|
Multi-stage Evaluation Planning: Evaluating No Child Left Behind's (NCLB's) Free Tutoring Program
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Judith Inazu,
University of Hawaii,
inazu@hawaii.edu
|
| Daniel Anderson,
Planning and Evaluation Inc,
pandeinc@lava.net
|
| Julie Holmes,
University of Hawaii,
jholmes@hawaii.edu
|
| Nancy Marker,
University of Hawaii,
nmarker@hawaii.edu
|
| Aiko Oda,
Planning and Evaluation Inc,
oda@hawaii.edu
|
| Russell Uyeno,
University of Hawaii,
ruyeno@hawaii.edu
|
| Shuquiang Zhang,
University of Hawaii,
szhang@hawaii.edu
|
| Abstract:
A three-year process of simultaneously designing and implementing a federally-mandated evaluation of NCLB’s Supplemental Educational Services (SES) program is described. The evaluation compares standardized test scores of students who received tutoring with those who did not; parental, school, and district satisfaction with tutoring vendors; and vendor compliance with state and federal regulations. Despite lack of information to adequately plan an evaluation (e.g., sample size, stakeholder cooperation), NCLB required that the evaluation be implemented. Given this dilemma, the evaluators worked with school officials to develop a multi-stage approach to the evaluation such that the evaluation design and activities could evolve and expand over time. Minimum evaluation requirements were met in the first year due to sparse data and consent issues. In the last year of the project, a final evaluation plan is expected to be in place for use by the client in subsequent years.
|
|
Improving the Validity of Academic Performance Accountability Measures of Schools by Adjusting for Student Population Shifts
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Simeon Slovacek,
California State University at Los Angeles,
sslovac@calstatela.edu
|
| Jonathan Whittinghill,
California State University at Los Angeles,
jwhittinghill@cslanet.calstatela.edu
|
| Abstract:
Annual comparisons of academic accountability measures (such as No Child Left Behind –Annual Yearly Progress Targets, and California’s Academic Performance Index) pose a challenge for schools and districts particularly when school level data are used to measure academic change. Most states do not longitudinally track and aggregate individual student level (value added) performance for accountability, rather school level data is used. Yet virtually all schools experience significant year to year student population shifts as new cohorts enter and the highest grade levels move on or graduate. New charter schools especially grow in size (sometimes doubling). Schools may experience high mobility rates. Assessing valid annual progress (instead of population shifts) requires thoughtful adjustments because repeated Program Improvement Status designation results in school take-over or closure. Also, reauthorization may be at stake for charter schools. The author, an evaluator and a school board founding member, will present issues, examples, and solution formulas.
|
|
The Impact of Title I School Choice Program in a Majority Minority School District
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Kolawole Sunmonu,
Prince George's County Public Schools,
ksunmonu@aol.com
|
| Abstract:
One of the key provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is that parents of students in underperforming Title I schools be offered the choice of transferring their child to a better performing school within the school district. As with other ‘choice’ programs, the theoretical underpinning of the Title I School Choice option is that overall student achievement will be enhanced because parents will choose to send their children to better performing schools while competition and/or sanction will encourage underperforming schools to raise the quality of education offered. Due to the infancy of research focusing on Title I School Choice, no definitive conclusion has been reached regarding the program’s impact on student achievement. Using student achievement data over a four-year period, this study uses a three-group quasi-experimental design to examine the impact of Title I School Choice on student achievement in a low-performing majority-minority district. Data analyses will be conducted using 4 (time) x 3 (group) mixed-model ANOVA.
|
|
A Local Program in the Context of Federal Policy and Legislation: An evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services (SES)
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Ranjana Damle,
Albuquerque Public Schools,
damle@aps.edu
|
| Abstract:
The Federal legislation No Child Left Behind, 2001, incorporates policy elements aimed at supporting schools in achieving rigorous academic standards and aiding education of disadvantaged children. The accountability provisions allow tracking student and school progress. Schools are required to use scientifically researched reading programs to ensure that students read at grade level. This educational policy prioritizes parental knowledge and involvement in their children’s education. Parents receive information about their school’s performance and, if their school is failing, are empowered to choose school transfer or supplemental educational services. Under the NCLB mandate, when schools do not make adequate yearly progress for three consecutive years, their most disadvantaged students become eligible for the Supplementary Educational Services (SES). A major expensive enterprise emerges to monitor the SES programs in terms of instructional quality and book keeping. This paper evaluates an SES program in the context of Federal educational policy and legislation.
|
| | | |