Morrison Institute for Public Policy
At-Risk Pilot "Pro~ram"
Strategies, Results and Funding
Extracted from:
FY 1989190 Arizona At-Risk
Pilot Project Report
Prepared by
Morrison Institute for l b l i c Policy
Project Director/Principal Author
Louann Bierlein, Ed.D.
Co-authors
Judy Vandegrift, Ph.D.
Cindy Hartwell
Linda Sandler
School of Public Affairs
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona 85287-4405
April 1991
(602) 965-4525
Fax: (602) 965-9219
Phase I (Began N 1988189)
K3 "Districts"
Creighton Elern.
Laveen Elern.
Littleton Elern.
Murphy Elern.
Osborn Elern.
Phoenix Elern.
Roosevelt Elem.
Wilson Elern.
7-1 2 "Districts"
Creighton Elern. (7-8)
Dysart Unified
Sunnyside Unified
Tucson Unified
Phase II (Began N 1989190)
K3 "Districts"
Avondale Elern.
Isaac Elern.
K-3 "Schools"
Balsz Elem. Dist.
Balsz School
Dysart Unified Dist.
El Mirage School
Sunnvside Unified Dist.
TABLE 1
ARIZONA AT-RISK PILOT PROGRAMS
RURAL
Ash Fork Unified
Coolidge Elern.
Mary C. O'Brien Elern.
Monistown Elern.
Nogales Unified
Picacho Elem.
Sornerton Elem.
Nogales Unified
Pinal Co. Consortium
Apache Junction Unified
Casa Grande Elern.
Casa Grande Union
Coolidge Unified
Mammoth-San Manuel Unified
Maricopa Unified
Pinal Co. Ah. Ed.
Santa Cruz Valley Union
Superior Unified
Sornerton Elem.
Aguila Elern.
Buckeye Elern.
Douglas Elem.
Eloy Elem.
Gadsden Elern.
Hyder Elern.
Salorne Consolidated Eiem.
Stanfield Elem.
(0s Ranchitos School
Tempe Elem. Dist.
Scales School
7-1 2 "Districts"
Pima Co. Detention Center Marana Unified
RESERVATION'
Chinle Unified
Ganado Unified
Kayenta Unified
Page Unified
San Carlos Unified
Sanders Unified
Whiteriver Unified
Ganado Unified
Kayenta Unified (9-1 2)
San Carlos Unified (7-8)
Sanders Unified
Ft Thomas Unified
Holbrook Unified
Red Mesa Unified
Peach Springs Elern. Dist.
Peach Springs School
Tuba City-Unified Dist.
Cameron School
Gap School
Note: These districts are located on reservations or are in locations with Native American student
populations of at least 25%.
TABLE 2
ARIZONA AT-RISK PILOT SITES
nPeach Springs
Ash Fork
=Tuba City
'Metro Phoenix area sites:
Phase I: Creighton, Dysart, Laveen, Littleton, Murphy, Osbom, Phoenix, Roosevelt, and Wilson
Phase 11: Avondale, Balsz, Dysart, Isaac, and Tempe
Page Red Mesa=
Kayenta
Chinle
Ganado
Sanders
nHolbrook
nAguila
Morristown Whiteriver
Salomen
Buckeyen San Carlos
nFt. Thomas
Coolidge
Stanfieldn Mary C. O'Brien Pinal County
ElOyn Picacho Consortium
Maranan
Pima Co. Detention Center*%Tuucnsnoyns ide
Phase I Sites (88-89)
n Phase II Sites (89-90) Noqales Douglasn I
TABLE 3
1989-90 STUDENT SERVICES/STRATEGIES
K-3 Districts
(Phase I):
Ash Fork
Chinle
Coolidge
Creightcm
Ganado
Kay enta
Laveen
Littleton
Mary C. O'Brien
Morristown
Murphy
Nogales
Osbom
Page
Phoenix Elem.
Picacho
Roosevelt
San Carlos
Sanders
Somerton
Whiteriver
Wilson I
1) Implement Alternative 2) Reduce 3) Alter 4) Su lement 9 Provide 6 Ex+d 7 Add 8 Enhance (9)
Delivery Systems Staff/Spdent Classroom lndi~/%~izcd S cial" kmccs
Rahos Instruction Instrucbon 2xpfi6 bn-Gdng
t- dl
~ g v i t i e s During Summer Facll~hes Assessment
•
.
.
I
•
..
.
I
•
•
•
I
•
.
•
• ..
•
•
I
•
•
I
V)
.
•
•
.
I
.
•
•
I
•
.
•
.
•
.
I
.
•
•
• .
•
I
.
•
•
.•
•
•
•.
•
I
.
•
•
.•
•
•
•
•
I
.
l
.
I
• . .
.
.•
.
...
•
.•
I
•
•
.
•
I
.
•
.
•
I
•
. .
.
•
•
•
I
.
I
•
•
I
.
I
.
•
•
.
. *
I
.
.•
.
.
TABLE 3 (continlied)
1989-90 STUDENT SERVICES/STRATEGIES
K-3 Districts
(Phase 11):
Aguila
Avondale
Buckeye
Douglas
E~OY
Ft. Thomas
Gadsden
Holbrook
Hyder
Issac
Red Mesa
Salome
Stanfield
K-3 Schools
(Phase 11):
Balsz
Dysart
Peach Springs
Sunnyside
Tempe
Tuba CityGap
Tuba City-Cameron I
I) ImDpellievmereyn tS Aylstetrenmat ive St2a)f fR Setduudceen t a3m) rAoltoerm 4) Su lernent 9 Provide %%iE! 7 Add 8 Enhance @)
Ltics
lndivlquali zed
Instruction hstructton liS$ti"& bring s u m s ~62 ,wdttles ~&sscassmWm t
E
r-
• •
IMPLEMENTED 1990-9 1
•
•
•
. .•
•
•.
.
IMPLEMENTED 1990-91
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
-
•
--
•
•
0 .
.• •
•
•
--
I
• .
O .. . .
I I I I
IMPLEMENTED 1990-9 1
NO DATA AVAILABLE
IMPLEMENTED 1990-91
I
•
.
. .
•
I I I I I I . 1 . 1 I I I I I . I I I I I I I
•
•
.
I
•
. .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
*OSI!M
iaAuat!w
u o u a w
slap='%
sol183 UBS
II~A-X
"~=*!d
.mla x!"a"lId
aa8d
=wsO
saleao~
drlrtnn
umoyspon
uaua.0 '3 4 4 1
u ~ I n ! ?
uaaagt.
wuada
OPeuef)
m ~ q a ! a ~
aap!log
='lU!W
?JOd w
:(I
u a n y ~ wwa c-x
P"'%
I="O='d
f l u ! i w ~
=='w(P
s p m q
UOPmllmunuo3
I8!*
slipls luwd =@dn (E
,,Up
S3W%
F!W
2U?UIlAlOAq pa-IO0'13S JOJ
=P!-O P ~ X X / = U(~z I WJJ~w uaw X I I " ~ " Q ~ ~ H ==q (I
P-WS
SA
W . L U . P(W ~lup!w/m
1
lm!do.L
SdoY~% s)!S!A WOH
*"-'s
S ) U ~ A ~
wer%od
~aaunlo~
J ~~J 3 1 ~
X r o s ~ ~ ~
dn-mono&t
"=ld s ? p y ~ s
DUIOq-?vJ.
TABLE 4 (continned)
1989-90 PARENT SERVICES/STRATEGIES
Spedal
R m e l
4) Enhmcc
C o - l i i
Social
Scrvices
Ft. Thomas
Gadsden
Holbrook
Hyder
Isaac
Red Mesa
Salome
Stanfield
K-3 Schools
(Phase 11):
Balsz
Dysart
Peach Springs
Sunn yside
Tempe
Tuba CityGap
Tuba CityCameron
K-3 Districts
(phase 11):
Aguila
Avmdale
Buckeye
Douglas.
E~OY
3) Upgrade Parent Skills
IMPLEMENTED 1990-91
-
hchrred
claSSeS
I) Increase Hom~communityO utreach Efforts
W ~ O P S
2) lnmase/Expand Ogpommitis
for School-Based lnvdvement
Topical Make 'n Take
Formal Communication
Events
Home Visits
witminirig?
vnt
M1unteer
pDgram
Written
IMPLEMENTED 1990-91
Take-home
activities
wlfdlow-up
Advisory
roles for
Contacts st-risk
Yes
I I I
0
IMPLEMENTED 1990-91
NO DATA AVAILABLE
IMPLEMENTED 1990-91
I I I I
TABLE 5
1989/90 7-12 STUDENT SERVICES
Primary Delivery systems1
Target Population
0- Grades 7-8
X - Grades 9-1 2
'TWO symbols in one cell - More than one program
7-12 Districts (Phase I):
Creig hton
Dysart
Ganado
Kayenta
Nogales
Pinal Co. Consortium
Apache Junction
Casa Grande Elem.
Casa Grande UHS
Coolidge Unified
Mammoth/San Manuel
Maricopa Unified
Pinal Co. Alt. Ed.
Superior Unified
Santa Cruz Valley UHS
San Carlos
Sanders
Somerton
Sunnyside
Tucson
7-12 Districts (Phase 11):
Marana
Pima Co. Detention Center
2) Special
Classes/
Labs
a
a
a
X X
X
X
1) Alternative 4) Summer
School
a
l X
a
a
l X
l X
X
3) Formal Tutorial
Schools/Programs
On-site
X X
a
l X
a
X
X
l X
X
X
l X
Programs
During
School
l X
X
X
X
a
Off-site
@ X
X
X
l X
X
l X
l X
After
School
X
l X
l X
PROGRAM IMPACT
Overall, significant gains have been made at both the K-3 level (absentee rates and retention
rates) and at the 7-12 level (norm-referenced test scores, dropout rates, and high school credit
acquisition). These results are highlighted in this section.
Academic Achievement: Data revealed that the aggregate norm-referenced Iowa Test of Basic
Skills (ITBS) test scores at the K-3 level decreased slightly, with some gains occurring for specific
grade levels and subtests. Although this appears to be a negative program impact, as detailed in the
full report, the poor match between the ITBS and the types of skills being addressed by the at-risk
programs minimizes this concern. K-3 programs are focusing on self-esteem, oral language
development, and critical thinking skills -- skills not measured by the ITBS norm-referenced test.
At the 7-12 level, the average test scores improved in each of four areas, with statistical
significance for three. Since many of the 7-12 programs are focusing on basic skills needed for high
school graduation, the norm-referenced test is a better measure of the efforts of the 7-12 programs
than it is of the K-3 programs. The table below illustrates that, in every case, the average test scoresfor
approximately 300 at-risk 7-12 students increased when compared to their pre-program scores. The
largest growth was experienced by 314 students who increased their average reading score by 5.3
NCEs (out of 100). A gain of this magnitude in one year is significant. Other data also revealed that
large numbers of high school credits were accumulated by the 7-12 students, with many earning well
above the average number earned by most students.
AVERAGE NORM-REFERENCED SCORES
7-12 Cohort Students
40
n
0
Ir
? 30
C
.II) ' 20
I
e. I ; 10 . t
0
Readlng Language Math Composite
( ~ 3 1 4 ) (n-308) (n-311) (n-298)
1988-89 @ 1989-90
.atatlatical 8ignlflcanc.: ps.01
School Attendance: The table on the following page illustrates that the K-3 level absentee
rates declined by an average of 1.5%. During FY 1989/90, this decreased absentee rate resulted in
more than 13,100 additional instructional days among the nearly 4000 K-3 students (over 3 days per
student). Because each school day costs an estimated $10 million for 600,000 Arizona students, the
cost of providing three extra days for 4000 students would be nearly $200,000. Whereas the state
provided more funding than this for the at-risk programs, other benefits beyond additional
instructional days were also realized. These estimates are offered to illustrate that targeted funding of
certain programs may result in additional instructional days, a cost benefit not often discussed. On the
other hand, data revealed that the absentee rate for the 7-12 students increased an average of 3.6%.
It is interesting to note that the student achievement scores and credit accumulation increased for
these students while their attendance decreased. Several explanations are offered in the full report,
but in light of the benefits of additional instructional days, this result warrants further analysis by the
evaluators and program personnel.
ABSENTEE RATES FOR K-3 COHORT STUDENTS
(n = 1919)
K 1 2 3 Multi-grade Total
Grade Level
II -statistical significance: ps.01 II
RetentionJDropout Rates: This study revealed a significant trend of decreased retention rates
relative to pre-program rates. Recently, much attention has been focused on the potential negative
impact of retaining, or "flunking" students. Research illustrates that students who have been retained
twice have nearly a 100% chance of dropping out of school. In addition, looking at the cost
implications of retaining students, national data show that 2.4 million students (6%) are retained each
year, costing nearly $10 billion annually. In light of this national research, the finding from this study
showing decreased retention rates is a very sigmficant program outcome.
The table on the following page illustrates the K-3 retention rates during the past three years.
For this analysis, the FY 1987/88 year is considered as baseline because many of the programs were
able to implement their summer programs or after-school activities during spring 1989 in an effort
to help those students most at risk of failing. As can be seen, the average retention rates at each
grade level have decreased since the implementation of the at-risk programs. The greatest decrease
occurred at the first grade level, where the number of students being retained decreased by over 5%.
Considering that nearly 20% of the at-risk students being served in 7-12 programs have
already been retained at least twice, this decreased retention rate at the lower grade levels should
have a profound long-term effect. Receiving additional assktance during the school year, rather than
spending an extra year in school, benejits both the students and the state. For the student, there is a
decreased chance of dropping out, whereas the state is no longer responsible for paying the costs of
an extra year or two of school. Other data revealed that a slight decrease in the average dropout rates
among the at-risk pilot high schools had occurred since program implementation.
! AVERAGE YEARLY RETENTION RATE (1987-90) *
K-3 At-Risk Pilot Programs
14
X
12
0
f
s 10
t
U
8 8
n
t
6
R
a
t 4
a
i
n
e 2
d
0
Klndorgarhn lat 2nd 3rd
Grade
-87-88- a 3988-89 198Q-90
as reported by district personnel
Attitudes: Student survey responses illustrated an overail positive attitude toward the
program components. Specifically, the majority of the 7-12 students indicated that their grades, their
attitude about completing school, and their confidence level had improved as a result of the at-risk
program. However, these results varied depending on the program strategy to which the students
were exposed. It appeared that those who received the greatest amount of individualized support
responded most positively.
Overall teacher impressions suggested that at-risk program instructional activities improved
student achievement and self-esteem. However, other aspects of the program were not always rated
as highly. Teachers indicated that linkages with other school programs and the community had not
occurred to a great degree. Although it was reported that many teachers were involved in additional
staff development opportunities, teachers generally rated their district's overall staff development
program as "average." In addition, although major efforts were directed toward increasing parental
involvement, teachers as a whole indicated that improved parent interactions had not improved
significantly from the prior year.
Table C-1
GRANT FUNDING'
K-3 AND 7-12 AT-RISK PILOT PROGRAMS
K-3 Phase I Districts:
Ash Fork Unified
Chinle Unified
Coolidge Elem.
Creighton Elem.
Ganado Unified
Kayenta Unified
Laveen Elem.
Littleton Elem.
Mary C. O'Brien Elem.
Morristown Elem.
Murphy Elem.
Nogales Unified
Osborn Elem.
Page Unified
Phoenix Elem.
Picacho Elem.
Roosevelt Elem.
San Carlos Unified
Sanders Unified
Somerton Elem.
Whiteriver Unified
Wilson Elem.
K-3 Phase II Districts:
Aguila Elem.
Avondale Elem.
Buckeye Elem.
Douglas Unified
Eloy Elem.
Ft. Thomas Unified
Gadsden Elem.
Holbrook Unified
Hyder Elem.
Isaac Elem.
Red Mesa Unified
Salome Consolidated Elem.
Stanfield Elem.
'As reported by the Arizona Department of Education.
Table C-1 (continued)
K-3 Phase I1 Schools:
Balsz Elem. - Balsz Sch.
Dysart Unified - El Mirage Sch.
Peach Springs Elem. - Peach Springs Sch.
Sunnyside Unified - Los Ranchitos Sch.
Tempe Elem. - Scales Sch.
Tuba City Unified - Gap Sch.
Tuba City Unified - Cameron Sch.
7-12 Phase I Programs:
Creighton Elem.
Dysart Unified
Ganado Unified
Kayenta Unifkd
Nogales Unified
Pinal Co. Consortium (9 programs)
San Carlos Unified
Sanders Unified
Somerton Elem.
Sunnyside Unified
Tucson Unified
7-12 Phase I1 Programs:
Pima County Detention Center
Marana Unified
FY 1988189
$ 99,800
108,599
111,186
125,865
193,957
190,632
40,132
38,600
95,844
121,780
117,684
FY 1989190
$ 58,325
58,086
48,540
60,000
59,943
59,939
59,805
$ 136,134
17 8,642
169,415
182,320
205,803
20 1,400
107,770
140,100
198,364
164,080
196,822
$ 75,000
20 1,662
FY 1990191
$ 58,325
58,086
48,540
60,000
59,943
59,939
59,805
$ 167,000
181,517
149,490
234,611
239,289
232,422
112,827
159,000
256,425
164,080
253,196
$ 75,000
175,134
