Implementing Title I Schoolwide Programs in a Complex Policy Environment: Integrating Standards and School Reform in the Chicago Public Schools

Implementing Title I Schoolwide Programs in a Complex Policy Environment: Integrating Standards and School Reform in the Chicago Public Schools* The 1994 Improving America's Schools Act mandated that rigorous national standards be applied to all students, including those receiving Title I services. States and districts adopted policies to meet this new federal policy challenge, as well as policies aimed at improving the educational program in schools with high concentrations of students with economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. To understand how schools adapt to this complex policy environment, this study examines the implementation of Title I schoolwide programs in the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Using a comparative case study methodology, it examines how state and district reform policies affect the organization and administration of Title I schoolwide programs and whether the application of standards to all students contributes to increasing curricular and instructional integration. Since its inception as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, Title I has provided supplementary resources to schools with a high number of low-income students. Title I funding to schools traditionally consisted of targeted assistance or "pullout" programs, which provided assistance exclusively to students from families whose incomes were below a certain level. In response to concerns that these programs were fragmented and ineffectual (Kirst, 1988), Congress passed the Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments to Chapter I (now Title I) in 1988. These amendments encouraged schools to develop schoolwide programs that would benefit entire student populations in schools where at least 75% of the students came from low-income backgrounds. By the 1990s, "systemic reform" emerged as a major national policy objective (O'Day & Smith, 1993). This national effort included several goals. Improving the academic achievement of low performing students remained a priority. In addition, policy increasingly focused on enhancing the organizational capacity of schools serving high concentrations of low-income students. The aim was to assist schools in developing comprehensive educational programs and increase instructional coordination. With the passage of the 1994 Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), federal policy mandated that rigorous national standards be applied to all students, including those receiving Title I services. To meet the new policy challenge, states and districts were required to develop content and performance standards that were applied to all students. In addition, the legislation expanded the number of Title I schoolwide programs by lowering the eligibility threshold to include schools with 50% low-income students. At the same time, many states and districts adopted policies aimed at improving the educational program in schools with high concentrations of students with economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. These policies included efforts to decentralize decision making to the school site, on the one hand, and increasing accountability through a focus on academic achievement, on the other. For example, Illinois adopted legislation in 1988 that created Local School Councils at each of the schools in Chicago and enhanced the decision-making authority of the principal. By 1995, dissatisfaction with the lack of academic improvement in the Chicago schools led to new legislation that recentralized school governance and placed a renewed emphasis on accountability (Wong, Dreeben, Lynn, & Sunderman, 1997). Two other states, Ohio and Michigan, have also taken steps to increase accountability. The Ohio legislature passed legislation in 1997 patterned on the Chicago model that empowered the mayor of Cleveland to appoint the top administration and school board. Michigan has proposed taking over failing school districts and authorizing intervention by the state school board. …