Beginning with the End in Mind: The District Office Leadership Role in Closing the Graduation Gap for At-Risk Students

We need to begin with the end in mind as Stephen Covey (1989) reminds us. Graduating all students ready for college or career is the ultimate goal of the K-12 educational system

Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk: Report #65

The Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR) was established in 1994 and continued until 2004. It was a collaboration between Johns Hopkins University and Howard University. CRESPAR’s mission was to conduct research, development, evaluation, and dissemination of replicable strategies designed to transform schooling for students who were placed at risk due to inadequate institutional responses to such factors as poverty, ethnic minority status, and non-English-speaking home background.Criticizing school district bureaucracies has become a growth industry over the past couple of decades. In the face of all this anti-district and anti–central office rhetoric, it is important to recognize the growing number of scholars who are emphasizing the importance of the district in school reform efforts and the research base that examines the role of the central office. Building on previous reviews of school district leadership, this review adds a new focus on the role of school district central offices in improving instruction and raising student achievement. We examine the functional tasks of the central office and the internal dynamics of relations between the central office and district schools (with their principals, teachers, and students). The review concludes with a heuristic model of how the central office influences classroom instruction and student achievement in district schools.Grant (No. R117-D40005) from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES, formerly OERI) at the U.S. Department of Educatio

Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk: Report #50

The Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR) was established in 1994 and continued until 2004. It was a collaboration between Johns Hopkins University and Howard University. CRESPAR’s mission was to conduct research, development, evaluation, and dissemination of replicable strategies designed to transform schooling for students who were placed at risk due to inadequate institutional responses to such factors as poverty, ethnic minority status, and non-English-speaking home background.This is the final report from a five-year, matched-control study of five Maryland schools that began implementation of the Core Knowledge Sequence in the fall of 1994. This report provides both longitudinal implementation and outcome data.Grant (No. R-117-40005) from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Educatio

Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk: Report #48

The Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR) was established in 1994 and continued until 2004. It was a collaboration between Johns Hopkins University and Howard University. CRESPAR’s mission was to conduct research, development, evaluation, and dissemination of replicable strategies designed to transform schooling for students who were placed at risk due to inadequate institutional responses to such factors as poverty, ethnic minority status, and non-English-speaking home background.In this comprehensive report, the authors examine four distinct processes for reforming nine low-performing Title I schools in challenging high-poverty contexts.Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education (R-117D-40005

Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk: Report #62

The Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR) was established in 1994 and continued until 2004. It was a collaboration between Johns Hopkins University and Howard University. CRESPAR’s mission was to conduct research, development, evaluation, and dissemination of replicable strategies designed to transform schooling for students who were placed at risk due to inadequate institutional responses to such factors as poverty, ethnic minority status, and non-English-speaking home background.This study reports the results of a four-year multimethod evaluation of the implementation of the Baltimore Curriculum Project (BCP) in six Baltimore City schools. BCP used a combination of the Direct Instruction (DI) program and Core Knowledge as its reform curriculum. Each of the six schools was demographically matched with a similar, within-district school so that it would have a reasonable control against which it could be compared. Two cohorts of students in the BCP and the control schools were followed through the course of the evaluation—students who were in either kindergarten or grade two during the 1996–97 school year (primarily in third and fifth grades, respectively, during 1999–2000). Interviews with principals and DI coordinators and focus groups with teachers were conducted each of the four years of the study to gauge BCP-school staff perceptions of the ongoing innovation.Grant (No. R-117-40005) from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Educatio