No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
The authors present data demonstrating greater success for disadvantaged students can be routinely ensured in schools that are neither exceptional nor extraordinary. Fifteen years ago, Ronald Edmonds put forth a proposition that has served as the touchstone of the school effectiveness movement ever since: We can, and we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us.[1] This proposition has two parts: one is the assertion that every child can learn; the other, that we have the knowledge we need to create schools in which every child will learn. Can every child earn? Research since the time Edmonds was writing has demonstrated do at-risk students can achieve at far higher levels than they have in the past. For example, research on early intervention and research on one-to-one tutoring demonstrate the principle that virtually every child can learn.[2] Extraordinary teachers and schools prove every day that they are able to produce extraordinary outcomes with disadvantaged and minority children. While it is becoming clear that every child can learn, there is a part of Edmonds' formulation that is more problematic. Is it really true that we can ensure the learning of every child whenever and wherever we choose? Demonstrations of outstanding learning achievements in laboratories or in schools with unusual, charismatic principals and teachers are useful, but they do not tell us that success can be replicated on a large scale. Many pilot programs have shown substantial success, but that success has proved difficult to replicate. Clearly, it is not enough to demonstrate success and expect others to do likewise. For a program or strategy to make a difference on a broad scale, it must be robust under many circumstances, it must withstand the test of time, and it must demonstrate its effectiveness in new sites that are not under the day-to-day control of the program developers. In this article we present a summary of data from Success for All, a program that is now in the process of making the transition from local pilot to national model. This is the first report to present data on several sites beyond the original home of Success for All in Baltimore. Earlier evaluations of the program have shown that it can be highly successful in increasing reading achievement among very disadvantaged students.[3] Can this success be replicated and we choose? It is important to state up front what is meant by we. No one can pretend that researchers, developers, or government agencies can by themselves ensure the success of all students. The enthusiastic and wholehearted commitment of school staffs and district administrations is also essential. In the case of Success for All, we work only with districts that have made a clear commitment to implement the program and with school staffs that have voted at least 80% in favor of participating. Our specific focus, then, is on the question of whether, in schools and districts that make a commitment to the success of every child, we can successfully replicate an effective program. Success for All began in Baltimore in 1986. It was designed in a collaboration between our group at Johns Hopkins and the Baltimore City Public Schools and piloted in one school in the 1987-88 school year. Since then Success for An has expanded both within and outside of Baltimore and is currently being implemented in a total of 85 schools in 37 school districts in 19 states from coast to coast. From the outset, the program has emphasized rigorous evaluation of its results in comparison with those of matched control schools in the same districts, preferably through the use of individually administered tests of reading. Due to funding limitations, not all Success for All schools are being assessed in this way, but we currently have high-quality assessment data from 15 schools in seven districts in seven states, a remarkable body of evidence for an innovative program. …
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 62 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.