The purpose of the study was to determine if there is a difference in mathematics mean scale score growth on the MCT2 mathematics assessment between students taught by national board certified teachers (NBCTs) and those taught by non-NBCTs in a low socioeconomic, high minority, Title I school. For this study, a causal-comparative research design and a statistical analysis procedure of ANCOVA were used to answer two research questions: First, is there a statistically significant difference in mathematics mean scale score growth on the MCT2 mathematics assessment between fourth grade African American and Caucasian students taught by NBCTs and those taught by non-NBCTs, while controlling socioeconomic status and 3rd grade MCT2 mathematics scale scores? Second, is there a statistically significant difference in mathematics mean scale score growth on the MCT2 mathematics assessment between fourth grade students by socioeconomic status based on eligibility for free/reduced or full pay lunch taught by NBCTs and those taught by non-NBCTs, while controlling race and 3rd grade MCT2 mathematics scale scores? The results of the analysis for research question one indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference in mathematics mean score growth on the MCT2 mathematics assessment between students by race taught by NBCTs and those taught by non-NBCT. African American and Caucasian students taught by NBCTs had a comparable mathematics mean scale score growth with African American and Caucasian students taught by non-NBCTs. The results of the analysis for research question two indicated that there was a statistically significant difference in mathematics mean score growth on the MCT2 mathematics assessment between students by socioeconomic status based on eligibility for full pay lunch taught by NBCTs and those students taught by non-NBCTs. Students identified as full pay lunch taught by NBCTs had a higher mathematics mean scale score growth than those students identified as full pay lunch taught by non-NBCTs. Students identified as free/reduced lunch status taught by non-NBCTs had comparable mean scale score growth with those students identified as free/reduced lunch status taught by NBCTs, but not statistically significant.

In 2001, the Anderson Neighborhood of Bristol, Tennessee, received official recognition as a Weed and Seed site by the United States Department of Justice. This designation is provided to a local coalition of committed community members organized to “weed” out the elements that contribute to crime and delinquency in a targeted neighborhood and “seed” in strategies to build strong neighborhoods. Anderson Elementary School is a key partner in the effort and the conduit for a variety of coalition initiatives. Through investigation of measures and surveys administered at Anderson Elementary School, the study was designed to ascertain if there were improvements in quantitative measures related to academic success (attendance, discipline referrals, test scores, and grades) at Anderson Elementary after multiple strategies were implemented in the Anderson Neighborhood. Findings revealed that attendance improved in the first two years but then declined by end of the five-year period studied. Improvements were documented in the other three areas. In addition, this study focused upon the differences in improvements between the two populations attending school at Anderson: those residing within the Weed and Seed boundaries and those residing outside the designated area. Whereas Weed and Seed students performed below the nonWeed and Seed students each year, the differences were reduced over the five-year period. A final analysis was conducted regarding comparisons to both Central and Fairmont Elementary schools in Bristol, Tennessee, the other two Title I schools in the system. Anderson showed the greatest improvement in the area of discipline whereas Central made the largest gains in tests scores and Fairmount was consistently higher in attendance. Because so many variables can mitigate academic performance, faculty and staff members' perceptions regarding a variety of coalition efforts initiated through the Weed and Seed effort were measured by survey and analyzed. Educational professionals reported observing positive changes in community commitment and involvement. To further qualify successful strategies and required skill sets regarding leadership to build school partnerships with community coalitions, an indepth interview was conducted with the principal at Anderson Elementary School. The leadership themes documented in the interview were consistent with postmodern leadership theory.

High-stakes testing and accountability have infiltrated the education system in the United States; the top priority for all teachers must be student progress on standardized tests. This has resulted in the predominance of reading for test-taking, (efferent reading), in the English, language arts, and reading classrooms. Authentic uses of print activities, like aesthetic reading, that encourage students to engage individually with a text, have been pushed aside. During a 3-week time period, regular level, English 3/American literature students in a Title I magnet high school, participated in this quasi-experimental study (N = 62). It measured the effects of an intervention of reading American literature texts aesthetically and writing aesthetically-evoked reader responses on students’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding their comprehension of American literature. One trained teacher and the researcher participated in the study: student participants were pre- and post- tested using the Confidence in Reading American Literature Survey which examined their self-efficacy beliefs regarding their comprehension of American literature. Several statistical analyses were performed. The results of the linear regression analyses partially supported a positive relationship between aesthetically-evoked reader responses and students’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding their comprehension of American literature. Additionally, the results of the 2 (sex) x 2 (treatment) ANCOVAs conducted to test group differences in self-efficacy beliefs regarding the comprehension of American literature between treatment and control groups indicated a main effect for treatment (but not sex; nor was there a significant sex x treatment interaction), suggesting the treatment was partially effective in increasing students’ self-efficacy beliefs. Seven of the twelve ANCOVAs indicated a statistically significant increase in the treatment group’s adjusted group mean self-efficacy belief scores as a result of being exposed to the intervention. In six of these seven analyses, increases in self-efficacy beliefs occurred in tasks that required three or more higher-order levels of thinking/learning. The results are discussed in terms of theoretical, empirical and practical significance. Future research is recommended to extend the intervention beyond the narrow confines of a Title I magnet school to settings where the intervention could be tested longitudinally, e. g., honors and gifted students, elementary and middle schools.

This study describes and compares the reading habits and attitudes of students and parents in Title I and Non-Title I schools. The study was conducted because reading is an important basic skill that all children must acquire. The information gathered can be used to help parents provide beneficial experiences for their children in reading. The literature review addresses literature and research related to factors identified as impacting readiness for school and reading achievement in elementary-age students. Research indicates that family structure, amount of time children spend watching television, availability of learning tools, and home literacy activities may be related to school readiness and academic success. The population consisted of third, fourth, and fifth grade students and their parents in three school systems in northeast Tennessee. Title I schools included those with a 75% or higher free or reduced lunch rate. Two survey instruments were used û a parent questionnaire and a student questionnaire. Data collection consisted of letters to directors of school systems requesting permission for schools to participate in the study, and letters to principals, including the purpose of the study and asking permission to administer surveys. After securing permissions, materials were sent to teachers, who helped coordinate the study at the school level. The data were analyzed, using frequencies and percentages, with tables, charts, and figures. The questions on the surveys were analyzed to answer the four research questions. This study found that, when compared to students and parents in Non-Title I schools, students and parents in Title I schools were less likely to read at home for enjoyment, use the public library, or read magazines and newspapers. Results demonstrate that students and parents in Title I schools, overall, read less than students and parents in Non-Title I schools, reported having fewer books at home of their own, reported having fewer educational materials at home, and students were found to read to their parents less often. Both students in Title I and Non-Title I schools reported watching television every day, although the amount of time they watch varied.

Of the numerous public policy debates currently taking place throughout the United States, perhaps no issue receives more attention than the persistence of “chronically” low-performing public schools. As of 2009, approximately 5,000 schools—5% of the nation’s total—qualified as chronically low performing (Duncan, 2009d). Certainly, these statistics merit the attention of policy scholars, yet the political contestation of interests attempting to influence how the federal government should address such issues has reached a new fevered crescendo. Given the increased politicization of the federal government’s role in education and the growing number of interests attempting to influence the debates concerning school reform, education policy scholars have recognized the need to extend the field of policy studies by using analytical frameworks that consider both the discourse and performative dimensions of deliberative policy making. Therefore, this study addresses this particular need by employing a critical interpretive policy analysis that illustrates how both dominant discourses and the deliberative performances of the federal government shaped the policy vocabularies embedded within the Title I School Improvement Grant program of 2009 as the commonsense solutions for the nation’s chronically low-performing schools. In addition, this study provides a historical analysis, illustrating how the omnipresent threat of an economic crisis has been a primary influence in the politics of federal governance since the global economic collapse of the 1970s. This study demonstrates how over the course of the last four decades the United States has consistently reduced its commitment to the public sector, choosing instead to promote economic policies informed by the ideals of market-based liberalism. Subsequently, this study presents the argument that education, specifically the “chronic failure” of public schools, has emerged as a “primary emblematic issue” (Hajer, 1995) and now serves as an “effective metaphor for the nation’s economic crisis.” Thus, with such issues presented as a contextual backdrop, this study examines how the Obama/Duncan Administration operationalized dominant discourses and performative practices to establish consensual support for a turnaround reform agenda, effectively defining the policy solutions made available to those who participated in the revision of the Title I SIG program of 2009. / text

Gifted programs, designed to enhance engagement and rigor for students exhibiting talent or potential beyond their peers in the general education classroom, are not equitably identifying and serving Hispanic/Latino students. This qualitative study explored gifted programming at a Title I elementary school located in a largely Hispanic/Latino community. Very few students received gifted services at the school, despite equity measures in place. Using a framework of educational capital, this study highlighted the cultural capital and community cultural wealth of gifted Hispanic/Latino students and provided suggestions for enhancing programming for this historically underidentified population of learners. Data were collected through semistructured interviews of parents and teachers of students receiving gifted services. Questions were aligned with concepts of capital, and a priori codes were used to analyze participant perspectives. Findings identified embodied cultural capital as the dominant gifted paradigm, but inequitable opportunities to learn hinder students’ ability to embody giftedness. Also, the linguistic capital of other cultures has been unrecognized by gifted testing, impacting access for gifted emergent bilingual students. Finally, barriers to success (e.g., low levels of rigor and engagement at the school, lack of opportunity to test for the gifted program, and lack of navigational capital for parents and teachers) threaten the vibrant hopes and dreams parents and teachers have for these students. Findings support the need for increased gifted programming in Title I schools and updated gifted policy to reflect culturally inclusive values.