Mississippi’s school Essay

The SAGE program in partnership with John Hopkins University of Baltimore Maryland, invites, states or districts to become members in improving the student achievement in the potential members’ schools. Through the National Network of Partnership Schools, SAGE and others in the network will work states, districts and other educational organization members to form an Action Team for Partnership plan. Members follow the Six Types of Involvement format (NNPS online). Five years of NNPS surveys and result focused studies on member schools’ progress has been reported (2005). NNPS uses research results to develop practical tools, materials, and guidelines for schools and school districts. Presently, over 1000 schools, 100 districts, and 17 state departments of education are working with NNPS to use research-based approaches to establish and strengthen their programs of school, family, and community partnerships (2005). It is suggested that incorporating the following elements create better programs and outreaching to parents of the students and increased parental involvement (2005). 1. Leadership 2. Teamwork 3. Action plans 4. Implementation of plans 5. Funding 6. Collegial support 7. Evaluation 8. Networking Results from longitudinal studies showed that â€Å" a review of literature on family involvement with students on reading, indicated that, across the grades, subject specific interventions to involve families in reading and related language arts, positively affected students’ reading skills and scores (Sheldon & Epstein, 2005b). The original SAGE pilot program research involved participants of which fifty percent were below the poverty level (Vinson, 2002). Participating classes were reduced from average size to fifteen students per teacher. An evaluation by Molinar, Smith and Zahorik (1999) revealed that the first grade SAGE students demonstrated higher achievement when compared to nonparticipating schools in both language arts and math. Second and third graders were reported to follow the same pattern. The third study to be reviewed is the Prime Time (1984) project in Indiana. This was originally planned to be a two year project started in 1984 but it had such promising results that by 1988 all k-3 classes were reduced in Indiana. The average FTE was eighteen. In 1989, McGivern, Gilman and Tillitski compared samples of achievement levels of second graders from six districts with reduced class sizes and three districts that were not reduced and found significantly larger gains in reading and math among students of smaller classes. As with project STAR, SAGE has suffered criticism. Limitations mentioned were that â€Å"students were not assigned to experimental control groups on a random basis†, and that school policies were changed and implemented during the course of the study (Vinson, 2002). A widely criticized factor was the use of teacher incentives to motivate small classroom achievement. As mentioned previously, opinions on class size vary. Over the years several researchers have analyzed studies and evaluated the effectiveness of each. Glass and Smith (1979) found after analyzing seventy-seven empirical studies on class size versus student achievement, that small classes were associated with higher achievement at all grade levels. For greatest results in student achievement, students should attend small classes for over one-hundred hours (1979), with under twenty students. Small classes are beneficial because of 1) better student reaction 2) teacher morale and 3) quality of the teaching environment (Vinson, 2002). In a review of one-hundred relevant studies, small classes had been the most beneficial, during kindergarten and third grade, but only if teachers change their methods and procedures (Robinson and Wittebols, 1986). Slavin’s (1990) research of empirical studies, were chosen for analysis based on a three part criteria; 1) class size had been reduced for at least one year 2) twenty students were compared to substantially larger class sizes and 3) students in both class sizes were comparable (1990). Contrary to previously mentioned researchers, Slavin believed that smaller class size had minimal positive effects on students and those effects did not continue once students were returned to normal, larger classes (1990). A highly published researcher, Eric Hanushek has voiced his opposition to small classes benefiting student achievement since the mid-1980s. In all his reviews of class size studies, he’s always concluded that; â€Å"The evidence about improvements in student achievement that can be attributed to smaller classes turns out to be meager and unconvincing (Vinson, 2002)†. Johnson (2000), citing a study at the Heritage Foundation examining National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading data, asserted that the difference in reading assessment scores between students in small classes and students in large classes was insignificant. He criticized class size reduction programs citing California as example of how such programs exacerbate the problem of lack of qualified teachers to fill classrooms. His claim of the lack of association between class size and performance was consistent with Hanushek’s conclusions (1999). Studies of the effects of class size in secondary schools are much more rare and largely equivocal (Deutsch 2003; Grissmer 1999). Many of those who advocate for smaller class sizes at the secondary level argue that small classes positively impact the school environment, thus, improving performance indirectly. In her review of the literature of class size and secondary schools, Deutsch (2003) highlights studies that conclude small classes stimulate student engagement, allow more innovative instructional strategies, increase teacher-student interactions, reduce the amount of time teachers devote to discipline, improve teacher morale, and minimize feelings of isolation and alienation in adolescence that can come from anonymity. Another important process variable the researcher will investigate is the effects of school policy on student achievement. An influential policy becoming common in schools is that of parental support and teacher incentives. As with the other factors in this model, conclusions about the effects of both on student performance has been mixed, but recent studies seem to point to more positive correlations, particularly teacher experience (Hedges, Lane, and Greenwald 1994). Mississippi’s Department of Education’s Schools and Parents Partnering for Student Success is a brochure given to the parents of Mississippi public school students to educate them on what level of proficiency their child should be on in an attempt to form a relationship between school and home. Strategies for improving student achievement according to Mississippi’s School.