Input and Output in California Compensatory Education Projects
ResearchPublished 1971
ResearchPublished 1971
Analyzes the relationship of instructional process and organization to pupils' learning in Title I programs, as measured by the Stanford Reading Test. This is the first attempt to apply economic input/output methodology to compensatory education. Personnel of 42 projects in 37 California school districts were interviewed in detail about teaching strategies, individual instruction time per pupil, and amount of planning and coordination. Variables were related to pupils' monthly gain in grade equivalents via multiregression techniques, holding program length and beginning score constant. Results contradict reports that compensatory education is ineffective. Individual instruction by reading specialists was consistently related to gains. Less strongly related were staff planning time and individual instruction by classroom aides. The six best projects averaged at least 1.25 months' learning per month of instruction; none were large or urban; all had small group instruction by specialists, high ratio of managers to pupils, and planning coordination.
This publication is part of the RAND report series. The report series, a product of RAND from 1948 to 1993, represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.