|
A Quantitative Study of the Characteristics of Transient and Non-Transient Students in Nevada Elementary Schools
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Andrew Parr, Nevada Department of Education, aparr@doe.nv.gov
|
| Bill Thornton, University of Nevada Reno, thorbill@unr.edu
|
| Abstract:
This evaluation provides a summary of the assessment of math and reading, student characteristics, and school factors for approximately 14,500 students from nearly 300 elementary schools across Nevada with specific emphasis on student transience (student mobility). Student transience is not currently recognized as an at-risk subpopulation under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Also, transient students are more likely to fall into at least one of the other at-risk subpopulations that are recognized in NCLB legislation in comparison to non-transient students. Attention to curriculum and school processes may prove to be important in serving the educational needs of transient students. The paper presents findings, recommendations, and discusses related policy issues.
|
|
Values, Equity, and Accountability: Exploring State Alternative Education Policy
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Lynn Hemmer, Texas A&M International University, lynn.hemmer@tamiu.edu
|
| Tara Shepperson, Eastern Kentucky University, tara.shepperson@eku.edu
|
| Abstract:
Performance based standards remain a powerful force in state and federal accountability systems, but it is not as clear how states define and document expectations for alternative education (AE) students. Because AE schools are encouraged to design programs to prevent/recover student dropouts, accountability rules governing traditional schools may not be appropriate in AE settings. There are indications that states often fail to collect outcomes data for alternative students following prevailing accountability requirements. There is little direct information about accountability, policies, and outcomes assessment for AE schools, nationwide. This study presents a cross-case descriptive study of California, Kentucky and Texas policies with the goal to analyze issues of equity and values related to AE programs. Findings indicating lesser accountability requirements suggest reduced expectations for AE programs and the at-risk students they serve, raising questions about educational equity.
|
|
Defining Actions and Values: Participatory Logic Modeling by Alternative School Teachers
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Tara Shepperson, Eastern Kentucky University, tara.shepperson@eku.edu
|
| Lynn Hemmer, Texas A&M International University, lynn.hemmer@tamiu.edu
|
| Abstract:
A group of teachers at an alternative school for 7 - 12 graders worked as a group backwards mapping student outcomes to classroom activities to clarify their beliefs and priorities for educating highly at-risk students. The exercise reveals the tacit belief that by building relationships with otherwise disenfranchised students, teachers can engage them in learning. Teachers were able to show a connection between classroom activities, improved student behavior, and increased learning. Teachers also discussed goals to develop the whole child for adult life. Less clear was how the school's project-based learning would in the short term improve student scores on standardized tests. Participatory pathways analyses helped teachers reflect on their values and priorities, build capacity to move towards academic rigor, merge innovation and accountability, and sustain the program.
|
|
Wrapping Services Around Children: An Evaluation of Wraparound
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Jason Daniels, University of Alberta, jason.daniels@ualberta.ca
|
| Brad Arkison, University of Alberta, brad.arkison@ualberta.ca
|
| Stanley Varnhagen, University of Alberta, stanley.varnhagen@ualberta.ca
|
| Abstract:
Wraparound is described as an intervention planning process that can be applied to situations in which individuals have compound needs across many life domains that require many service agencies and/or government ministries (VanDenBerg, & Grealish, 1996). Wraparound addresses the complex needs of children and youth through a plan for services and supports that draws on the strengths, resources, and collaboration of multiple sectors and/or agencies. In this session we will describe our experiences with a large-scale evaluation of wraparound approaches within a Canadian province. Using research that we have conducted we will present and then critique two different approaches for determining and demonstrating the value of wraparound. Fidelity to theory and Social Return On Investment(SROI)are two approaches that can provide different types of information about the effectiveness of educational interventions. This session will provide attendees with the opportunity to examine alternative methods of determining value.
|
| | | |