This study investigated the impact of the years of teaching experience of classroom teachers on the achievement of third-grade students in inner-city Title I Schools; on the achievement of those third-grade students who were defined as high achievers, average achievers, and low achievers; and on the achievement of boys and girls in the third grade of inner-city Title I schools. An analysis and interpretation of the data revealed that there were no significant differences in reading and mathematics achievement of the third-grade students when the number of years of experience of the teacher was examined. Reading achievement of third-grade boys and third-grade girls did show significant differences. The more-experienced teacher appeared to have the greater increase in reading scores of the students. In addition to data concerning the hypotheses, information about other teacher variables was collected through a teacher self-report questionnaire. One hundred per cent of the teachers in the participating schools responded to the questionnaire. Data were tabulated by frequency of response in groups according to years of teacher experience. Variables included years of teaching experience in Title I schools, classroom size, and demographic data. Analysis of the data indicated that teachers having more years of experience in Title I schools appeared to have a greater increase in the reading and mathematics scores of students. Students in larger classes appeared to show greater gains than students in smaller classes in reading and mathematics. The majority of the teachers indicated that they felt the teacher, parent involvement, and class size had the most impact on achievement of students and staff development had the least impact.

The purpose of this study was to determine if there was any significant increase in the reading achievement of Reading First third grade students compared to the reading achievement of the third grade reading students in Non-Reading First schools located in southwest Virginia for 2004-2009. The Standards of Learning (SOLs) reading test scores were compiled from the Virginia Standards of Learning test scores that are available to the public from the Virginia Department of Education website. The elementary schools chosen for this study have a similar number of disadvantaged students and similar demographics. The reading achievement was being examined after 6 years of implementation of teaching strategies using Reading First in 3 of the elementary schools and compared to Non-Reading First schools. Using a quantitative design, the comparative study included data obtained from the 2004-2009 Virginia Standards of Learning standardized assessment test scores for third grade students in 6 elementary schools. The data comparison examined the reading achievement relationship between the Reading First schools (experimental) and the Non-Reading First schools (control group). The analysis was based on 2 research questions and 12 hypotheses; 6 hypotheses for each question. A t-test for independent samples was used to identify the differences between the means of Reading First schools and the Non-Reading First schools. A chi square analysis was used to identify the differences between the means of Reading First schools compared to the means of Non-Reading First schools in the areas of not proficient, proficient, and advanced proficient. The results of the study indicated that there were significant increases for reading achievement for the Reading First schools in the experimental group compared to the Non-Reading First in the control group. The Reading First schools performed better or as well as their peers in Non-Reading First schools at the advanced reading proficiency level.

The pressure to perform on standardized tests in the United States has become intense. Increased accountability has caused principals to think about their perceptions of standardized testing with regard to accountability measures, test validity, use of test data, impact of testing on the curriculum, and stress related to testing. The purpose of this study was to investigate kindergarten- through 12th-grade principals' perceptions of standardized testing. The study included 91 principals of Title I and nonTitle I schools located in 8 rural East Tennessee school districts. Data were gathered using a survey instrument to determine principals' opinions of standardized testing. There were 4 predictor (independent) variables in this study: Title I status of the school measured by status (Title I school and nonTitle I school), gender predictor variable, predictor variable of highest degree earned by principals (master's, specialist, and doctorate), and predictor variable of experience in current position (1-6 years, 7-14 years, and 15-39 years). The data analysis focused on 5 dimensions of standardized testing. The 5 (dependent) variables were: (a) general impact-accountability, (b) validity of standardized tests, (c) use of standardized tests in individualizing instruction, (d) impact on curriculum, and (e) stress related to standardized testing. The findings reflected that in general, principals had a positive view of standardized testing; however, the study showed that there was agreement among principals that standardized testing has limitations, particularly in the area of fairness to ethnic groups. The research indicated that principals use test data in many ways to improve their schools. Regardless of Title I status, gender, highest degree earned, and years of experience in current position, there were no significant differences in principals' opinions of standardized testing regarding the 5 dimensions of standardized testing.

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between second-order change leadership behaviors and the grade assigned to schools in large urban districts by the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE). A total of 101 Title I elementary school principals from large urban school districts with 60+% students on Free and Reduced School Lunch participated in the study. Specifically, this study analyzed 7 of the 21 second-order change factor responsibilities. They include (a) knowledge of curriculum, instruction, assessment, (b) optimizer, (c) intellectual stimulation, (d) change agent, (e) monitoring/evaluating, (f) flexibility, and (g) ideals/beliefs. The findings of this study were delineated through an examination of the data as it was related to the following questions: (a) What are the differences, if any, in the Principal Actions Survey scores of Title I elementary principals based on the 2008 school grade, according to the FLDOE? (b) What relationship, if any, exists among professional demographics of the principals (years at the school, years as an educator, years as an administrator prior to becoming a principal, years as a principal, highest degree earned, age, gender) and the second-order change leadership behaviors? (c) What are the differences, if any, in the second-order change leadership behavior subgroup scores based on the 2008 school grade according to the FLDOE? Although Research Question 1 had no statistical significance, principals who had a higher mean on the Principal Actions Survey led A and B-rated schools. Statistical significance was found in Research Question 2 for the second-order change leadership behavior of Change Agent and Ideals/Beliefs. Though statistical significance was not found in Research Question 3, each mean score for each sub-group in each grade group indicated consistent answers between Strongly Agree and Agree, which demonstrated a large degree of agreement. Additionally, comments from telephone interviews with selected principals determined that these leadership behaviors could positively impact elementary schools and the field of education. Recommendations of the study were to: (a) Conduct a follow-up study to gather the perceptions of teachers from the same Title I schools regarding their principals' second-order change leadership behaviors, (b) conduct a similar study with principals in Title I middle and high school settings, (c) conduct a qualitative study on second-order change leadership behaviors of non-Title I elementary, middle, and high school principals, (d) engage in further research to investigate professional development activities that may assist principals in enhancing second-order change leadership behaviors and improve instruction, (e) investigate the relationship between principals' second-order change leadership behaviors and achievement of Adequate Yearly Progress (f) replicate the study in states other than Florida (g) explore the relationship between second-order change leadership behaviors of district administrators and their district's academic success.

This research examines the practices of Title I school principals. The purpose of this research is to examine schools with strong AYP scores to understand the reasons for their success, the teacher's roles, the principal's role, and the process of change initiated by each principal. The schools that have been included in the study are Title I Elementary/Middle Schools in Northern California with at least a 30% Latino population. The researcher was able to develop a working model for school improvement called the "Good School Functional Model" through extensive data analysis. This model identifies the common attributes of these schools that have enabled them to become successful.

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.

As the practice of social justice in traditional schools becomes embedded in the discourse of educational settings (Theoharis, 2007), school leaders are increasingly being required to practice social justice leadership by identifying and initiating practices that engage students from diverse and under-served backgrounds. The purpose of this study was to identify the leadership practices of six former and current principals who have led National ESEA Distinguished Schools (formerly National Title I Distinguished Schools) in the United States. These principals work with diverse student populations that typically struggle to make academic gains and meet state standards. As such, this study sought to delve into the leadership practices of Title I principals. By understanding the leadership practices in which these principals engaged, and how consistent these practices are with the principles of social justice, a model of social justice leadership can be postulated for consideration. A qualitative research methodology, in-depth phenomenological interviews (Seidman, 2013) was used. Open-ended questions were posed during the semi-structured interviews of the principals. The findings in this study provide details on what actions six Title I principals from districts across the United States took to lead their schools to National ESEA Distinguished School status. These social justice leaders address the social structures of oppression, privilege, and opportunity that can deprive marginalized student groups from access to educational opportunity. Principals reported that the actions they took to ensure equity and fairness were around creating safe and orderly learning environments, professional learning communities, and professional development for staff. / Doctor of Education / This study will provide insight into the leadership practices of Title I principals and how they successfully led Title I schools and gained national recognition. The National Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Distinguished Schools (formerly National Title I Distinguished Schools) Programs recognizes schools for their growth in student academic achievement. The purpose of this study was to identify the leadership practices of these principals and to understand how consistent these practices are with the principles of social justice leadership. The target population of the study was principals from six Title I schools who obtained National Distinguished ESEA School status. These principals work with diverse student populations that typically struggle to make academic gains and meet state standards. Each principal participated in a 60-minute, semi-structured interview. The purpose of the interview was to uncover and encapsulate a person's experience (Seidman, 2013). The analysis of the experiences of these leaders provided a lens that other school leaders might consider to improve their leadership practice. The data analysis indicated that these social justice leaders address the social structures of oppression, privilege, and opportunity that can deprive marginalized student groups of access to educational opportunity. Principals reported that the actions they took to ensure equity and fairness were around creating safe and orderly learning environments, professional learning communities, and professional development for staff. Findings from the study indicated more research is needed on the practices of social justice leadership.

The purpose of this study was to describe a Title I inclusion program in a north Texas middle school, to evaluate the degree of its success as a high achieving program, and to analyze how closely it met the requirements of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. Data were collected from the learning facilitators and teachers at the middle school with the permission of the school district. This study began with extensive research on the nature of adolescents and the beliefs and characteristics of high achieving middle schools. It addressed the steps which were recommended in the literature to improve middle schools and benefit students that are at-risk of failing to master the curriculum at their grade level. The researcher concluded by reporting effective strategies being used in middle school at-risk programs. These are strategies noted by experts as successful in identified programs. The population for this study was seventh and eighth grade Title I students who attended middle school during the 1992-1993, 1993-1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 school years. The data collected by the researcher are presented in two parts: the description of the Title I inclusion program; and the results of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills tests in reading and math, the Shaw-Hiehle Math Tests, and the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests. Findings from this study suggest that the program met the requirements of a Title I program established by the federal government. The test scores for the middle school improved during the three years of the program. The Title I inclusion program met the requirements of the Improving America's Schools Act. Finally, the Title I students were successful working in classrooms with other students on challenging curriculum which met the State's content and performance standards. These findings have implications for other middle schools who are developing Title I programs to meet the requirements of the Improving America's Schools Act.

ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF ADA TITLE I ALLEGATIONS OF WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION AS FILED WITH THE EEOC BY PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS Jessica Erin Hurley A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Health Related Sciences—Rehabilitation Leadership Virginia Commonwealth University, 2011 Dissertation Chair: Brian T. McMahon, Ph.D., CRC This study explores employment discrimination as experienced by persons with mental illness who filed allegations under Title I (the employment provisions) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The entire universe of employment discrimination allegations filed under Title I of the ADA from July 26, 1992 (its first effective date) until the present is maintained by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in a database named the Intermission System (IMS). This database contains over 2 million allegations of workplace discrimination filed not only under Title I of the ADA, but also under all statutes in its jurisdiction. From the IMS, two extractions containing ADA Title I allegations only and ranging from July 26,1992 through December 31, 2008 [the last date before the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008 went into effect] were made: the first including all Title I allegations for all impairments, not just mental illness (402,291); and the second containing only those Title I allegations filed by persons with mental illness (56,846 total: depression (25,375); unknown mental illness (11,977); anxiety disorder (10,370); bipolar disorder (7,675); and schizophrenia 1,449). Using nonparametric tests of proportion, each group of allegations is compared to the balance of mental illness allegations that is left once the group of allegations is removed. In addition, each group individually, as well as the complete group of all mental illness allegations, is evaluated with an exploratory technique called the Exhaustive Chi Squared Interaction Detector. Lastly, findings are provided and implications for employees, employers, rehabilitation professionals, policy makers, and future researchers are discussed.

<p>To what extent do Black/African American (Black), Hispanic/Latinx (Latinx), and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (NHPI) students have access to being identified with gifts and talents? In places where they have access to identification, how equitably are they identified? And, to what extent are they missing from identification with gifts and talents due to lack of access or underidentification? This study used the Civil Rights Data Collection for the years 2000, 2011–2012, 2013–2014, and 2015–2016 to investigate underrepresentation of Black, Latinx, and NHPI youth with gifts and talents, nationally and by state. The data in these years were census data, meaning data from every child who attends public school is included. Data were also examined by Title I and Non-Title I school status and by locale (i.e., City, Suburb, Town, Rural) to determine how school poverty concentration and/or school locale affect identification of Black, Latinx, and NHPI youth. All states were analyzed for Black and Latinx youth, but due to the small NHPI student populations in some states this analysis was limited to a 20 state sample. Nationally, and in 37, 31, and all 20 states analyzed, respectively, lack of access to identification was not a major contributing factor to underrepresentation. The disparity in identification percentages between schools by Title I status showed 45% fewer Black students, 21% fewer Latinx students, and 15% fewer NHPI students were identified in Title I schools. Additionally, in every state and setting, Black, Latinx, and NHPI youth were underidentified with 92%, 92%, and 67%, respectively, of the equity ratios and 92%, 93%, and 61%, respectively, of the representation indices less than the minimum criterion of 0.80. In 2015-2016, there were 276,840 Black students with gifts and talents identified with an estimated 469,213 (62.89%) to 771,728 (73.60%) missing from identification; 588,891 Latinx students with gifts and talents identified with an estimated 658,544 (52.79%) to 1,164,363 (66.41%) missing from gifted identification; and among the 20 state sample, 6,594 NHPI students with gifts and talents identified with an estimated 7,236 (52.32%) to 9,253 (58.39%) missing from gifted identification.</p>