Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study evaluated the Co-nect school reform design in 5 inner-city schools relative to a matched comparison sample of 4 schools in the same district. Schools in each group were categorized into a lower- or middle-socioeconomic status (SES) subgroup based on the percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch, percent minority enrollment, and student mobility rate. Co-nect schools relative to comparison schools demonstrated more positive outcomes on (a) school climate on multiple dimensions; (b) teacher commitment, satisfaction, and buy-in; (c) teacher usage of learner-centered teaching strategies (e.g., projects, teacher coaching); and (d) student usage of technology as a learning tool. On most measures, these effects were more evident in the schools serving lower-SES. Results on the state-mandated standardized achievement test, using both percentile communities and value-added scores, showed a mixed pattern of success, with 3 Co-nect schools demonstrating more positive progress and 2 demonstrating less positive progress relative to comparison schools and state norms. Interpretations of the achievement results and of Co-nect impacts overall are made relative to implementation issues and school characteristics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ross et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: