This Spotlight presents highlights from a synthesis of research findings related to Title I schoolwide projects. The synthesis focuses on three aspects: (a) characteristics of schools and districts with schoolwide projects; (b) programmatic and organizational components of schoolwide projects; and (c) evidence of the effectiveness of schoolwide projects, particularly in terms of student performance. In addition, several precautions related to the interpretation of these findings are presented. Finally, implications are discussed for future evaluation and for administrators in schools and districts with schoolwide projects. 

The federal compensatory education program, enacted as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, has provided supplementary resources to schools with large numbers of low-income students for over three decades. Recent federal legislation, passed in 1988 and 1994, has encouraged schools to adopt Title I schoolwide projects which allow schools to use Title I funds more flexibly and strengthen their overall capacity to develop more comprehensive strategies to help disadvantaged children. In particular, Title I funds can be used by schools to improve their entire educational program rather than targeting services to meet the needs of the most disadvantaged subpopulations. This recent legislation has led to broad expansion of Title I schoolwide projects to over 8,000 during the 1995-96 school year. Despite the dramatic increase in the number of schoolwide projects, however, there remain a number of questions about their effectiveness relative to traditional Title I programming. 

Only a handful of empirical studies have been conducted since the federal legislative reform. National-level evaluations have suggested mixed effects of schoolwide projects and offer little information with respect to their impact on student performance. Further, evaluations have been conducted within particular school districts and their findings have not been integrated. This synthesis of findings from 12 evaluative publications intends to provide a more systematic understanding of how schoolwide projects have operated during their initial years and of their effectiveness relative to traditional Title I programming.

FINDINGS: CHARACTERISTICS & COMPONENTS OF SCHOOLWIDE PROJECTS

The majority of schoolwide projects have operated in elementary schools in large, urban districts and have had high concentrations of poverty and educational disadvantage. School districts and state education agencies have frequently played a central role in the initiation and establishment of schoolwide projects and most schools spent a relatively short period of time in the process of planning and needs assessment.

Schoolwide projects have allowed schools to introduce new activities and programs as well as strengthen existing ones. Emphasis has been placed primarily on strengthening existing programs and schools have designed schoolwide projects in a variety of ways. However, a number of common components have emerged, including reduction of class size through hiring of additional staff and increased staff development activities, revised decisionmaking structures (e.g., teacher input into decisions affecting the school), and increased efforts to involve parents. In the majority of schoolwide project schools, Title I services have become indistinguishable from the regular program at the school, which indicates that the traditionally fragmented or categorical approach to providing services is becoming less common. In many cases, schools have introduced or strengthened aspects of classroom instruction or curricula, frequently incorporating components associated with effective schools. There is also evidence that schoolwide projects have increased the capacity of schools and teachers to provide instructional services more flexibly, as particular student needs arise; traditional Title I pullout programs typically requred a more formal process of student selection. 

These preliminary findings lend some insight into the components which have been included as elements of schoolwide projects and begin to form the basis for an understanding of what rises a typical implementation of the schoolwide project approach. 

FINDINGS: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SCHOOLWIDE PROJECTS

Principals and Title I District Coordinators report a range of both advantages and disadvantages related to schoolwide projects. The vast majority of principals of schoolwide project schools, operating for at least three years, reported that evidence favored the schoolwide project. Further, of those schools considered to comprise the first group of schoolwide projects after the enactment of the Hawkins-Stafford amendments and assessed at the end of three years, only 10% failed to show the achievement gains required to continue as a schoolwide project. Although these broad indicators are generally positive, information about the impact of schoolwide projects on student achievement remains limited. 

The richest information about student performance derives from a handful of studies of schoolwide projects which have been conducted within particular school districts. Studies have been conducted using data from the districts of Philadelphia, Houston, Minneapolis, and a fourth unspecified urban school district which provide further insight into the impact of schoolwide projects on student achievement. These district-level studies focus primarily on comparison of normal curve equivalent (NCE) reading and math scores for schools with and without schoolwide projects. Their designs, measures, and analytic methods vary widely, however, creating difficulties in drawing conclusions and comparing findings across studies. 

Of those studies that conduct tests of statistical significance, most report only a handful of significant differences in measures of student performance between schoolwide and non-schoolwide project schools. The findings from these district-level studies suggest mixed effects (both positive and negative) of schoolwide projects on student achievement scores that tend to be small (findings from each of the district-level studies are summarized in the full report). Further, several cautions must be considered in the interpretation of these findings, including the recency of schoolwide project implementation, the methodological difficulties inherent to the study of Title I schoolwide projects, and the limited generalizability of district-level studies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE EVALUATION

Evaluation of Title I schoolwide projects must continue beyond the initial phase of implementation and should be longitudinal in order to capture effects that may not be fully apparent during the first years. Because there are a number of methodological challenges inherent to the study of schoolwide projects (e.g., varying implementation strategies across sites, difficulties attributing effects to schoolwide projects), evaluation design must be particularly thoughtful. Further, subsequent evaluations should continue to explore the role of school districts and to pursue a better understanding of the mechanisms through which particular characteristics of schoolwide projects lead to changes in educational outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATORS 

Schoolwide projects have the potential to address three interrelated challenges in the nation's most disadvantaged schools. First, schoolwide projects provide increased flexibility to school-site professionals to address the "concentration effects" of disadvantaged pupils in poor neighborhoods. Second, schoolwide projects can reduce curricular and instructional fragmentation in the classroom. Third, and of immediate interest to national policymakers, schoolwide projects are designed to improve accountability at a time when there is growing public concern over the general quality of public education. 

Because Title I schoolwide projects incorporate a stronger accountability component, they offer the organizational potential to meet new federal legislative expectations for Title I programs. Further, schools and districts implementing schoolwide projects can take the opportunity to go beyond basic accountability requirements and consider broadening the ways in which evaluation and assessment are used. For example, student assessment for Title I accountability purposes might also be used to guide instruction and improve teaching practice. 

Schoolwide projects also create a context in which roles of principals and district staff might be expanded or redefined. District staff might emphasize methods for phasing out pullout programs or for integrating traditional Title I reading and math curriculum with that of the whole school. The opportunity to redefine decision-making roles at the school may also facilitate the creation of new structures which better serve students. For example, professional networks among teachers in the school might be fostered which encourage teachers to "buy into" aspects of the schoolwide project approach and cultivate changes at the classroom level.

Similarly, schoolwide projects offer opportunities to explore broader governance issues. For example, alternative approaches to the functions of and relationships between the district, school, and classroom can be explored along with particular types of parental involvement.

The research on the effectiveness of Title I schoolwide projects in terms of student performance has yielded mixed and largely inconclusive results. Nonetheless, the fact that perceptions by district and school staff and decisions about continuation of schoolwide projects have tended to be favorable suggests that subsequent evaluations may begin to show more positive effects. Despite the fact that there were over 8,000 schoolwide projects operating during the 1995-96 year, only a handful of sites have produced reliable evaluation data. Thus, although the data presented here do not offer compelling evidence for or against schoolwide projects, it should be noted that these reflect only a small subset of the schoolwide projects operating in the nation. It is therefore critical that reliable, longitudinal evaluations continue to be conducted beyond this initial phase. 

U.S. Department of Education (1996). Mapping Out the Assessment of Title I: The Interim Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.