School Restructuring Models - Essay Example

School Restructuring Models - Accelerated Schools and Success for All - Total Number of Words:1,049 Introduction From time to time, it is necessary for schools to adopt with a restructuring model in order to keep up with the current changes in the educational system we have today. In general, schools may choose a specific reform models based on the school’s functional needs. For the purpose of this study, the findings with the use of two school restructuring models particularly ‘Accelerated Schools’ and ‘Success for All’ will be thoroughly elaborated. Findings with the Use of Accelerated School Model Based on a research study, the use of accelerated school model is focused on creating a school wherein each student will have the opportunity to become successful in terms of being creative, critical, and a productive member of the society. This model is not only designed to enable the students to learn in school but also for them to become successful in life after school. The educational purpose of enabling each student to increase their mastery on the basic as well as on a higher level of thinking skills is achievable by creating a more innovative and effective curriculum and the school’s preferred instructional method. Other benefits with the use of accelerated school model is the fact that it improves the students’ attitudes when it comes to learning and attending school since the school personnel are also focused on improving the school environment towards educational promotion. This model also focuses on the teachers’ practice. Teachers who are using accelerated school model in teaching tend to use a hands-on strategy inside the classroom. The educators are trained to make use of the community resources more than with the use of other restructuring models. One of the good things about the teachers using this model is the fact that they tend to become more cooperative with the students. The teachers being a good leader were able to develop a constant interaction between the educators and the learners.1 This creates a good two-way relationship which is necessary for a better learning result.2 In fact, Austin Creek School located at Rincon Valley Union School District was reported to have reached an Academic Performance Index (API) of 934 – the highest score within the country.3 On the other hand, Sheppard Accelerated School located at Roseland School District was able to increase their API up to 60 points. Due to the outstanding result based on the API result of the school that uses accelerated school model, it is concluded that this model is the most effective comprehensive school reform model as compared to the other national reform models that are being used in other schools.4, 5 Aside from being effective, the implementation of this model has been proven to have incurred the lowest cost per student as compared to other type of reform models.6, 7 Findings with the Use of Success for All Model Success for All model is considered as a comprehensive school reform program which promotes an early school success among the at-risk students. This type of model is practically good in serving those children with learning difficulties, low IQ’s, have a poor motivation when it comes to learning, or parents who are not supporting the child’s school learning progress on their own. One thing good about this model is the fact that it includes a component that is designed to promote a strong linkage between the school and the parents of the students.8 In fact, parents are considered to be an essential formula to the success in Success for all. The use of a cooperative learning method help the students a lot in terms of social and behavioral development as well as in teaching them the importance of health related issues at a very young age.9 Intervention at a very young age is an effective way in molding the child’s interest in learning. This model gives important to the size of the class. It is believed that a smaller class size enables the students to achieve improvements in academic performance as well as in their social and behavior development better than when children attends a regular-size classes.10 In case a student needs additional help in reading comprehension, science, social studies or math subjects, the student will eventually receive a one-on-one tutoring from their mentors.11 Similar to the use of accelerated school model, the use of Success for All has been proven to contribute to a good academic result among the students. In fact, the Success for All model enables the students to be able to complete the eighth grade at a young age.8 According to Barnett (1995), this model provides a long-term positive effect in the learning achievement of the students such as achieving grade retention, enable the students to graduate from high school, encourages socialization, and works well with some special placement for education.12 During the first-year of implementing Success for All, the students were observed to have a much higher reading scores while retentions and special education program gradually reduced.13 The same positive result was seen when the model was applied in English as a Second Language (ESL) curriculum.14, 15 The only negative side of implementing the Success for All model is associated with the high cost in tuition since this model highly recommends a smaller class size population. The implementing costs which includes the personnel training and other necessary materials ranges between $70,000 to $270,000 annually.16 For this reason, this model has been identified to be the most expensive reform as compared to the rest of the 26 school reform models available in the United States. Other than the expenses, the Success for All model is equally effective in terms of educational achievements among the students. Due to the high cost of implementing the Success for All model, schools that are aiming to cater the special needs of the children who belongs to a wealthy family or some well-educated parents are the ones that uses this type of restructuring model. Conclusion Depending on the main goal of the educational institution, each school may choose any of the restructuring models that serve their specific need in terms of improving the students’ academic performance. Accelerated School model is more preferred restructuring model than the Success for All in terms of its cost-effectiveness. However, Success for All model is more effective in students with special needs such as learning difficulties, etc. *** End *** References: 1 Finnan, C. and Meza, J. (2002) ‘Can a Leader Change the Culture and Embed Reform? The Accelerated Schools Project in Memphis’ in Murphy, J. and Datnow, A. (Eds) ‘Leadership for School Reform: Lessons from Comprehensive School Reform Designs’ Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin Press. 2 De Haan, M. and Elbers, E. (2004) ‘Minority Status and Culture: Local Construction of Diversity in Classroom in the Netherlands’ Intercultural Education. Vol. 15, No. 4. pp. 441 – 453(13). 3 California Department of Education (2005) ‘API Reports’ < http://www.cde.ca.gov/ > 4 Knight, SL. And Stalling, JA. (1995) ‘The Implementation of the Accelerated Schools Model in an Urban Elementary School’ in Alllington, R. and Walmsley, S. (Eds.) ‘No Quick Fix: Rethinking Literacy Programs in American Elementary Schools’ New York: Teachers College Press. 5 McCarthy, J. and Still, S. (1993) ‘Hollibrook Accelerated Elementary School’ in Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (Eds) ‘Restructuring Schools’ Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 6 Barnett, WS. (1996) ‘Economics of School Reform: Three Promising Models’ in Ladd, H. (Eds) ‘Holding Schools Accountable’ Washington DC: Brooking Institution. 7 King, JA. (1994) ‘Meeting the Needs of At-Risk Students: A Cost Analysis of Three Models’ Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16. 8 Borman, GD. And Hewes, GM. (2002) ‘The Long-Term Effects and Cost-Effectiveness of Success for All’ Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 24(4):243 – 266. 9 Ramey, CT. and Ramey, SL. (1998) ‘Early Intervention and Early Experience’ American Psychologist. 53:109 – 120. 10 Finn JD., Fulton BD., Zaharias J., and Nye BA. (1989) ‘Carry-Over Effects of Small Classes’ Peabody Journal of Education. 67:75 – 84. 11 Slavin RE. and Madden NA. (2000) ‘Roots and Wings: Effects of Whole-School Reform on Student Achievement’ Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. 5(1 & 2):109 – 136. 12 Barnett, WS. (1995) ‘Long-term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School Outcomes’ The Future of Children. 5(3):25 – 30. 13 Slavin RE., Madden NA., Karweit NL., Livermon BJ., and Dolan L. (1990) ‘Success for All: First-Year Outcomes of a Comprehensive Plan for Reforming Urban Education. American Educational Research Journal. 27:255 – 278. 14 Cheung, A. and Slavin, RE. (2005) ‘Effective Reading Programs for English Language Learners and Other Language Minority Students’ Bilingual Research Journal. 29(2):241 – 267. 15 Slavin RE., and Madden, NA. (1999) ‘Effects of Bilingual and English as a Second Language Adaptations of Success for All on the Reading Achievement of Students Acquiring English’ Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. 4(4):393 – 416. 16 Herman R., Aladjem D., McMahon P., Masem E., Mulligan I., O’Malley AS., Quinones S., Reeve A., and Woodruff D. (1999) ‘An Educators’ Guide to Schoolwide Reform’ Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Read More