The instructional practice implications of a school reform model versus no school reform model on reading achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
School reform seems to be the answer to redeeming the US public school system, but as observed by Slavin (1989) the cycle of reform has been for schools to jump from one prescriptive fad to another without any real congealing of ideas. Plagued by earlier installments of school reform programs reading instructional practice has resembled a mass of ideas that differ greatly in varying theoretical approaches. The NCLB Act of 2000 came under widespread criticism which has lately been revised under President Obama's initiative Blue Print for Reform. Over the years, the validity of NCLB measures have been doubted and questioned. Many are concerned that school sores are being influenced by outliers that are beyond a school's control. Each year and more so significant tax dollars are spent on comprehensive school reform, on the average $72,000 - $90,000 per year for a minimum of three years. It is therefore necessary to closely examine the effectiveness of school reform programs particularly the America’s Choice program, on increasing student achievement outcomes. This study compared the reading growth scores in Comprehension and Vocabulary of schools that participated in the America’s Choice program versus the reading growth scores of schools that do not participate in the America’s Choice program in the last seven years. In addition, the study explored the relationship between teacher's perceptions of autonomy in instructional practice in relation to teaching conditions. This study was a quantitative study with quasi-experimental methods and a mixed model ANOVA design. The populations of the schools used in this study were determined by enrollment demographics by other subgroups such as Students with Disabilities, Eligibility for Free and Reduced Lunch, Limited English Proficiency and Migrant status. The analysis of the ITBS scores results of this study show that schools that utilized the America’s Choice (AC) program repeatedly scored significantly lower than the schools that did not utilize the program in every dimension. In the analysis to determine if there is a direct relationship between teaching conditions and teacher perceptions of autonomy, it was indicated that there was no significant relationship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".