be spent with noncompensatory education students
if compensatory education programs and resources did not
exist. This indicates that for some their existence is
seen as a benefit to the regular education students.

The fact that the data indicates the importance
attached to the enhancement of individualized instruction
that comes with the implementation of compensatory education
programs supports the idea that these programs exacerbate
differentiation. Were it not for the resources provided by
programs such as Title I and Article 3 there would be less
or possibly no aides the personnel who were found most
likely to differentiate in terms of expectations set for
compensatory education students. There would also be no
pull out, which leads to resegregation of students along
racial lines. And, finally, there would be less individ-

ualization of instruction, which produces differentiation

121

in terms of who provides the instruction, instructional
materials used and learning objectives established.

Further data regarding the question as to whether
or not compensatory education programs exacerbate differen-
tiation can be extrapolated from interview responses regard-
ing the most positive and negative outcomes of compensatory
education programs. Staff members responded to the query,
"Of all the potential outcomes of compensatory education
programs, which do you consider to be the most positive
ones?, the most negative one?" (Appendices H and I).

In terms of positive outcomes, staff members first
responded that these compensatory education programs increase
target pupils' reading and mathematics achievement, secondly
they felt that the programs improve students' self concept
and attitudes. The third most frequently cited positive
outcome was that compensatory education programs provide an
opportunity for individualization. Regarding negative out-
comes the three most frequent responses were that the pro-
gram guidelines exclude certain children that need assist-
ance, that they stigmatize and label students who are
involved and that the programs increase segregation or cause
resegregation along racial lines.

Individualization, stigmatization, segregation or
resegregation and exclusion can all be seen as aspects of
differentiation. The fact that staff members see these as
potential outcomes of compensatory education programs sup-

ports the idea that these programs differentiate among

122

students. Further, data cited earlier regarding the racial/
ethnic characteristics of students participating in com—
pensatory education programs clearly indicates the presence
of the high proportions of minority children. Thus, it is
minority children who are most affected by this differenti-
ation.

To summarize, the data indicates that the existence
of compensatory education programs exacerbates resegre-
gation along racial/ethnic lines and differentiation among
students in terms of the grade level of the learning objec-
tives that are established, staff expectations for mastery
of learning objectives and selected aspects of the instruc-
tion that is provided to students involved in Title I and

Article 3 programs.

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Overview

The primary purpose of this research was to examine
and analyze the manner in which selected state and federal
policies affect equality of educational opportunity at the
local school district level, with a specific emphasis upon
the impact of compensatory education programs in desegre-
gated schools. This research examined the nature of local
guidelines and implementation practices resulting from Title
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and
Article 3 of Michigan Public Act 94 (1979) as these relate
to aspects important to equality of educational opportunity.
More specifically, this study systematically examined the
net effect of Title I and Article 3 in terms of racial
separation and differential treatment at the local school
level.

The literature review suggested that the compensa-
tory education policies and programs implemented in the
United States, may have a latent function of resegregation
and differentiation of students which may serve to defeat
the goals of equality of educational opportunity. The

123

 

 

124

review further indicated that the implementation of com-
pensatory education programs such as Title I of the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act and Article 3 of
Michigan Public Act 94, may lead to grouping practices
which reduce the range of academic ability in instructional
units and may concentrate minority students in some class—
rooms and programs within a desegregated school. The out—
comes of this racial disproportionality appeared, in large
part, contrary to the national goal of equality of educa-
tional opportunity.

The literature also noted the differentiation prac—
tices that may occur with the implementation of compensatory
education programs. The research suggested that these prac-
tices can result in denial of equal educational opportunity
by differentiating among students in the learning objectives
that are set, the expectations that are held and the instruc-
tion provided.

The study was conducted in a medium sized, urban
school district located in a midwestern state. Three ele-
mentary schools were randomly selected from the district's
elementary schools and staff members from these schools
volunteered to be interviewed. Instruments were developed
to guide the interview sessions. In addition to the staff
of the sample schools, selected district personnel were also
interviewed and a variety of written district documents were

examined.

125

Observations of the educational experiences of ten

students were made using the Student Educational Experience

 

Observation Form which was developed for this study.
Students' experiences were recorded by the observer in fif-

teen minute intervals.

Findings

The data from the various sources indicated that
the selection and identification procedures used to deter—
mine enrollment in Article 3 and Title I programs in the
school district were well understood by staff members.
Standardized achievement and criterion—referenced test
scores and teacher judgement were the criteria most fre—
quently used. These selection procedures tended to, as a
latent function, resegregate students along racial/ethnic
lines at the district, school, grade and classroom level.
Further, this resegregation was intensified by the imple-
mentation of educational programs which pulled students out
of desegregated classrooms for compensatory instruction in
more segregated groups. Staff members were about as likely
to-confirm the overrepresentation of minority students in
these compensatory education groups, as they were to deny
it and those confirming it attributed its existence to
factors in the family backgrounds of minority children
involved in the compensatory education programs.

Differentiation existed in the learning objectives

set for compensatory education students. Students involved

126

in these programs had learning objectives set at lower grade
levels than those set for students not involved in com-
pensatory education programs. Differentiation also existed
in expectations for mastery of the learning objectives for
students involved in compensatory education programs. Those
personnel most likely to provide compensatory instruction
(compensatory education teachers and instructional aides)
had lower expectations for these students than the regular
classroom teachers. In addition, perhaps as a function of
these lower expectations, instructional aides and special-
ists involved in compensatory programs reported fewer com—
pensatory education students actually achieving the learning
objectives that were set for them. Regular classroom
teachers did not differentiate in expectations they held
for compensatory students compared to those held for non-
compensatory students.

Differentiation was found to exist also in the
grade level of instructional materials used with compensa-
tory education students. Those students were more likely
than regular education students to use instructional
materials that were below grade level, special commercially
developed and teacher developed materials. Differentiation.
also existed in who provided the instruction to compensatory
education students. They were more likely to receive
instruction from subject matter specialists and instruc-
tional aides. No differentiation was noted in the curric-

ulum covered during the school year.

127

To summarize, the data indicated that the existence
of compensatory education programs exacerbated resegregation
along racial/ethnic lines and differentiation among students
in terms of the grade level of the learning objectives that
were established, staff expectations for mastery of learn-
ing objectives and selected aspects of the instruction that
was provided to students involved in Title I and Article 3

programs.

Discussion of the Findings

 

The findings of this research raise a number of
considerations and speculations regarding the existence of
latent functions of purposive actions. This discussion is
concerned with the finding that the purposive actions,

Title I and Article 3, have dysfunctional consequences of
resegregation and differentiation.

The resegregation that was noted in the findings
may result from the rules and regulations evolved from
legislation promulgated at the federal and state levels.
Schools and districts must develop implementation strategies
within the framework of these rules and regulations. The
strategies which are developed then have consequences incom-
patible with the intent of the overall programs. Schools
and districts design implementation practices which focus
upon their needs in light of the policy directives, rather
than upon the purposes of the overall program. When this

occurs, the situations developed create broader problems.

IT
A
i"
:5:

128

Students are selected for participation in compensatory
education programs based upon the results of tests and are
pulled out of desegregated classrooms for special instruc-
tion to improve their academic skills. As a consequence,
they are resegregated and what the federal and state govern-
ments have intended as a solution to the problem of inequal—
ity in educational opportunity, becomes a new problem of
resegregation.

Differentiation, another latent function, may also
result from school and district attempts to operate within
the framework of state and federal rules and regulations.
Individualization and small groups were found to be the
dominant organizational approaches to compensatory educa-
tion instruction. These practices may have resulted in the
findings of differentiation in learning objectives that were
established, differentiated expectations for the mastery of
learning objectives and differentiation in aspects of the
instruction provided to compensatory education students.

The reasons for the prevalence of this approach are not
only that individualization is currently popular among edu-
cators but also because the district must attempt to operate
within a framework of federal and state rules and regula—
tions. Again, the attempt to operate within a framework
structured to achieve equality of educational opportunity
has produced an unintended and unanticipated consequence.

In this case, the dysfunctional outcome of differentiation.

129

The differentiation noted in this study is dys-
functional when considered in relationship to equality of
educational opportunity. Small group and individualized
learning might be justified on a short term basis if the
achievement of compensatory and noncompensatory students
was thus made equitable. This was not the case in the
schools studied. Though not within the purview of this
study, it is clear that the differences in quality of
instructional content in the individual and small group
instruction provided to compensatory education students
are such that they amplify the differences in learning
outcomes that the practices are supposed to eliminate.

The study indicated that compensatory education stu-
dents were to attain sixteen District Instructional Guidance
Plan objectives during the school year. No such attainment
goals were set for noncompensatory education students. The
number specified resulted from rules and regulations and
the reporting of attained learning objectives that is
required for compensatory education programs. It appears
that a latent function of these requirements is differen-
tiation, in that noncompensatory education students have
no such requirements set and thus the goal of sixteen
objectives exists only for the compensatory education stu-
dents. Considering the total number of objectives under
the District Instructional Guidance Plan, a situation of
minimums becoming maximums is thus created for compensa-

tory education students.

130

These findings suggest that purposive well-
intentioned actions may have consequences that are
unintended and dysfunctional for the children and schools
affected. This condition must, therefore, be recognized
at all levels of the educational structure: the policy-
makers, the school district administrators and the teachers
and aides who implement the programs. Each level should
be cognizant of the others needs and goals and thus policies
and practices coordinated in a manner which assures that
the multiple needs are met and that the consequent programs
provide the equality of educational opportunity which is
our national goal. The case presented in this study
appears to represent a situation whereby each level is
approaching the same problem in a different manner and
thereby functioning in ways not only incongruent with one
another but in ways inconsistent with the goal of equality
of educational opportunity. The following suggestions are
put forth as possible remedies for district consideration:

1. The district should carefully examine its selec—
tion procedures, especially the nature of the
achievement tests used for placement of students

in compensatory education programs. The resegre—

gation occurring in the racial-ethnic composition

of these programs may be related to bias in the
instruments used to select program participants.
2. The district should investigate creative alter-

natives to pull out instructional practices and

131

develop instructional procedures that do not resegre-
gate students and differentiate between them.

The district should carefully evaluate and monitor
the instructional content provided to compensatory
education students who presently receive pull out
instruction to determine if they are receiving an
educational experience equal to that provided their
peers.

The district should consider setting learning objec—
tives for all students and committing the resources
necessary to evaluate and monitor all students on
their success in attaining these objectives. These
objectives should be of the same level and number
for both compensatory and noncompensatory education
students.

The district should develop inservice training pro—
grams for staff which focus on means of providing
equality of educational opportunity for all chil-
dren regardless of their racial or family background
characteristics. This is particularly important

for kindergarten and first grade teachers identify-
ing candidates for compensatory education programs.
District personnel should become actively involved
in the process in which state and federal policy—
makers promulgate the rules and regulations for
compensatory education programs so that district

needs and implementation problems can be expressed.

 

132

Limitations and Delimitations

 

This study had one basic important limitation, that
of generalizability. Because it was a descriptive case
study which focused on only one school district and a few
schools, it was limited in its representativeness and there-
fore does not allow for valid generalizations beyond the
twenty-four school population from which the sample was
drawn. Follow—up research focusing on specific hypotheses
and using wider sampling methodology would be necessary to

permit generalizability beyond this population.

The study was also limited in that the subjects
interviewed were drawn from volunteers and thus were not
a random staff selection. In this instance, their View may
or may not be representative.

A third limitation pertains to the interview guides
used in this study. The instruments were created specific-
ally for use in this research and though pilot tested for
item clarity, there exists no established reliability or
validity criteria. A specific aspect of several items on
the instruments which referred to sameness on certain vari-
ables, could have been more clearly stated. There was no
way in several instances for the researcher to do more than
speculate as to what respondents meant by sameness. Further,
there is reason to believe that some interviewees, especi—
ally instructional aides, may have felt threatened by the
nature of the interview questions. Because both Title I

and Article 3 program guidelines involve annual monitoring

133

and evaluation some respondents may have felt that the
results of this research effort could have an effect on the
local evaluation. Some responses may have been made in this
erroneous context. The language of the interview items
also presented some difficulty for some instructional aides
and there was a need for clarification on some of the items.
There were four delimitations of this research
effort. First, the criteria for determining whether
federal and state policies support or interfere with equal-
ity of educational opportunity goals were delimited to a
consideration of resegregation and differentiation as
potential latent functions. Other functions, manifest
and latent, might have been examined. Secondly, the popu-
lation was delimited to a medium-sized midwestern school
district and only elementary schools within that district.
Elementary schools were chosen because the policies under
consideration existed primarily at the elementary level.
Third, the policies under consideration were delimited to
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and
Article 3 of Michigan Public Act 94. These were selected
because they represented the largest compensatory education
programs in the district in terms of funding and numbers of
students served. Finally, the time period of this investi-
gation was artificially circumscribed and took place during
only one school year. As the year had involved changes in

the programs under study as well as a long teachers‘ strike,

134

the district may not have been experiencing a typical school

year.

Suggestions for Future Research

The results of this study may provide guidance and
direction for future investigations. The following sugges-
tions are directed towards potential avenues for research
that flow naturally from the findings presented.

First, the results of this study indicated that stu-
dents involved in compensatory education programs are
resegregated along racial/ethnic lines in the desegregated
elementary schools under study. It would represent a
significant addition to the data presented if future research
focused on schools that were not as racially balanced as
those in this study. A case study of the implementation of
these programs controlling for race in an urban inner city
area or rural setting might be of importance. To note who
is placed in the compensatory education programs in a more
racially homogeneous setting might have implications for

the findings presented.

Secondly, this study only considered demographics
of the educational experiences of the compensatory educa-
tion students that were observed. More detailed observa-
tions of the actual instructional experiences should be
conducted. Such research might also more thoroughly examine
aspects of the breadth of curriculum covered and the nature

of the instructional materials that are used.

 

 

135

Thirdly, the instruments used in this research need
further refinement and testing. Research efforts to test
and establish reliability and validity of the instruments
need to be conducted. Although the researcher took great
care and considerable time in the development of the instru-
ments and consulted with various experts, they still need
refinement.

Another area that needs further examination is the
issue of the district learning objectives set for compensa-
tory and noncompensatory education students. The findings
of this study show inconsistencies as to whether these objec-
tives are the same or different for the two categories of
students. It was never clearly evident whether or not a
specified number of learning objectives were set annually
for noncompensatory education students. It was, however,
clear that those students involved in the compensatory edu—
cation programs were expected to gain sixteen new District
Instructional Guidance Plan reading and/or mathematics
objectives each year. Under the DIGP there are 135 reading

and 155 mathematics objectives for grades kindergarten through

six. Divided equally over the seven year period, in order
to achieve the total number of objectives, a student would
need to gain nineteen objectives in reading and twenty-two
in mathematics annually. Respondents stated that the objec-
tives for compensatory education and noncompensatory educa—

tion students were the same. It appears that either there

An.

 

 

 

136

is some repression of the differentiation in learning objec-
tives that are set or that the district has not specified
the learning objectives that are held for noncompensatory
education students. This inconsistency might be clarified
in future research efforts.

Other issues that need exploration include follow-
up studies of compensatory education students, studies which
focus on student outcomes such as basic skill achievement,
aspirations, attitudes, drop out rates, suspension rates,
etc. of compensatory education students and the relation-
ship of placement in compensatory education programs to
stigmatization and labeling of students.

The findings of this study raise a number of more
broadly based issues that may provide impetus to future
researchers. Compensatory education programs which have
worthy goals and purposes, when implemented at the local
school level, have been demonstrated in this study to produce
situations which deny aspects of equality of educational
opportunity to certain children. Herein lies a serious con-
tradiction for both policy makers and those charged with

policy implementation.

Those persons at both the state and federal levels
whose primary responsibilities include the promulgation of
rules and regulations for compensatory education programs
must take steps to become more cognizant of the ways in
which their numerous decisions actually affect minority

children at the local school level. The large scale research

\.

137

efforts that focus on national samples fail to incorporate
the intricacies of the day to day functioning of the various
programs and the impact that certain guidelines have on
children's daily educational experiences. Programs that
cause resegregation and differentiation along racial/ethnic
lines appear to contradict the stated purposes of these
programs. Resources need to be committed to studies that
focus on the local schools and individual classrooms as
units of analysis.

Areas of analysis should include investigation of
the rationale for the pervasive use of pull out programs.
It appears that this strategy may be chosen as an easy means
to comply with the "supplement not supplant" guideline.
Policy makers should assume the responsibility for promul—
gating, after adequate investigation, alternative means of
assuring that compensatory programs provide supplemental
services to replace or modify the pull out instruction
which tends to resegregate students in desegregated schools.

Another area where research is needed is differen—
tiation and the focus educational systems place on individ-
ual differences and individualization of instruction. More
research studies should be conducted which compare the
experiences and educational outcomes of learning environ—
ments that are equality oriented rather than differentia-
tion oriented. Compensatory education programs, based on

this study, function in a manner that may tend to enhance

138

the differences between students by allocating them to
different learning environments.

Research might also focus on the role of the
instructional aides in compensatory education programs.
These personnel were highly valued by the professional
staff in this research. It would be of interest to examine
in microcosm, the role these people play and make deter-
minations as to whether or not they function to serve the
various needs of teachers or those of students. In some
cases these needs may be incompatible. It would be of
interest, also, to determine whether the role of the
instructional aide is one of support and reinforcement or
are they providing the basic instruction for the students
they serve. Also, exactly how closely tied programmatically
is the instruction they provide to that being provided in
the regular classroom. Finally, it would be of interest
for researchers to determine whether the time instructional
aides spend with compensatory education students is spent
in activities that are designed to improve cognitive skills
or is it directed primarily towards improving self concept.
This study noted that staff felt that the second most
positive outcome of compensatory education programs was
improved self-concept of the children involved. How much

of instructional time is devoted to cognitive goals as

compared to affective goals needs examination.

 

fl
.‘

 
 

 

 

139

A final area that needs to be examined is the
mobility of students placed in compensatory education pro-
grams. It would be worthwhile to know how many students
become ineligible for these programs or whether they pro-
vide another permanent tracking system. In light of the
fact that school districts receive their funding based upon
low levels of achievement, there is no financial motivator
to reduce the numbers of eligible children. Research might
examine the extent to which the guidelines discourage school
districts from providing other programs that will produce
achievement gains for minority and poor youngsters. To do
this, the district would be penalized by loss of federal
and state dollars. The fact that administrators, teachers
and instructional aides would lose jobs if children suc-
ceeded is a "Catch 22" situation. An investigation of this
vested interest in maintaining "disadvantagement" could pro-

vide invaluable data to decision makers.

Reflections

 

In Human Characteristics and School Learning, Dr.
Benjamin Bloom (1976) sends an important message to edu-
cators. In discussing Bloom's findings, Harvey and Horton
(1977) state:

Bloom tells us that it is possible for 95 percent of
our students to learn all that the school has to
teach, all at near the same mastery level. There are
only 1 percent to 3 percent at the bottom level who
cannot master the curriculum. . . . Bloom's research
has convinced him that most students become very

140

similar with regard to learning ability, rate of learn-
ing, and motivation for further learning when provided
with favorable learning conditions. . . . However,
his research demonstrates also that when students are
provided with unfavorable learning conditions they
become dissimilar in learning ability, rate of learn-
ing and motivation for future learning. The latter
unfortunately, is exactly what the school provides
today: unfavorable learning conditions. Rather than
narrowing the gap between high and low achievers, the
school widens the gap at each successive level (p. 189).
Compensatory education programs designed and imple-
mented on unsubstantiated theoretical assumptions such as
cultural deprivation, provide educational environments that
are unfavorable for learning. Minority students, being
highly overrepresented in these programs, become Victims of
a system that perpetuates their disadvantagement. Such pro-
grams, emerging out of Congressional mandates, which state
worthy goals and are planned, at least overtly, to lead to
equality of educational opportunity, have latent functions
of resegregation and differentiation which widen the
achievement gap the programs are intended to close. Minor-
ity and poor youngsters are resegregated, classified, stig-
matized and provided an educational experience that is
watered down when compared to that provided their peers.
Yet, annually, funding levels for these programs are
increased and more and more students are classified as in

need of the services. Obviously these programs are not the

solution.

The emphasis of federal and state educational pro—

grams needs drastic redirection. The emphasis is presently

141

misplaced and the goals are based upon assumptions which
essentially create a self-fulfilling prophecy for minority
and poor children. We assume they cannot learn, then pro—
vide educational milieus which do not teach and then wonder
why the racial gaplin cognitive achievement remains. If
we assumed, as Bloom does, that large percentages of chil-
dren are capable of learning all we have to teach, perhaps
our outcomes would differ. As long as we continue to find
excuses like family background, cultural deprivation, hered—
ity, etc., we will not succeed and compensatory education
research supports this notion of lack of success.

The fact that twenty years is rapidly approaching
since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act and Brown v. Board of Education has had a twenty-fifth

 

anniversary, tells the story. This presents a true dilemma
for minorities in America. One begins to wonder, if indeed
society desires to change this situation. In a society

with a history of racism and economic and social stratifi-
cation, it may not be too far-fetched to speculate that
compensatory education programs are veiled in the language

of equality but actually represent surreptitious attempts

to maintain minorities in their inferior social and eco—
nomic positions. Cosmetic changes in educational programming
will do little to erase the racism that prevails in our

society and its institutions.

 

142

John Ogbu (1978) in discussing the general failure
of compensatory education programs, both preventive and
remedial states that these programs

fail to produce significant improvement in the school
performance of black children because the theoretical
assumptions upon which they are based are wrong.
Although lower class blacks probably come to school
with preschool training and cognitive and other
skills that differ from those of their white middle
class peers, the difference does not arise from the
fact that there is some deficit in black development
because of cultural deprivation. It arises from the
respective positions of blacks and whites in the
American caste system which require that the two

races develop different patterns of child training and
different types of cognitive and motivational skills

(p. 98).

It would be more beneficial to society, as well as
to minority group members, to refocus our efforts and deal
with national policies designed to eliminate the societal
barriers that place minorities in positions of second
class citizens. Only when this is accomplished will inter-
ventions such as compensatory education have any possi-
bility for successful impact in terms of closing the ever
widening gap in minority-majority achievement levels. In
addition our educational leaders must work to dispel the
notions of individual differences in learning and give
serious consideration to theorists such as Bloom who recog-
nize the many similarities among children and their learning
potential. The results of this study indicate that the
noble but misguided efforts at compensatory education pro-
grams which result in resegregation and differentiation

have the inherent danger of moving society backwards perhaps

143

thirty years. The insidious "separate but equal" doctrine
that served as the rationale for school segregation and
unequal treatment in the south, may still be present. How—
ever, it has moved out of public view to inside nominally
desegregated schools.

If further investigation and reform are not under-
taken by policymakers, compensatory education programs may
result in just such inherently "separate but equal" learn-
ing conditions. This latent function would certainly be
dysfunctional for our educational structure and for society

as a whole.

   

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

COMPENSATORY STUDENTS MASTERING DIGP

OBJECTIVES 1976-79

 

 

 

 

 

 

ml on mm mm ma+ om me am H mHuHB
H+ om om mo mm+ mm mv mm m wHOflpufi
mhlmbma mhlmhma mhlhhma hhlmhma mhlonma mhlmhma mhlhnma hnlmnma
Emumoum
mmcmno moflumfimnumzlumm>fluowmno mmcmso mcflommmllmm>fluomnno
w who: no ma madcamo w w who: no wa mcflcfimo w

 

.mblwhma 0» hhlohma .mm>flp
Iomflno woamemnumz paw osflpmmm swam mocmpflsw HMQOADUDHDwaH uoauumflo

who: no smouxam mafiumummz mucmpsum m mHOHuH¢ tam H mapfle mo usmonmmll.HI< manna

oblofima mm>HBUWUmO mUHD UZHmmBm¢Z mBZMQDBm NmoafimzmmSOU

4 xHQmem¢

144

 

APPENDIX B

INSTRUMENTS

 

APPENDIX B

INSTRUMENTS

Regular Teacher Interview Guide

 

Respondent #

 

Interviewer's Name

 

School A B C

 

I am from Michigan State
University. As you know we are conducting a study on Com-
pensatory Education and your school has been randomly
selected to participate in this research. I would, there-
fore, like to ask you a few questions about the compensa-
tory education programs in your school. We will not iden-
tify this information with you in any way.

 

First, I would like to know

1. Are you aware of any compensatory education programs in

this school?

yes . . . . . . . . . . .
no . . . . . . . . . . . .
don't know . . . . . . . .
uncertain . . . . . . . .

If no, don't know, or uncertain use regular teacher
interview schedule B

2. If yes, what compensatory education programs do you
have in this school? (Circle all that apply)

Title I . . . . . . . . .
Article 3 . . . . . . . .
Bilingual . . . . . . . .
Don't know . . . . . . . .
Other (specify) . . . . .

145

hbJNl-J

UltwaH

 
 

146

Are there students in your classroom who participate

in compensatory education programs?

 

yes . . . . . . . 1
no . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . 4
If yes, do item 4, if no, don't know, or uncertain go
to item 5
What compensatory education programs do these students
participate in? (Circle all that apply)
Title I . . . . . . . . . 1
Article 3 . . . . . 2
Bilingual . . . . . . . . 3
Don't know . . . . . 4
Other (specify) . . . 5
Does not apply . . . . . 6
Are you familiar with the way in which students are
selected for participation in the compensatory educa-
tion programs in your school?
yes . . . . . . . . . 1
no . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . 4
If yes, do item 6, if no, don't know or uncertain go
to item 7.
Which of the following criteria are used in this
school to determine which children actually partici-
pate in the compensatory education program(s)?
(Check all that apply)
Title I Article 3 Bilingual

 

standardized achieve-
ment test scores

 

criterion referenced
test scores

 

economic criteria

 

teacher judgment

 

ethnic and/or racial
background

 

language

 

 

 

other (specify)

 

 

L01

ll...

LE;

 

147

7. In what subjects (areas) are instructional services

 

provided to students involved in the compensatory
(Check all that

education program(s) in your school?
aPP1Y)

Title I Article 3

Reading

Bilingual

 

Math

 

Other (specify)

 

8. When special instructional services are provided to
students, where does this instruction take place?

(Circle all that apply)

within the regular classroom

hallway . . . . . . .
cafeteria . . . . . .
library . . . . . . .
resource room (lab) .
special learning room
other (specify) . . .

O
\lO‘U’lubUJNI-J

If special instruction is provided both within and

outside regular classroom do items 9-17.

If special instruction is provided outside the regular

classroom do items 9-13.

If special instruction is provided inside the regular

classroom do items 14-17.

When special instruction is provided outside the
regular classroom for how long each day on the

average are students out of the regular classroom

for special instruction? (total time)

more than 1 hour
45 to 60 minutes
30 to 45 minutes
less than 30 minutes

bWNI—J

 

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

148

What is usually occurring in the regular classroom
while these students are receiving the special
instruction? (Circle all that apply)

free period or study period . . l
P.E. or recess . . . . . . . . 2
art or music . . . . . . . . . 3
math related activity . . . . . 4
reading related activity . . . 5
other (specify) . . . . . . . . 6
Who provides the special instruction?
regular teacher . . . . . . . . l
specialist . . . . . . . . . 2
aides . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
parent volunteers . . . . . . . 4
students . . . . . . . . . . . 5
other (specify) . . . . . . . . 6
How often on the average do you meet with the person
responsible for the special instruction of your com-
pensatory education students in order to discuss the
pupil progress, and their instruction? (Circle only
one)
once a month or less . . . . . 1
once every two weeks . . . . . 2
once a week . . . . . . . . . . 3
more than once a week but
not every day . . . . . . . . 4
every day . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Are the students who leave the classroom for special
instruction more likely to be of one or another racial/
ethnic group? Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Orientals,
Native Americans? (Circle all that apply)

Whites . . . . . . . . . . . . l
Blacks . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Hispanics . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Orientals . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Native Americans . . . . . . . 5
Arabic/Middle East . . . . . 6
Equally Likely . . . . . . . . 7
Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . 8
Uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 9

14.

15.

16.

17.

149

When special instruction is provided within the regular
classroom, for how long each day on the average do the
students receive this special instruction? (Circle
only one)

more than one hour . . . . . . l
45 to 60 minutes . . . . . . . 2
30 to 45 minutes . . . . . . . 3
less than 30 minutes . . . . . 4
What is usually being taught to the other students
while these students are receiving the special
instruction? (Circle all that apply)
free period or study period . . l
P.E. or recess . . . . . . . . 2
art or music . . . . . . . . . 3
math related activity . . . . . 4
reading related activity . . . 5
other (specify) . . . . . . . . 6
Who provides this special instruction? (Circle all
that apply)
regular teacher . . . . . . . . l
specialist . . . . . . . . . . 2
aides . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
parent volunteers . . . . . . . 4
students- . . . . . . . . . . . 5
others (specify) . . . . . . 6
How often on the average do you meet with the person
responsible for the special instruction of your stu-
dents in order to discuss the pupils' progress and
their instruction? (Circle only one)
once a month or less . . . . . 1
once every two weeks . . . . . 2
once a week . . . . . . . . . . 3
more than once a week but
not every day . . . . . . . . 4

every day . . . . . . . . . . . 5

18.

19.

20.

150

How do the year end learning objectives for compensa-
tory education students compare with the year end
learning objectives for noncompensatory education stu-
dents?

Title I Article 3 Bilingual

 

the same

 

different

 

don't know

 

 

 

 

uncertain

 

If different do item 19.
If the same, don't know, or uncertain go to item 20.

Which of the following describes these differences?
(Circle all that apply)

The grade level of the learning objectives set for
compensatory education students is lower than that
of the learning objectives set for regular students .

Fewer learning objectives are set for compensatory
education students than for regular education stu-
dents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Different objectives are set for all students based

upon their individual needs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other (describe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Does not apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What percent of the compensatory education students
in your class do you expect to achieve the learning
objectives set for them? (Check only one for each
program)

Title I Article 3 Bilingual

 

80% or more

 

60% to 79%

 

40% to 59%

 

20% to 39%

 

 

 

 

0% to 19%

21.

22.

23.

24.

15

1

Based upon your previous experience, what percent of
the compensatory education students actually achieve
set for them?

the learning objectives

.80%
60%
40%
20%

or
to
to
to

more .
79% .
59% .
39% .

0% to 19% . .

What percent of the students not involved
tory education programs do you expect
objectives set for them?

80%
60%
40%
20%

or
to
to
to

(Check only

more .
79% .
59% .
39%

0% to 19% . .

Based upon your previous experience, what
the students not involved in compensatory

O

O

O
LII-QWNH

in compensa—

to achieve the

one)

0
O
Uloh-le-J

percent of
education

programs actually achieve the learning objectives

set for them?

 

 

 

80% or more . . . . . . l
60% to 79% . . . . . . . . . 2
40% to 59% . . . . . . . . . . 3
20% to 39% . . . . . . . . 4
0% to 19% . . . . . . . . . . 5
How does the grade level of the instructional materials
used with the compensatory education students compare
with the grade level of the instructional materials
used with students not involved in compensatory educa-
tion programs?
Title I Article 3 Bilingual
the same
different

 

don't know

 

uncertain

 

 

 

 

If different, do item 25,

uncertain go to item 26.

if the same,

don't know or

25.

26.

27.

152

Which of the following describes these differences?
(Circle all that apply)

Compensatory education students are more likely than
regular education students to use instructional
materials that are below grade level . . . . . . .

Compensatory education students are more likely than
regular education students to use teacher developed
materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compensatory education students are more likely than
regular education students to use special commercial
learning materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other (describe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

During the course of the school year, is the curriculum

(teaching units) covered by the compensatory education

students, the same as or different from that covered

by students not involved in any compensatory education

program?

the same . . . . . . . . . . .
different . . . . . . . . . . .
don't know . . . . . . . . . .
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . .

If different, in what ways?
How many of the students in your entire class fall

into the following categories? (Record number of
students)

bLUhJH

Category Number of Entire Class

 

Black

 

White

 

Hispanic

 

Native
American

 

Oriental

 

Arabic/
Middle East

 

Other

 

 

28.

29.

30.

31.

'Category

153

How many of the students receiving compensatory edu-
cation services fall into the following categories?

(Record number of students)

Title I

only only

Article 3 Title I and

Article 3 Bilingual

 

Black

 

White

 

Hispanic

 

Native
American

 

Oriental

 

Arabic/
Middle East

 

Other

 

In your opinion, in general, are minority students
overrepresented in the compensatory education programs

in your school?

yes . . .
no 0 O 0

don't know

uncertain

If yes do items 30 and 31, if no,

uncertain go to item 32.

In which programs do you think this situation exists?

(Circle all that apply)

Title I .
Article 3
Bilingual
Other . .

. . . . . l

. . . . . 2

. . . . . . . . . 3

. . . . . . . . 4
don't know or

. . . . . . . l

. . . . . . . . . 2

. . . . . . . 3

. . . . . . 4

Why do you think this situation has occurred?

154

Would the instruction you provide be the same or dif-
ferent if the resources provided for by the compensa-
tory education programs in this school did not exist?

the same . . . . . . . . . . .
different . . . . . . . . . . .
don't know . . . . . . . . . .
uncertain . . . . . . . . .

If different do item 33, if the same, don't know or
uncertain go to item 34.

In what ways would your instruction be different?

To what extent are you involved in the total school
planning for the compensatory education programs in
your school? (Circle only one)

almost never . . . . . . . . .
rarely . . . . . . . . . . . .
sometimes . . . . . . . . . .

often . . . . . . . . . . . . .

almost always . . . . . . . . .

Of all the potential outcomes of compensatory educa-
tion programs, which do you consider to be the most
positive ones?

The most negative outcomes?

Please tell me which of the following best describes
the level of formal education that you have attained.
(Circle only one)

bachelors degree or less . . . . . . . . . . . . .
bachelors degree plus some credits towards

masters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
masters degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
masters degree plus some credits toward

Ph.D./Ed.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
specialist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ubbJNl-J

mwaH

O‘U'lub

155

37. Including this year, what are the total number of
years of teaching experience you have had?

more than 15 years . . . . .
10 to 15 years . . . . . . .
7 to 10 years . . . . . . . .
3 to 6 years . . . . . . . .
less than 3 years . . . . . .

* Interviewer code the following:

38. Sex Male . . . . . . . . . . . .
Female . . . . . . . . . . .

39. Race Black . . . . . . . . . . .
White . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hispanic . . . . . . . . . .
Native American . . . . . . .
Oriental . . . . . . . . . .
Other . . . . . . . . . . . .

NH U'IerNH

mU‘IuD-UJNH

 

 

156

CompensatOry Education Teacher and Aide
Interview Guide

 

 

Respondent #

 

 

 

Interviewer's Name Teacher . . . . . . l

Aide . . . . . . . 2
School A B C Special . . . . . 3
I am from Michigan State Uni-

 

versity. As you know we are conducting a study on Com-
pensatory Education and your school has been randomly
selected to participate in this research. I would, there—
fore, like to ask you a few questions about the compensatory
education programs in your school. We will not identify
this information with you in any way.

First I would like to know

1. What compensatory education programs do you have in
this school? (Circle all that apply)

Article 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Title I . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Bilingual . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Don't know . . . . . . . . . . 4
Other (specify) . . . . . . . 5
2. Which program provides the funding for your salary?
Article 3 . . . . . . . . . . 1
Title I . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Bilingual . . . . . . . . . . 3
Don't know . . . . . . . . . 4
Other (specify) . . . . . . 5
3. What subject do you teach? (Circle all that apply)
Reading . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Math . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Bilingual . . . . . . . . . . 3
Other (specify) . . . . . . . 4
4. Are you familiar with the way in which students are
selected for participation in the compensatory edu-
cation programs in your school?
yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
no . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . 4

If yes do item 5, if no, don't know or uncertain go to
item 6.

 

 

 

157

Which of the following criteria are used in this school
to determine which children actually participate in
the program you are associated with? (Circle all that

apply)

standardized achievement test scores . . . . . . l
criterion referenced test scores . . . . . . . . . 2
economic criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
teacher judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ethnic and/or racial background . . . . . . . . . . 5
language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
other (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

In what subjects (areas) are instructional services
provided to students involved in the compensatory
education program you are associated with? (Check
all that apply)

Title I Article 3 Bilingual

 

Reading~

 

Math

Other
(specify)

 

 

 

 

 

When special instructional services are provided to
students, where does this instruction take place?
(Check all that apply)

within the regular classroom .
hallway . . . . . . . . . . .
cafeteria . . . . . . . . . .
library . . . . . . . . . . .
resource room (lab) . . . . .
special learning room . . . . .
other (specify) . . . . . . .

\lChU'lh-WNH

If special instruction is provided both within and
outside regular classroom do items 8-16.

If instruction is provided outside the regular class—
room do items 8-12.

If instruction is provided inside the regular class-
room do items 13-16.

10.

11.

158

When instruction is provided outside the regular class-
room for how long each day, on the average, are stu-
dents out of the regular classroom for the subject

you teach? (total time)

more than 1 hour . . . . . . . l
45 to 60 minutes . . . . . . . 2
30 to 45 minutes . . . . . . . 3
less than 30 minutes . . . . . 4

What is usually occurring in the regular classroom

while these students are receiving the instruction

you provide?
free period or study period . . l
P.E. or recess . . . . . . . . 2
art or music . . . . . . . . . 3
math related activity . . . . . 4
reading related activity . . . 5
other (specific) . . . . . . . 6
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 7
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Who provides the special instruction? (Circle all that
apply)

regular teacher . . . . . . . . l
specialist . . . . . . . . . . 2
aides . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
parent volunteers . . . . . . . 4
students . . . . . . . . . . . 5
others (specify) . . . . . . . 6

How often on the average do you meet with the person
responsible for the regular instruction of your stu-
dents in the subject you teach in order to discuss the
pupil's progress and their instruction? (Circle only
one)

once a month or less . . . . . 1
once every two weeks . . . . . 2
once a week . . . . . . . . . . 3
more than once a week but

not every day . . . . . . . . 4

every day . . . . . . . . . . . 5

12.

13.

14.

15.

159

Are the students who leave the classroom to receive
the special instruction you provide more likely to be

of one or another racial/ethnic group: White
Hispanics, Orientals, Native Americans?

Whites . . . . . . .
Blacks . . . . . . .
Hispanics . . . . . . .
Orientals . . . . . . .
Native Americans . . .

Arabic/Middle East

Equally Likely . . . .
Don't Know . . . . . .
Uncertain . . . . . . .

When special instruction is provided within
classroom how long each day, on the average,
students receive this special instruction?
only one)

more than one hour

45 to 60 minutes . . .
30 to 45 minutes .
less than 30 minutes

When special instruction is provided within

s, Blacks,

. . . l
. . . . 2
. 3
. . . . 4
. . . . 5
. . 6
. . 7
. . . . 8
. . . . 9
the regular
do the

(Circle

ALBNJH

the regular

classroom what is usually being taught to the other

students while these students are receiving
instruction? (Circle all that apply)

free period or study per
P.E. or recess . . . .
art or music . . . . .
math related activity .
reading related activity
other (specify) . . . .

Who provides the special instruction? (Circ
that apply)

regular teacher . . . .
specialist . . . . . .
aides . . . . . . . . .
parent volunteers . . .
others (specify) . .

the special

iod . . l
. . . . 2
. . . 3
. . . . 4
. . . 5
. . . . 6
1e all
. . l
. . 2
. . . 3
. . . 4
. . 5

160

16. How often, on the average, do you meet with the person
responsible for the regular instruction of your stu-
dents in order to discuss the pupil's progress and
their instruction? (Circle only one)

once a month or less . . . . .
once every two weeks . . . . .
once a week . . . . . . . . . .
more than once a week but not
every day . . . . . . . . . .
every day . . . . . . . . . . .

wNH

U'l-b

17. How do the year end learning objectives set for the
students you teach compare with the year end learning
objectives set for students not involved in any com-
pensatory education program?

the same . . . . . . . . . . .
different . . . . . .
don't know . . . . . . . . . .
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
I
O
.
AtthH

If different do item 18
If the same, don't know or uncertain go to item 19.

18. Which of the following describes these differences?
(Circle all that apply)

The grade level of-the learning objectives set for
compensatory education students is lower than that

of the learning objectives set for regular stu-

dents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Fewer learning objectives are set for compensatory
education students than for regular education stu—
dents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Different objectives are set for all students based
upon their individual needs . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Other (describe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

19. What percent of your students do you expect to master
the objectives held for them?

80% or more . . . . . . . . . . 1
60% to 79% . . . . . . . . . . 2
40% to 59% . . . . . . . . . . 3
20% to 39% . . . . . . . . . . 4

5

0% to 19% . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

 

20.

21.

22.

23.

161

Based upon your previous experience, what percent of
these students actually achieve the learning objec-
tives set for them?

 

80% or more . . . . . . . . . .
60% to 79% . . . . . . . . .'.
40% to 59% . . . . . . . . . .
20% to 39% . . . . . . . . . .
0% to 19% . . . . . . . . . . .

What percent of the objectives held for the noncom-
pensatory education students do you expect the com-
pensatory education students to achieve?

80% or more . . . . . . . . . .
60% to 79% . . . . . . . . . .
40% to 59% . . . . . . . . . .
20% to 39% . . . . . . . . .

0% to 19% . . . . . . . . . . .

UIIbUJNI-J

U'lubUONH

How does the grade level of the instructional materials

 

used with the students you teach compare with the grade
level of the instructional materials used with students

not involved in any compensatory education program?

the same . . . . . . . . . . .
different . . . . . . . . . . .
don't know . . . . . . . . .
uncertain . . . . . . . . . .

If different do item 23.
If the same, don't know, or uncertain go to item 24.

Which of the following describes these differences?
(Circle all that apply)

Compensatory education students are more likely than
regular education students to use instructional
materials that are below grade level . . . . . . .

Compensatory education students are more likely than
regular education students to use teacher developed
materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compensatory education students are more likely than
regular education students to use special commercial
learning materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other (describe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

alt-OJNH

 

ii! '3

 

In

24.

25.

26.

27.

162

During the course of the school year is the curriculum
(teaching units) covered by your compensatory education
students the same as or different from that covered

by students not involved in any compensatory education

program?
the same . .
different .
don't know
uncertain . .

If different, in what ways?

How many students are assigned to

Record number of students

you

for

o
o
I
o
o
vaJNH

instruction?

How many of the students assigned to you for instruc-
tion would fall into the following categories?

Category Number receiving this instruction

 

Black

 

White

 

Hispanic

 

Native American

 

Oriental

 

Arabic/Middle East

 

Other

 

 

In your opinion, in general, are minority students
overrepresented in the compensatory education programs

in your school?

yes . . . . .
no . . . . .
don't know .
uncertain . .

If yes, do items 28 and 29.

If no, don't know or uncertain go

0

C

O

O
ALUK)H

to item 30.

 

 

 

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

163

In which programs do you think this situation
(Circle all that apply)

Title I . . . . . . . . .
Article 3 . . . . . . . .
Bilingual . . . . . . . .
Don't know . . . . . . .
Uncertain . . . . . . . .

Why do you think this situation has occurred.

exists?

. . . l

. . . 2
. . 3

. . . 4

. . . 5

Would the instructional program in this school be the
same or different if the resources provided for by this

compensatory education program did not exist?

the same . . . . . . . .
different . . . . . . . .
don't know . . . . . . .
uncertain . . . . . . . .

If different do item 31.

O
QWNH

If the same, don't know, or uncertain go to item 32.

In what ways would the instruction differ?

To what extent are you involved in the total school
planning for the compensatory education programs in

your school? (Circle only one)

almost never . . . . . .
rarely . . . . . . . . .
sometimes . . . . . . . .
often . . . . . . . . . .
almost always . . . . . .

Of all the potential outcomes of compensatory

thNi-J

education

programs, which do you consider to be the most positive

ones?

The most negative ones?

34.

35.

36.

37.

164

Please tell me which of the following best describes
the level of formal education that you have attained.

(Check only one)

high school degree or less . . . . . . . . .
high school degree plus some college credits
bachelors degree . . . . . . . . . . .

bachelors degree plus some credits towards masters.

masters degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
masters degree plus some credits toward Ph.D.,
Ed. D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
specialist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ph. D. or Ed. D. degree . . . . . . . . . . . .

Including this year, what is the total number
of teaching experience (aide experience) have

more than 15 years . . .
10 to 15 years . . . . .
7 to 10 years . . . . . .
3 to 6 years . . . .

less than 3 years . . . .

Interviewer code the following:

Sex Male . . . . . . . . . .
Female . . . . . . . . .
Race Black . . . . . . . . . .
White . . . . . . . . . .
Hispanic . . . . . . . .
Native American . . . . .
Oriental . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . .

U'luhUJNl-J

o
o
\ION

of years
you had?

NH U'lIhWNl-J

O
mU'lubUONl-J

 

165

Principal's Interview Guide

 

Respondent #

 

Interviewer's Name

 

School A B C

 

I am from Michigan State Uni-
versity. As you know we are conducting a study on Com-
pensatory Education and your school has been randomly
selected to participate in this research. I would, there-
fore, like to ask you a few questions about the compensa-
tory education programs in your school. We will not iden-
tify this information with you in any way.

 

1. What compensatory education program(s) do you have in
this school? (Circle all that apply)

Title I . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Article 3 . . . . . . . . . . 2
Bilingual . . . . . . ... . . . 3
Other (specify) . . . . . . . . 4
2. As you understand the district guidelines for the pro-
gram(s) in your school, which criteria are used to
determine which children are eligible for the com-
pensatory education services in your school? (Check
all that apply)
Criteria Title I Article 3 Bilingual

 

Standardized Achievement
Test Scores

Criterion Referenced
Tests

 

 

Economic Criteria

 

Teacher Judgment

 

Racial and/or Ethnic
Background

 

Language

 

Other (specify)

 

 

 

 

 

166

Please weigh on a ten point scale the criteria you
have indicated in terms of their importance to
eligibility.

Criteria Title I Article 3 Bilingual

 

Standardized Achievement
Test Scores

 

Criterion Referenced
Tests

 

Economic Criteria

 

Teacher Judgment

 

Racial and/or Ethnic
Background

 

Language

 

 

 

 

Other (specify)

 

Total n m 1.9
Altogether, by grade level, how many children have
been determined eligible for compensatory education
services in the program(s) you offer? (Record number
of students)

 

Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Title I only

 

 

Article 3 only

 

Title I and
Article 3 only

 

Bilingual

 

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

167

Which of the following criteria are used in this school
to determine which children actually receive the com—
pensatory education services offered in this school?
(Check all that apply)

 

 

Criteria Title I Article 3 Bilingual
standardized achievement
test scores

criterion referenced
test scores

 

 

 

economic criteria

 

teacher judgment

 

racial ethnic
background

 

language

 

other (specify)

 

 

 

 

How many of the students in each of the various racial/
ethnic groups are enrolled in your school? (Record
number of students)

Group School Enrollment

Black

 

 

White

 

Hispanic

 

Native American

 

Oriental

 

Arabic/Middle East

 

Other

 

 

 

168

How many of the students of the various racial/ethnic
groups receive compensatory education services?
(Record number of students)

Title I Article 3
only only

 

Group Both Bilingual

 

Black

 

White

 

Hispanic

 

Native
American

 

Oriental

Arabic/
Middle East

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your opinion, in general, are minority students
overrepresented in any of the compensatory education
programs in your school?

yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4
If yes, in which programs do you think this situation
exists? (Circle all that apply)
Title I . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Article 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Bilingual . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Why do you think this situation has occurred?

Has your school identified specific learning objectives
for these compensatory education programs?

 

Title I Yes No
Article 3 Yes No
Bilingual Yes No

If yes and in writing, request copies and go to item
10.

'If no go to item 11.

10.

11.

12.

169

How do the year end learning objectives for compensa-
tory education students compare with those of students
not inVolved in compensatory education programs?
(Circle only one) -

Title I the same . . . . . . . . . . 1
different . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4
If different, in what ways?

Article 3 the same . . . . . . . . . . . 1
different . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4
If different in what ways?

Bilingual the same . . . . . . . . . . . 1
different . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4

If different, in what ways?
What specific instructional services are provided to
students under the compensatory education programs in
your school? (Check all that apply)

Title I Article 3 Bilingual

 

reading

 

mathematics

 

other
(specify)

 

 

 

 

Where does this instruction usually take place? (Circle
all that apply)

within the regular classroom . 1
hallway . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
cafeteria . . . . . . . . . . . 3
library . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
resource room . . . . . . . . . 5
special learning room . . . . . 6
other (specify) . . . . . . . . 7

13.

14.

15.

170

During the course of the school year, is the curriculum
(teaching units) covered by the compensatory education
students, the same as or different from that covered

by students not involved in any compensatory education

program?

Title I Article 3 Bilingual

 

the same

 

different

 

don't know

 

 

 

 

uncertain

 

If different in what ways?

Title I

Article 3

Bilingual

Have you noted any problems in the implementation
compensatory education programs in your school?

yes . . . . . . . . . . . . .
no . . . . . . . . . . . . .
don't know . . . . . . . . .
uncertain . . . . . . . . . .

of

uwaI-J

If yes, do item 15, if no, don't know or uncertain go

to item 16.

If Yes, please describe these problems.

16.

17.

18.

19.

171

Would the instructional program in your school differ
if the resources provided for by the compensatory edu-
cation program(s) in your school were no longer avail-

able?

yes . . . . . .
no . . . . . .
don't know . .
uncertain . . .

If yes do item 14.

O

O

O
thNI-J

How would the instruction provided in your school
differ if the resources provided for by these com-
pensatory education programs were not available?

Title I

Article 3

Bilingual

To what extent do you involve staff in the planning
for the compensatory programs in your school? (Circle

only one)

almost never .

rarely . . . .
sometimes . . .
often . . . . .

almost always .

O

O

O
WQWNl-J

Please describe the nature of this involvement?

To what extent do you involve community
for the compensatory education programs

(Circle only one)

almost never .
rarely . .
sometimes .
often . . . . .
almost always .

in the planning
in your school?

0

O

O
U'IthJNH

Please describe the nature of this involvement?

 

 

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

172

Of all the potential outcomes of compensatory

 

education

programs, which do you consider to be the most positive

ones?

The most negative ones?

How do you evaluate the success or failure of
pensatory education programs in your school?

In your opinion have these programs succeeded

succeeded . . . . . . . .
failed . . . . . . . . .
don't know . . . . . . .
uncertain . . . . . .

other (specify) . . . . .

Please tell me which of the following best des

the com-

or failed?

014:.me

cribes

the level of formal education that you have attained?

(Circle only one)

bachelors degree or less . . . . . . . . . .
bachelors degree + some credit towards masters
masters degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
masters degree + some credits towards
Ph.D./Ed.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
specialist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree . . . . . . . . . . . .

Including this year, what is the total number
of administrative experience you have had?

more than 15 years . . .
10 to 15 years . . . . .
7 to 10 years .

3 to 6 years

less than 3 years

Interviewer code the following:

Sex Male . . . . . . . . . .
Female . . . . . . . . .

WNH

O
GUI-b

O
O
U'luwaH

26.

Race

173

Black . . . . .
White . . . .
Hispanic . .
Native American
Oriental . . .
Other (specify)

O\Lfin¥>bJNl-‘

174

Central Office Administrators

Respondent #

 

Interviewer's Name

 

I am from Michigan State
University. As you know we are conducting a study on Com-
pensatory Education and your school district has been
selected to participate in this research. I would, there-
fore, like to ask you a few questions about the compensa-
tory education programs in your school. We will not iden-
tify this information with you in any way.

1. How is your job related to the compensatory education
programs provided in this district?

Title I

Article 3

Bilingual

ESAA

2. As you understand them what are the primary purposes
of these programs?
Title I
Article 3

Bilingual

ESAA

 

 

175

As you understand the guidelines for the programs in
your district, which criteria are used to determine
which schools are eligible for the compensatory educa-

 

tion services in your district? (Check all that apply)

Title Article Other
Criteria I 3 Bilingual (specify)

 

standard achieve-
ment test scores

 

criterion refer-
enced test scores

 

economic criteria

 

teacher judgment

 

racial and/or
ethnic background

 

language

 

other (specify)

 

 

 

 

 

As you understand the guidelines for the programs in
your district, which criteria are used to determine
which students are eligible for the compensatory educa-

 

tion services in your district? (Check all that apply)

Title Article Other
Criteria I 3 Bilingual (specify)

 

standard achieve-
ment test scores

 

criterion refer-
enced test scores

 

economic criteria

 

teacher judgment

 

racial and/or
ethnic background

 

language

 

 

 

 

 

other (specify)

 

5.

 

176

How many students of the various racial and/or ethnic
groups are enrolled in your district? (Record number
of students)

Group District Enrollment

Black

 

 

White

 

Hispanic

 

Native
American

 

Oriental

Arabic/
Middle East

Other

 

 

 

Total

 

 

In your district, how many students of the various
racial and/or ethnic groups are eligible for compensa-
tory education services? (Record number of students)

Title I Article 3 Bilingual Total

 

Black

 

White

 

Hispanic

 

Native American

 

Oriental

 

Arabic/
Middle East

 

Other

 

 

 

 

 

In your opinion, in general, are minority students
overrepresented in any 0f the compensatory education
programs in your district?

yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4

If yes answer items 8 and 9. If no, don't know or
uncertain go to item 10.

10.

11.

12.

177

In which programs do you think this situation exists?
(Circle all that apply)

Title I . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Article 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Bilingual . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Why do you think this situation has occurred?

When the district proposes or develops these programs,
are specific learning objectives identified for the
year? (Answer yes or no)

 

 

Title I Yes No
Article 3 Yes No
Bilingual Yes No

Could you identify those learning objectives or cite
them in proposals?

Title I

Article 3

Bilingual

How do the year end objectives set for compensatory
education students compare with the year end objec-
tives set for noncompensatory education students?

the same . . . . . . . . . . . 1
different . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . 4

If different do item 13, if the same, don't know or
uncertain go to item 14.

13.

14.

15.

178

Which of the following describes these differences?
(Circle all that apply)

The grade level of the learning objectives set for
compensatory education students is lower than that

of the learning objectives set for regular stu-

dents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Fewer learning objectives are set for compensatory
education students than for regular education stu-
dents O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 2

Different objectives are set for all students
based upon their individual needs . . . . . . . . . 3

Other (describe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

How does the grade level of the instructional materials
used with the compensatory education students compare
with the grade level of the instructional materials
used with students not involved in compensatory educa-
tion programs?

 

Title I Article 3 Bilingual

 

the same

 

different

 

don't know

 

uncertain

 

 

 

 

If different do item 15, if the same, don't know or
uncertain go to item 16.

Which of the following describes these differences?
(Circle all that apply)

Compensatory education students are more likely than
regular education students to use instructional
materials that are below grade level . . . . . . . l

Compensatory education students are more likely than
regular education students to use teacher developed
materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Compensatory education students are more likely than
regular education students to use special commercial
learning materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Other (describe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

16.

17.

18.

179

During the course of the school year, is the curriculum
(teaching units) covered by the compensatory education
students, the same as or different from that covered

by students not involved in any compensatory education
program?

the same . . . . . . . . . . . 1
different . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4
If different, in what ways?
Have you noted any problems in the implementation of
compensatory education programs in your district?
yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
no 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 O 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4

If Yes, do item 18.
If No, Don't Know or Uncertain go to item 19.

If Yes, please describe these problems.

19.

20.

21.

22.

 

180

Would the instructional programs in your district
differ if the resources provided for by these programs
were not available?

Title I yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Article 3 yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Bilingual yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4

If Yes, how would the instructional program differ?

Of all the potential outcomes of compensatory education
programs, which do you consider to be the most positive
ones?

The most negative ones?

How do you evaluate the success or failure of the
compensatory education program in your district?

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

181

In your opinion have these programs succeeded or failed?

 

succeeded . . . . . . . . . . . 1
failed . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . 4
other (specify) . . . . . . 5
Pleasewtell me which of the following best describes
the level of formal education that you have attained
(Circle only one)
bachelors degree or less . . . . . . . . . . . l

bachelors degree plus some credits towards

masters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
masters degree . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
masters degree plus some credits towards Ph. D. /

Ed. D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
specialist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Ph.D. or Ed.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Including this year, what is the total number of years
of experience you have as a district administrator?

more than 15 years . . . . . . l
10 to 15 years . . . . . . . . 2
7 to 10 years . . . . . . . . . 3
3 to 6 years . . . . . . . . . 4
less than 3 years . . . . . . . 5

Interviewer code the following:

Sex Male . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Female . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Race Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . 3
Native American . . . . . . . 4
Oriental . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 

 

182

Regular Teacher (B) Interview Guide

Respondent #

 

Interviewer's Name

 

School A B C

I am from Michigan State
University. As you know we are conducting a study on Com-
pensatory Education and your school has been randomly
selected to participate in this research. I would, there-
fore, like to ask you a few questions about the compensatory
education programs in your school. We will not identify
this information with you in any way.

It is interesting that the compensatory education programs
in this school are not generally known about.

1. What do you know about compensatory education programs
in general?

2. Why do you suppose that compensatory education program(s)
in this school are not generally known about?

We are told of the existence of (cite program(s) that
exist in the school)

Title I

Article 3

Bilingual

Program(s) in this school

Since this (these) compensatory education program(s)
are said to exist in this school we'd like you to try
to answer some questions.

3. How many students do you have in your classroom?

Record number of students

 

 

 

 

 

183

Do you think you have any compensatory education stu-
dents in your classroom?

yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4

If yes, do item 5 and 6 if no, don't know or uncertain
go to item 7.

How many compensatory education students do you think
you have? (Record number of students)

 

Which of the following criteria would you use to deter-
mine which of these would actually participate in the
compensatory education programs in your school?

(Circle all that apply)

standardized achievement
test scores . . . . . . . . . l
criterion referenced

test scores . . . . . . . . 2
economic criteria . . . . . . . 3
teacher judgment . . . . . . . 4
ethnic and/or racial back-
ground . . . . . . . . . . . 5
language . . . . . . . . . . . 6
other . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
In what subjects (areas) do you think instructional
services are provided for students involved in com-
pensatory education programs?
reading . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
math . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
both . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
other (specify) . . . . . . . . 4
Where do you think the special instructional services
provided to compensatory education students in this
school takes place? (Circle all that apply)
within the regular classroom . l
hallway . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
cafeteria . . . . . . . . . . . 3
library . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
resource room (lab) . . . . . . 5
special learning room . . . . 6
other (specify) . . . . . . . 7

184

9. For how long each day on the average do you think stu-
dents receive the special instruction? (Total time)

more than 1 hour . . . . . . . 1
45 to 60 minutes . . . . . . 2
30 to 45 minutes . . . . . . . 3
less than 30 minutes . . . . . 4
10. What do you think is usually occurring with the non-
compensatory students while these students are receiv—
ing the special instruction? (Circle all that apply)
free period or study period . . 1
P.E. or recess . . . . . . . . 2
art or music . . . . . . . . . 3
math related activity . . . . . 4
reading related activity . . . 5
other (specify) . . . . . . . 6
11. Who do you think provides this special instruction?
(Circle all that apply)
regular teacher . . . . . . . . l
specialist . . . . . . . . . . 2
aides . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
parent volunteers . . . . . 4
students . . . . . . . . . . . 5
others (specify) . . . . . . . 6

12. How often on the average would you think that the person
responsible for the regular instruction would meet with
the teacher of the special instruction to discuss the
pupil's progress and their instruction? (Circle only

one)
once a month or less . . . . . 1
once every two weeks . . . . . 2
once a week . . . . . . . . . . 3
more than once a week but
not every day . . . . . . . . 4
every day . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 

13.

14.

15.

 

185

Do you think that the students who receive the special
instruction are more likely to be of one or another
racial or ethnic group: Whites, Blacks, Hispanics,
Orientals, Native Americans? (Circle all that apply)

Whites . . . . . . . . . . . . l
Blacks . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Hispanics . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Orientals . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Native Americans . . . . . . . 5
Arabic/Middle East . . . . . . 6
Equally likely . . . . . . . . 7
Don't know . . . . . . . . . . 8
Uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 9
How do you think that the year end learning objectives
set for the compensatory education students would com-
pare with those set for students not involved in com-
pensatory education programs?
the same . . . .'. . . . . . . 1
different . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4

If different, do item 15, if the same, don't know or
uncertain go to item 16.

Which of the following might describe these differences?
(Circle all that apply)

The grade level of learning objectives set for oom-
pensatory education students would belower than that

of the learning objectives set for regular education
students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Fewer learning objectives would be set for compensa-
tory education students than for regular education
students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Different objectives are set for all students
based upon their individual needs . . . . . . .-. . 3

Other (describe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

186

What percent of the compensatory education student

would you expect would achieve the learning objectives

held for them?

80% or more . . . . . . . . .
60% to 79% . . . . . . . . .
40% to 59% . . . . . . . . .
20% to 39% . . . . . . . . .
0% to 19% . . . . . . . . . .

What percent of your students do you expect to achieve

the learning objectives set for them?

80% or more . . . . . . . . .
60% to 79% . . . . . . . . .
40% to 59% . . . . . . . . .
20% to 39% . . . . . . . . .
0% to 19% . . . . . . . .

Based upon your previous experience, what percent

 

set for them?

80% or more . . . . . . . . .
60% to 79% . . . . . . . . .
40% to 59% . . . . . . .
20% to 39% . . . . . . .
0% to 19% . . . . . . . .

What percent of the learning objectives held for t
noncompensatory education students would you expec
the compensatory education students to achieve?

80% or more . . . . . .
60% to 79% . . . . .

' 40% to 59% . . . . . . . . .
20% to 39% . . . . . . . . .
0% to 19% . . . . . . . . .

How do you think that the grade level of the instruc-
tional materials used with compensatory education stu-

dents would compare to that used with students not
involved in any compensatory education program?

the same . . . . . . . .
different . . . . . . . .

don't know . . . . . . .
uncertain . .

If the same, don't know or uncertain go to item 22

If different do item 21.

S

of

‘your students actually achieve the learning objectives

he
t

U'IwaI—I UluwaH £119me UluwaH

DOOM)“

 

187

Which of the following might describe these differences?

Compensatory education students would be more likely
than regular education students to use instructional
materials that are below grade level . . . . . . . l

Compensatory education students would be more likely
than regular education students to use teacher
developed materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Compensatory education students would be more likely
than regular education students to use special com-
mercial learning materials . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Other (describe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

During the course of the school year do you think that
the curriculum (teaching units) covered by compensatory
education students is the same as or different from
that covered by students not involved in any compensa-
tory education program?

the same . . . . . . . . . . . 1
different . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4
If different, in what ways?
In your opinion do you think that minority students
would be overrepresented in compensatory education
programs?
yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
don't know . . . . . . . . . . 3
uncertain . . . . . . . . . . . 4

If yes, why do you think this situation might occur?

Of all the potential outcomes of compensatory education
programs which do you think are the most positive ones?

The most negative ones?

- . s .. '
- - ... — '5‘"
...-

 

25.

26.

27.

28.

 

188

Please tell me which of the following best describes
the level of formal education that you have attained?

(Circle only one)

bachelors degree or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
bachelors degree + some credit towards masters . 2
masters degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
masters degree + some credits toward Ph. D. /Ed. D. 4
specialist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 6
Including this year, what is the total number of years
of teaching experience you have had?
more than 15 years . . . . . . l
10 to 15 years . . . . . . 2
7 to 10 years . . . . . . . . 3
3 to 6 years . . . . . . . . . 4
less than 3 years . . . . . . . 5
Interviewer code the following:
Sex Male . . . . . . . . . . 1
Female . . . . . . . . 2
Race Black . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
White . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Hispanic . . . . . . . . . 3
Native American . . . . . . 4
Oriental . . . . . . . . . 5
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 

189

STUDENT EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE OBSERVATION FORM

SCHOOL A B C
STUDENT GRADE LEVEL
COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAM PARTICIPATION: (Check all that apply)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Title I
Article 3
Bilingual
Other (specify)
None
CODES
Subject Taught Location of Instruction
Free period or study period...l within the regular classroom.....l
P.E. or recess ..... ..... ...... 2 hallway..........................2
Art or music..................3 cafeteria............. ...... .....3
Math related activity.. ....... 4 library ...... . ......... ..........4
Reading related activity......5 resource room (lab)..............5
Other (specify)...............6 special learning room ....... .....6
' other (specify) .................. 7
Type of Instructor
Regular teacher..........l
Specialist...............2
Aide.....................3
Parent Volunteer.........4
Students.................5
Others (specify).........6
OBSERVATION N0. DATE (enter appropriate codes below)

 

   
  

    
  
       

 
    
 

      

  
    

Racial composition
of group

Location
of

    

Type of Group Size
instructor record 0 of students

r - reg
c - comp

Subject

Time Taught

    
   
  

 
   

Be
8:30
8:45
8:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45

 
  
   

  
 
 
  
   

  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  

  
  
 
  
 
   
  

  
  
  
   
 
 
 
 

     

 

 

APPENDIX C

PERCENT MINORITY ENROLLMENT TITLE I AND

ARTICLE 3 BY GRADE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om mm mv mm mm om mm mm. om om Amaco m wHOHunfiv U Hoonom
«H mm mm no he om mm me we om m Hoonom
ma we me am 00 mm Ho om a Hoozom
me a He messages unmoumm
mueuocaz Hoonom
. .. a Huoca % fleece
.m> anemones m4 u. .z a u. .2 w m4 0 m e m m H x

Hoonom HB movmuw HH¢

.Ha woemuwmueo w

 

omlmhma .0 tom m .é mHOOSUm

MQ<MO Mm m MAUHBm< 02¢ H WQBHB BZHZAAOflZm NBHmOZHS Bzmvmmm

U XHQmemd

190

APPENDIX D

RESPONSES--WHY MINORITY OVERREPRESENTATION

HAS OCCURRED

 

 

APPENDIX D

RESPONSES--WHY MINORITY OVERREPRESENTATION

HAS OCCURRED

QUESTION: Why do you think this situation (minority over-
representation in compensatory education programs)
has occurred?

STAFF INTERVIEWED: Teachers, instructional aides, central

office administrators, and principals.

Number of Response
Response Categories Responses Rank

 

Family background of minority
children
Low socio-economic status
Working parents
Single parents
AFDC
Living environments
Mobility
Cultural differences
Lack of faith in educa-
tional system 15 1

Program guidelines 10 2
Greater numbers of minorities

not succeeding, minorities

need the services more 10 2
Prejudice, institutional racism,

personal racism, past dis-

crimination, cultural bias 6 3

Identification and selection
process, tests 6 3

191

 

192

 

Number of Response
Response Categories Responses Rank
Educational system design gives
disproportionate efforts
towards minorities l 4

Total Number of Responses 48

 

 

,..(

 

APPENDIX E

EXPECTATIONS FOR MASTERY OF

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AOOH. we AOOHV SH AooH. HH HOOHV om Hmuoe
Les N Lee H Ami H loo 0 mmcoemmu oz
Ami H Am. H Hoe 0 Ho. 0 me on we
on o on o How o on o wmm Op wow
Amy m on H How o AOHV m wmm ou woe

Ammv HH Anew m AmH. m Amv H was on woo

Amos Hm Ammo w Amp. m Ammv 5H mHOE Ho wow
m a w c w s w c
we" 5H": HHH: owns

mmoH4 mumnomma HMHoomm muonomoe
Hmuoa HmcoHuosmumsH Hoouo tam mo HmHsmom

 

mmwa HmcGOmHmm an mm>Hpownoo mchummH

mm>HEUMme UZHzmflmH

m0 wmmeméz mom mZOHB<BUmmxm

W XHQmemd

Houmwz ou omuommxm musoospm coHumostm wuoummcwmfioo mo pcooumm

193

 

 

 

195

Percent of Noncompensatory Education Learning
Objectives Compensatory Education Students
Are Expected to Achieve

 

 

 

 

Aides Compensatory/
Special Teachers
n=l7 n=1l

n % n %
80% or more 3 (18) 4 (36)
60% to 79% 8 (47) 2 (18)”
40% to 59% 5 (29) 0 (0)
20% to 39% O (0) l (9)
0% to 19% 1 (6) 0 (0)
No Response 0 (0) 4 (36)

Total 17 (100) 11 (99)

 

Percent of Noncompensatory Education Students
Expected to Achieve Learning Objectives,
Regular Teacher Responses

 

Frequency

 

n=20 Percent
80% or more 17 85.0
60% to 79% 3 15.0
40% to 59% 0 0.0
20% to 39% 0 0.0
0% to 19% 0 0.0

Total 20 100.0

 

 

196

Percent of Noncompensatory Education Students
Actually Achieving Learning Objectives,
Regular Teacher Responses

 

 

Frequency Percent
80% or more 11 55.0
60% to 79% 8 40.0
20% to 39% 1 5.0
0% to 19% 0 0.0

Total 20 100.0

 

 

 

APPENDIX F

RESPONSES-~DIFFERENCES IN CURRICULUM COVERED BY

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION STUDENTS

   

 

APPENDIX F

RESPONSES--DIFFERENCES IN CURRICULUM COVERED BY

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION STUDENTS

QUESTION: During the course of the school year, is the
curriculum (teaching units) covered by the com-
pensatory education students the same as or dif-
ferent from that covered by students not involved
in any compensatory education program? If differ-

ent, in what ways?

STAFF INTERVIEWED: Teachers, instructional aides, central
office administrators and principals.

Response Categories

Lower level curriculum covered by
the compensatory education stu-
dents

Same level but less complex, com-
pensatory education students
have a more generalized expo-
sure, less depth

More reinforcement, extra drill,
and supplemental instruction
provided to compensatory edu-
cation students

Individualized, personalized curric-
ulum is provided to compensatory
education students

Curriculum for compensatory edu-
cation students is presented
at a different pace

Total Number of Responses

197

Number of Response
Responses Rank

15 1

35

 

 

APPENDIX G

RESPONSES--DIFFERENCES IN INSTRUCTION

APPENDIX G

RESPONSES--DIFFERENCES IN INSTRUCTION

QUESTION: Would the instruction you provide (instructional
program in your school, district) be the same as
or different if the resources provided for by the
compensatory education programs did not exist?

If different, in what ways?

STAFF INTERVIEWED: Teachers, instructional aides, central
office administrators, and principals.

 

Number of Response

Response Categories Responses Rank
Less aides, staff reductions 26 1
Less individualized instruction 18 2
Wider range of abilities to handle

within the regular classroom,

more reading groups, larger class

size, less time spent with regu-

lar students 15 3
Less money available for supplies

and materials 8 4
Less time would be spent with

slower students 8 4
Others

more discipline problems

have to scrape up materials more

program would not exist

less parent involvement

less staff inservice

less reinforcement for students 8 4
Less testing, less monitoring 5 5

198

199

 

Number of Response
Response Categories Responses Rank
Lowering of goals and expecta-
tions set for them (compensa-
tory education students) 2 6

Total Number of Responses 90

 

APPENDIX H

RESPONSES--POSITIVE OUTCOMES OF

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS

APPENDIX H

RESPONSES--POSITIVE OUTCOMES OF

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS

 

Response Categories

Compensatory education programs
increase pupils' reading and
mathematics achievement

Compensatory education programs
improve students' self-concept
and attitude

Compensatory education programs
provide for individualization
of instruction, small group
instruction, one to one
instruction

Compensatory education programs
provide special supplementary
services to disadvantaged
children

Others
provide staff inservice
assist in desegregation
teachers learn how to work
with low achievers

Compensatory education programs
provide additional money for
supplies and staff

Compensatory education programs
increase the possibility for
parental involvement

Total Number of Responses

200

Number of Response
Responses Rank

35 1

22 2

16 3

89

 

APPENDIX I

RESPONSES--NEGATIVE OUTCOMES OF

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS

APPENDIX I

RESPONSES--NEGATIVE OUTCOMES OF

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS

 

Number of Response

Response Categories Responses Rank
Guidelines exclude certain children

who need the help, requires aides

only work with certain children 16 1
Stigmatization and labeling of stu-

dents that are involved in com-

pensatory education programs 11 2
Segregation and resegregation of

students 10 3
Disruption of classes, scheduling

problems, interruption of daily

schedule 9 4
Compensatory education students miss

instruction and class activities 7 4
Other

noise in halls

over dependence on programs

loss of funds 6 6
Discipline problems 4 7
Program goals are not focused on

areas of student needs 3 8
Lack of communication between com-

pensatory and noncompensatory

education staff 2 9

201

202

 

Number of Response
Response Categories Responses Rank
Difficulty in planning, funding
timetable l 10

Total Number of Responses 69

APPENDIX J

LETTER TO TEACHERS

APPENDIX J

LETTER TO TEACHERS

March 19, 1980

Dear Teacher:

The College of Urban Development of Michigan State Univer-
sity, under contract with the Department of Health, Educa—
tion and Welfare and with the cooperation of the
School District's Office of Evaluation Services, is con-
ducting a case study. Your school has been randomly
selected as one of the sites. We will examine the ways in
which the interaction of various federal and state policies
and programs have affected the receipt of services mandated
by these policies and programs. We are specifically inter-
ested in the way compensatory education programs function
in this school. Unlike most studies of national and state
policy which focus on large units, this study will use the
local school as the unit of analysis.

 

Since you and your colleagues are the people who know most
about these programs, we are asking for your assistance by
requesting your participation in an interview session.

This session should last 30 to 45 minutes and will be
arranged at a time convenient to you. We are able to offer
a small ten dollar honorarium for your time and effort.

We hope you are willing to participate in this research
effort and we are anxious to involve as many staff as pos-
sible from your school. In advance we express our sincere
appreciation for your assistance with this project.

Sincerely,

Professor, College of Education and Urban Development
Michigan State University

203

 

APPENDIX K

CONSENT FORM

APPENDIX K

CONSENT FORM

I have agreed to participate in a study of compensatory
education programs and their impact on equality of educa-
tional opportunity at the local school level. This study
is being conducted by the College of Urban Development of
Michigan State University. This investigation, including
any potential risks, has been sufficiently explained to me
and I understand it to my satisfaction.

I further understand that all results from this study will
be treated with strict confidence and that my identity will
not be revealed. I understand that I am free to withdraw
from this study at any time.

 

 

Signed Witness

 

 

Date Date

204

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Act No. 94, Michigan Public Acts of 1979, Enrolled House
Bill No. 4245. The State School Aid Act of 1979,
August 3, 1979.

American Institute for Research. -Project Longstep Final
Report: Volume 1, Behavioral Science & Technology
Group, Palo Alto, California, April 1976.

American Institute for Research. Evaluation of the Impact
of ESEA Title VII Spanish/English Bilingual
Education Program, Palo Alto, California, March
1978.

 

Averch, Harvey A. How Effective is Schooling? A Critical
Review and Synthesis of Research Findings. The
Rand Corporation, 1972.

 

Bailey, Stephen, and Mosher, Edith. E.S.E.A.-—The Office
of Education Administers a Law. Syracuse Univer-
sity Press, 1968.

 

 

Berke, Joel, and Kirst, Michael. Federal Aid to Education.
Massachusetts: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath & Co.,
1972.

Berman, Paul pp 21° Federal Programs Supporting Educational
Change, Vol. IV (abridged). California: The Rand
Corporation, April 1975.

Bloom, Benjamin. Human Characteristics and School Learning.
McGraw-Hill, 1976.

Bloom, Benjamin; Davis, Allison; and Hess, Robert. Compen-
satory Education for Cultural Deprivation. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965.

Boulding, Kenneth E. The Image. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan, 1956.

 

Bowles, Samuel. "Getting Nowhere: Programmed Class Stag-
nation." Society, June 1972.

205

 

206

Brookover, Wilbur pp pl. "Quality of Educational Attain-
ment, Standardized Testing, Assessment, and
Accountability." 73rd Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Chapter 8,
pp. 161-191, 1974.

 

 

Brookover, Wilbur, and Erickson, Edsel; Sociology of
Education. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press,
1975.

 

 

Brookover, Wilbur gp_sl. Schools Can Make a Difference.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University,
1977.

Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, 347, U.S. 483, 1954.

 

Bruno, James E. (Ed.). Emerging Issues in Education: Policy
Implications for the Schools. The Rand Corporation,
1972.

 

 

Cohen, David K. "Policy for the Public Schools: Compensa-
tion and Integration," in Equal Educational Oppor-
tunity. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,
pp. 91—114, 1969.

 

Cohen, David K. "Segregation, Desegregation, and Brown."
Society 12(1), November/December 1974, pp. 34-40.

 

Cohen, Elizabeth. "The Effects of Desegregation on Race
Relations." Law and Contemporary Problems, School
of Law, Duke University 39(2), Spring 1975, pp. 271—
313.

Coleman, James. "Equality of Educational Opportunity," in

Equal Educational Opportunity. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1969.

 

Derthick, Martha. The Influence of Federal Grants.
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1970.

Dolce, Carl. "The Inner—City: A Superintendent's View."
Saturdgy Review of Literature, January 11, 1969.

 

 

Eash, Maurice. "Grouping: What Have We Learned."
Educational Leadership 18, April, 1961, pp. 429-
434.

Findley, Warren, and Bryan, Miriam. Ability Grouping:
1970 Status, Impact and Alternatives. Athens,
Georgia: Center for Education Improvement, 1971.

 

 

 

 

 

......

207

Fischer, Louis. "Law and Educational Policy." The Educa-
tional Forum, November 1979, pp. 109-114.

 

 

Glass, Gene V. Data Analysis of the 1968-1969 Survey of
'Compensatory Education. Boulder, Colorado:

Laboratory of Educational Research, University
of Colorado, 1970.

 

 

Green, Robert L., and Cohen, Wilbur J. An Evaluation of
the Results of the School Desegregation Order in
Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, August 15,
1979.

 

 

 

Gumbert, Edgar, and Spring, Joel. The Superschool and the
Superstate: American Education in the 20th Century.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974.

 

 

Hawley, Willis, and Rist, Ray. "On the Future Implementa-
tion of School Desegregation: Some Considerations."
Law and Contemporary Problems 39(2), Spring 1975.

 

Harvey, Karen, and Horton, Lowell. "Bloom's Human Charac-
teristics and School Learning." Phi Delta Kappan,
November 1977, pp. 189-193.

 

Her Majesty's Inspectorate. Mixed Ability Work in Compre—
hensive Schools. HMI Series: Matters for Discus-
sion 6, London, 1978.

 

 

H.E.W. Publication No. OE 79-01043. "Title I ESEA Ques-
tions and Answers." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1979.

 

Hickerson, Nathaniel. "Some Aspects of School Integration
in a California High School." Journal of Negro
Education 34, 1963, pp. 130-37.

 

 

Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401, 1967.

 

Hurn, Christopher. The Limits and Possibilities of School-

1 g. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1978.

 

Katz, Irwin. "A Critique of Personality Approaches to Negro
Performances with Research Suggestions." The
Journal of Social Issues 25, Summer 1969.

 

Kirp, David. "Schools as Sorters: The Constitution and
Policy Implications of Student Classification."
University of Pennsylvania Law Review 121, April
1973, PP. 705-797.

 

 

208

Kirschner Associates, Inc. Instructional Dimensions Study.
Washington, D.C., September 1977.

 

Kouzes, James M., and Mico, Paul R. "Domain Theory: An
Introduction to Organizational Behavior in Human
Service Organizations." The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 15(4), 1979, pp. 449-469.

 

 

Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306, 1972.

 

Levin, Betsy. "Recent Developments in the Law of Equal
Educational Opportunity." Journal of Law and~
Education 4(3), July 1975, pp. 411-417.

 

 

Levin, Betsy, and Morse, Phillip. "School Desegregation
Litigation in the Seventies and the Use of Social
Science Evidence: An Annotated Guide." Law and

Contemporary Problems, School of Law, Duke Univer-
sity 39(1), Winter 1975, pp. 50-133.

 

Merton, Robert K. "The Unanticipated Consequences of Pur-
posive Social Action." American Sociological
Review 1, 1936, pp. 394-904.

 

Merton, Robert K. "The Role of Applied Social Science in
the Formation of Policy: A Research Memorandum."
Philosophy of Science 16(3), July 1949.

 

McPartland, James. "The Relative Influences of School and
of Classroom Desegregation on the Academic Achieve-
ment of Ninth Grade Negro Students." Journal of
Social Issues 25(3), 1968, pp. 93-102.

 

 

Mills, Roger, and Bryan, Miriam. Testing-Grouping: The
New Segregation in Southern Schools. Southern
Regional Council, Georgia, 1976.

 

 

Mosteller, Frank, and Moynihan, Daniel. "What is Equality
of Educational Opportunity," in On Equality of Edu-
cational Opportunity, Mosteller and Moynihan (Eds.),
New York: Random House, 1972.

 

 

National Education Association. Ability Grouping: Research
Summary. Washington, D.C.: NBA, 1968.

 

National Institute of Education. Evaluating Compensatory
Education: An Interim Report on the NIE Compensa-
tory Education Study, 1976.

 

 

 

National Institute of Education. Compensatory Education
Services. Washington, D.C., 7-31-77.

 

 

209

National Institute of Education. Demonstration Studies of
Funds Allocation Within Districts. Washington, D.C.,
9-30-77.

 

National Institute of Education. Administration of Compen-
satory Education. Washington, D.C., 9-19-77.

 

National Institute of Education. Resegregation: A Second
Generation Desegregation Issue. Washington, D.C.

 

Oakland, Thomas. "Assessment, Education and Minority Group
Children." Academic Therapy 10(2), Winter 1974-75,
pp. 133-140.

 

Ogbu, John. Minority Education and Caste. New York:
Academic Press, 1978.

Persell, Caroline. Education and Inequality. New York:
The Free Press, 1977.

 

Public Law 93-380, 93rd Congress. Amendment to Title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
October 21, 1974.

 

 

Public Law 95-561, 95th Congress. Amendment to Title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
November 1, 1978.

 

 

Ratner, Gershon. "Remedying Failure to Teach Basic Skills:
Preliminary Thoughts." Inequalitygin Education,
June 1974, pp. 15-21.

 

Rist, Ray C. The Invisible Children: School Integration in
American Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard
University Press, 1978.

 

 

Rosenbaum, James E. Making Inequality: The Hidden Curriculum
of High School Tracking. New York: Wiley-
Interscience Publication, 1976.

 

 

Selps, Ellen. "Title I Evaluation and Selection of Target
Students for 1979-1980." May 22, 1979 (memo).

Selps, Ellen. "Basic Skills Records K-6, Comparison of
Compensatory Education Students and Non-
compensatory Education Students Using the DIGP."
February 27, 1979 (memo).

Spring, Joel. The Sorting Machine. New York: David McKay
Co., Inc., 1976.

 

210

Stein, Annie. "Strategies for Failure," in Challenging
Myths: The Schools, The Blacks and The Poor.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Hardard Educational
Review, 1971, pp. 133-179.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 402, U.S.
1, 1971.

Sztompka, Piotr. System and Function: Toward a Theory of
Society. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1974.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Racial Isolation in the
Public Schools, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C. U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1965.

 

Weaver, Janice (Ed.). Educational Policy. Illinois:
Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1975.

Weinberg, Meyer. "The Relationship Between School Deseg-
regation and Academic Achievement: A Review of
the Research." Law and Contemporary Problems 39(2),
Spring 1975, pp. 241-270.

Wholey, Joseph pp 31- Federal Evaluation Poligy: Analyzing
the Effects of Public Programs. Washington, D.C.:
The Urban Institute, 1973.

 

 

"I1m(minimES