Researchers at the University of Vanderbilt have recently released a new checklist, the “Test Accessibility and Modification Inventory,” to assist test creators in creating “accessible” tests that can measure content area knowledge for students with disabilities and those that are mastering English.

The challenge is in creating tests that eliminate unneeded obstacles in measuring content knowledge for students with disabilities and students mastering English while not making the tests so simple that general education students can complete them without having to demonstrate their competence. Therefore, the Vanderbilt researchers hope that by following their field-tested questions, test creators can ask themselves the necessary questions in order to eliminate common problems that make tests less accessible.

Examples of items the checklist suggests include:
• using three multiple-choice answers instead of four
• more frequent, but shorter prose sections in reading comprehension evaluation
• using illustrations only when directly related to the answer.

The researchers state that these steps eliminate unneeded “distractors” while still adequately evaluating students’ actual knowledge of the material.

The need for creating accessible tests is largely driven by the testing requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. The law’s regulations allow a proportion of students with disabilities to take different types of tests than general education students. Two percent of all students, or about twenty percent of students with disabilities, can be counted as proficient when they take alternate tests based on modified, but grade-level, academic standards. Those tests can have fewer questions, fewer multiple-choice options and require a lower level of reading skill.

The Improve Group has done multiple evaluations with organizations and government agencies evaluating populations with disabilities or that are mastering English. There are complicated cultural and pedagogical issues involved in evaluating these types of populations. With the growing need to evaluate and address the issues concerning these populations, especially in education, tools such as the “Test Accessibility and Modification Inventory” need to continually evolve. Hopefully, such tools can be used to create better tests for all students.

Posted by admin at 09:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The College Board recently released a report that stated that cost of college continued to rise as the economy has faltered, putting an increasing strain on families to keep up.

For the current academic year, the average list price of tuition and fees at four-year public universities rose $394, or 6.4 percent, to $6,585 for in-state students. However, many students don’t pay the full list price. At four-year public universities, in-state students receive grants and tax breaks that lower that average to about $2,885.

At private colleges, prices rose $1,398, or 5.9 percent, to $25,143, according to the annual report. At private colleges, grants and tax breaks lower the average net price to about $14,900.

While some private colleges now exceed $50,000 when room and board are figured in, they are the exception. Overall, 56% of four-year college students attend institutions where the list price for tuition and fees is less than $9,000. But they’ve done so largely by tapping rapidly growing endowments. Now, like family savings, college endowments have suffered great losses on Wall Street, just as demand for financial aid rises.

Some colleges may try to hold down prices, but experts say that in most cases the pressure to charge more will be greater as endowments and alumni giving decrease. The College Board report emphasized that, accounting for overall inflation, prices rose less than 1 percent this year, and actually declined at public two-year colleges. But that’s only because overall inflation was unusually high, about 5.6 percent.

It is not clear if college access will be a greater challenge for the foreseeable future, especially for students in low-income, immigrant and minority groups. At the Improve Group, we have done extensive work in higher education access. What has become clear through our project work is that finding new solutions to help students access college will become imperative considering the current economic environment. The need for work in this area is particularly urgent since most evaluations are out of context relating to our changing economic environment.

Posted by admin at 09:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A reminder to all that voting is Tuesday, November 4th, 2008. You may see one of the staff members of the Improve Group as a volunteer, election judge or giving rides to the polls.

If you need a ride on November 4th you can call the nonpartisan Rides to Polls Coalition at 1-877-NOV-2008 (1-877-668-2008). These rides are a nonpartisan effort of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits.

Posted by admin at 02:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I recently read an Education Week article detailing the final approval on an extensive and wide-ranging set of final regulations adding new requirements on states, districts and schools via the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The Bush administration approved these regulations as Congress has continued to find agreement in reauthorizing the 7-year old law.

The regulations will require states to:
• adopt the same method of calculating high school graduation rates;
• mandate that school districts take additionally steps to ensure students in low-performing schools know they’re eligible to transfer schools or enroll in free tutoring; and
• make public information comparing states’ student achievement to national scores.

A main implication of the rule changes is that it will require states to update their formal plans that explain how they will implement key elements of NCLB due to these new regulations. Changes in those formal plans (called workbooks) that the Education Department must approve, involves explaining how states will develop content standards, assess students in reading and mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school, and hold schools accountable for student performance based on the goal that all students will be proficient in those subjects by the end of the 2013-14 school year.

Among the most significant changes involve requiring all states to adopt the same method of calculating high school graduation rates. Under the new regulations, states must track the percentage of students within four years of entering high schools. The regulations say that state proposals that count students who graduate within six years as completing on time will be considered by the Education Department. Additionally, schools must publish rates for students in racial, ethnic and socioeconomic subgroups, as well as for students with disabilities and English-language learners.

States must report data based on these new regulations in the 2009-2010 school year. By the 2011-2012 school year, states must use the new method of calculating graduations rates as one of the measures to determine whether high schools make adequate yearly progress (AYP), which is the method of determining whether a school is meeting its goals under the NCLB law, as well as improving graduation rates for students in every group for which they publish graduation data.

In the Improve Group’s work with state school districts and education initiatives, we have found that consistently reporting data across time, let along across different states, is a stiff challenge for schools trying to meet the government requirements for collecting and evaluating data. New regulations such as these could be beneficial in evaluating multiple issues in education such as improving graduation rates for multiple populations, but training in strong data evaluation methods and tools to accurately collect and analyze data would be of great use to the education system.

Posted by Guest author at 09:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Get out the vote!

November 4th is coming soon! Please encourage your clients—new voters, those who have moved, or those who have changed their names since the last election—to register ASAP. We have until October 13th at 4:30 pm to pre-register voters.

• Important info about voter registration: http://www.mncn.org/mpp/doc/sixsteps.pdf
• Frequently asked questions about voter registration: http://www.mncn.org/mpp/doc/faq.pdf

Transportation• If clients or people you know need transportation to the polls (wheelchair accessible available) they can set up rides ahead of time by calling
1-877-NOV-2008 (1-877-668-2008). Reservations are recommended, but not necessary.
• Individuals can also call their political party to get a ride.

Other resources related to voting• For info on special populations such as homeless individuals, people who have been charged with felonies, and more http://www.mncn.org/mpp/registration.htm
• Also, if problems arise the day of the election have clients call 1-866-OUR VOTE
• Absentee voting starts October 3rd. To help clients understand the process and register (Hennepin County):
http://www.co.hennepin.mn.us/portal/site/HCInternet/menuitem.3f94db53874f9b6f68ce1e10b1466498/?vgnextoid=a9199bb82e9fc010VgnVCM1000000f094689RCRD

Posted by admin at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Education Week and the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center released this year’s edition of Diploma Counts, examining the status of graduation rates and state P-16 and P-20 councils, and whether they can help smooth the transition for school youth to go on to successfully earn college degrees. The report illuminates critical issues on the status of education that have significant policy ramifications.

P-16 councils are state-formed groups of individuals from various levels of education, from preschool to post-college graduates, often including representatives from state government, business and the community. These councils are one of the most popular vehicles in strengthening the connection between public schools and higher education. The councils’ goal is to strengthen ties between schools and postsecondary education and training so students can successful earn a college degree. Currently, 38 states have P-16 or P-20 councils that deal with many of the issues in obtaining this goal.

Diploma Counts found that these councils have steep challenges to address in increasing the number of students obtaining their college degree. One of the main challenges is increasing the number of students that graduate from high school. According to the report, it is estimated that 1.23 million students will fail to graduate from high school this year. However, there are wide disparities between the state-reported graduation rates and the center’s estimates. These disparities are one reason the U.S. Department of Education proposed new rules this spring requiring all states to report graduation rates based on a uniform method that tracks cohorts of students as they progress through high school.

Despite the disparities between reported graduation rates, it is clear that there is difficulty for specific minority groups and specific regions of the nation in graduating students from high school. For example, the report states that 71 percent of ninth graders make it to graduation four years later, according to national 2005 data. This figure reduces to 58 percent for Hispanics, 55 percent for African-Americans and 51 percent for Native Americans. Additionally, while more than eight in ten students graduate on time in states such as Iowa, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, that proportion drops to fewer than six in ten in states such as Georgia, Nevada, Louisiana and South Carolina.

The challenges presented in the report provide multiple opportunities for evaluation and strategic planning to assist policymakers and school districts. The Improve Group is currently working with numerous clients on projects that directly affect the topics mentioned in the report. With the challenges presented in Diploma Counts, there are sure to be more opportunities to address critical issues in improving graduation rates and education.

Posted by Guest author at 04:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I recently read a Education Week article discussing new efforts schools have been trying to make to reduce teacher absences. The article states that research papers from economists at Harvard University and Duke University have argued that teacher absences harm student achievement. Consequently, education experts and administrators have experimented and debated policies to attempt to reduce teacher absences.

The research papers of the Harvard and Duke economists argue that teacher absences have a small but significant effect on student achievement as shown by test results. The economists also point to previous research that suggests ways of reducing teacher absences. For example, the economists note that the more generous leave provisions are the more days on average are taken. They also say that it is worth considering incentive plans that reward exceptional attendance or pay teachers for earned leave they do not take. Another approach the economists propose is to require teachers to report time off directly to their principal, rather to the central office or the answering machine.

In addition to proposed approaches, the article describes new efforts by schools to monitor teacher attendance, such as improved tracking of absences and principals’ emphasis on teacher attendance. However, these efforts have limited data to measure their effectiveness.

While the studies do provide compelling evidence that teacher absences probably do harm student achievement, the degree of harm is unclear. In my opinion, a broader based assessment could incorporate teacher attendance, other measures of teach effectiveness and other societal factors that influence student achievement. Through such an assessment, we can create policies and incentives that would address student achievement through a more holistic approach. What do think about this issue? I would appreciate your views.

Other resources: What makes Education Research “Educational”?
Deborah Loewenberg Ball and Francesca Forzani, Educational Researcher, V36 n9

Posted by Guest author at 04:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had the good fortune to meet Karen Anderson a couple years ago at the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits Conference in Saint Paul. At that time, she was working on launching her new website, the NonprofitRFPExchange. It was exciting to hear about all the ideas she had for creating a helpful resource for nonprofits.

Her site is currently up and running and I encourage you to take a look. The NonprofitRFPExchange not only offers nonprofit organizations a place where they “can get more bids, gather more resumes, and facilitate the funding process on one website,” but also has information for grantmakers, businesses, job seekers and volunteers. The Exchange assists non-profits and other businesses to make mutually beneficial connections regarding goods and services. Posting information on the site is free for non-profits and other tax-exempt organizations. If you would like to learn more please go to: http://www.NonprofitRFPExchange.com.

Posted by admin at 08:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Providing a good education for all seems to be on everyone’s mind these days. If you are interested in this topic here is some helpful information.

First, be sure to read the April 2008 issue of the Improve Groove Newsletter coming out next week. In this issue, staff member Eric Wong has a great article on test-based accountability in schools.

I also want to share this link to a report called Cities in Crisis: A Special Analytical Report on High School Graduation by the Editorial Projects in Education Resource Center supported by the America’s Promise Alliance and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This report gives a geographically-informed look at high school completion concentrating on America’s largest cities and their surrounding metropolitan areas. The analysis looks at the 2003-2004 school year. One very uncomfortable conclusion in this study is that 3 out of every 10 students in our nation are failing to graduate. To read the full report, please click here.

Posted by admin at 04:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For the second year in a row I attended a very informative and sobering presentation by the Minnesota Budget Project of the Minnesota Council of Non-Profits on the Federal Budget forecast and its implications for Minnesota. For those of you who have not attended one I highly recommend it. This year they brought back Martha Coven, Senior Legislative Associate with non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C. The Center works on “fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.” Ms. Coven gave a great overview of the Federal Budget outlook and spoke of upcoming issues of importance and concern.

Steve Francisco, Federal Policy Director for the Minnesota Budget Project presented the local aspect, forecasting on how the U.S. budget could impact us here in Minnesota. The proposed FY2009 Budget would have a particularly negative affect on important programs for seniors, people with disabilities and low-income families. Minnesota non-profits working to sustain funding for their programs need to be seen and heard, especially by our local politicians. The Minnesota Budget Project team gave a few suggestions on how to make a difference in the budgeting process; they suggest:

• Identify and organize allies and partners
• Write a letter to the editor
• Organize a meeting with your members of Congress
• Enlist support from city, county, and state elected officials
• Join the Minnesota Budget Project

I would add, put a note in your calendar to attend this excellent session on budgeting and policy next February.

For more information see press release response on proposed budget from the Minnesota Budget Project

Posted by admin at 01:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The December 19 edition of Education Week published an interesting article regarding the U.S. Department of Education’s recent policy shift towards allowing schools to be sanctioned or rewarded based on student’s academic growth. The article states that this policy change enjoys strong support from researchers, policymakers and educators as the accountability debate for the renewal of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) continues to fester.

This measure of accountability, called the growth model, is a stark contrast to the current policy, called the status model, which judges schools based on the number of students deemed proficient in a specific subject area. Critics of the status model argue that the model overlooks students who are demonstrating growth towards proficiency and occasionally failing to penalize high-achieving schools where significant numbers of students are not proficient. Additionally, accountability decisions are based off a comparison of test scores of a group of student compared to the previous year, a metric that is open to sampling bias. As a result, the growth model is gaining support among policymakers, educators and researchers because it tracks the academic progress of individual students over time. Growth model supporters argue that its “value-added” measurement of academic progress is a more accurate measure of whether schools are helping its students.

However, while the U.S. Department of Education recently announced it would approve all growth models that met the criteria for a 2-year pilot project while gaining widespread support among education professionals, implementation of these growth models exposes a number of significant concerns, including the following items.

1. To be able to implement the growth model, states must have data systems in place that are able to track individual students’ progress via test scores over time. Specifically, data systems need three items to implement the growth model: a unique student ID number, assurance that proficiency levels are consistent across grade levels and information why certain students were not assessed. Currently, only 34 states (including Minnesota) have data systems that have those items to track every student. It may take states several years to develop data systems able to collect this data adequately to implement growth models.

2. For these growth models to achieve the NCLB mandated goal of universal proficiency by the end of the 2013-2014 school year, experts believe that many schools will need large rates of annual growth to meet that goal. Under the NCLB, schools need to demonstrate progress towards achieving the proficiency mandate each year for all students.

3. While growth models may show the significant gains for individual students in schools with low achievement levels, designing growth models for high achieving schools presents significant challenges. These schools generally fare better under the status model since a high proportion of students are deemed proficient according to the mandated benchmarks. However, under the growth model, high-achieving schools will likely have low rates of academic growth. Education experts disagree on how to address this issue.

While the NCLB reauthorization continues beyond its original due date in 2007, accountability measures are here to stay. In my opinion, the introduction of growth models in education presents challenges and opportunities that evaluators should explore. Some areas to explore include the effects of these measures on minority and disadvantaged students, the effects in different regions and the specific elements of education programs where large rates of academic growth has occurred.

Do you have any reactions to what’s going on with accountability in education?

Posted by Guest author at 09:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Congratulations to Growth and Justice for the well-received and highly informative "Smart Investments in Minnesota’s Students" Education Summit held at the Minnesota History Center on Monday, November 12, 1007. The event brought together a large and engaged group to learn from economists about where Minnesotan’s might best invest to improve education for all students.

Improve Group staff Leah Goldstein Moses, Rebecca Stewart and Susan Murphy, were excited to have a role in the day’s events by moderating the afternoon’s panels on early education, K-12 and out-of-school time. Each panel included the economists who presented papers on smart investments and State Legislators and Representatives who are involved education for Minnesotans. The discussion in was lively, positive and created clarity on the morning’s presentations.

Although Growth and Justice focused on information sharing (hoping to build consensus over the next several months), there seemed to be consensus around a few key issues:

1. Effectiveness seems to be better defined by volume rather than degree. For example, an increase in the number of students who reach proficiency on a test is more important than an increase in the average score on that test.

2. Making a difference in the number of students who graduate from high school has both economic and ethical value. There are economic benefits to the individual, state and federal systems (see p. 30 and 34 of the summary report), and one of the political presenters made the statement that we should be concerned not just with public education but the education of the public.

3. Even very costly programs can be cost-effective if they make a great change in educational attainment and matriculation.

Posted by admin at 01:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration -- a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- has developed National Outcomes Measures for all of its grantees. They are laid out in a clear grid by domain, similar to what a logic model might look like if you tried to model all prevention and treatment programs in one document.

States and other grantees report on their success in these outcomes. The outcomes were developed primarily from SAMHSA’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). This annual survey collects data from members of U.S. households aged 12 or older. Some interesting national statistics show that that among persons aged 12 to 17 (2004-05):
* Seventeen percent reported using alcohol during the past 30 days; however, 78 percent perceived a great risk of harm from having five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage once or twice a week.
* Seven percent reported using marijuana in the past 30 days; however, 83 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds perceived moderate or great risk of harm from smoking marijuana once a month.
* The average age of first use among 12- to 17-year-olds who reported using marijuana or alcohol was 13.6 and 13.1, respectively.
* Twenty-five percent of persons aged 15 to 17 who were employed would be more likely to work for an employer who randomly tests for drugs and alcohol.

Posted by admin at 02:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week I had the wonderful opportunity to co-present a session with Tom DeCaigny, Executive Director of Performing Arts Workshop at the annual conference of the International Network of Schools for the Advancement of Arts Education.

During our presentation, we talked about the lessons we have learned in developing and improving partnerships with arts education programming stakeholders. We have worked on federally funded program implementation and evaluation work together for five years, spanning two Department of Education grants. During this time we have learned valuable tips and techniques in forming partnerships with schools, principals, classroom teachers, teaching artists and school district administrators.

Towards the end of our presentation, Tom and I led a discussion about barriers to partnerships that we have experienced and that our audience of 25 or so attendees have experiened in their diverse work situations. These barriers included:
• Scheduling
• Lack of initial interest
• Competing demands (i.e. testing, etc.)
• Turnover (all levels)
• Lip service (aka false agreement)
• Lack of support and buy-in (admin.)
• Exhaustion – test scores, distant memories
• Teacher experience/partnership/mentorship
• Arts phobia – lack of arts experience

We also brainstormed solutions to these barriers. Our audience had very creative and useful ideas on overcoming barriers and methods to improve partnerships.
• Relationship building (principal buy-in)
• Principal training
• Hire based on connection to the arts (teachers and principals)
• Use teacher “hidden” arts skills
• Know sequence and need of curriculum
• Know curriculum themes re: integration
• Arts integration training/background
• Overcoming competition
• Building citizenship

Thank you to everyone who attended and participated in our conference session!

Posted by Guest author at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I recently read an article in the current edition of Education Week about the debate regarding language in the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act that would encourage experimenting with performance-based pay for teachers. While both the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA) ardently oppose the proposed language, experimentation with performance-based pay is mounting across the nation as states and districts try to reform teacher compensation.

A main issue in designing performance-based pay in teacher compensation is how to evaluate teachers. Currently, performance-based pay schedules are at least partly based on test scores because they are a quantitative measure for student achievement. This is in contrast with the traditional teacher pay schedule, where teachers are paid based on uniform pay steps that reward years of experience and education coursework completed.

The article states that during the 1980s, the main concerns about performance-based pay schedules relate to evaluating teachers based on criteria that were too subjective and that the limited scope of these compensation programs promote unhealthy competition between teachers. Education policymakers and administrators are trying to avoid the same problems in designing current performance-based pay schedules.

Research on the success of performance-based pay schedules is scarce. The article states that a 2007 research synthesis by the federally financed Consortium for Policy Research in Education found the impact of performance-based pay on student achievement is limited. While recent studies have generally found a positive relationship between financial incentives for teachers and student achievement, there is no consensus on how to design performance-based pay schedules.

In my experience researching education policy, when it comes to evaluating teacher effectiveness, current evaluation methods and the collection of quantitative data can provide a higher quality estimate of teacher effectiveness than the data and evaluation methods used when many performance-based pay schedules failed in the 1980s. For example, the article maintains that states and districts have developed data systems that estimate teachers’ effectiveness based on their students’ test-score gains over time. Such use of value-added measures does have its shortcomings, but combining these measures with qualitative measures such as improvement in student behavior and student satisfaction can possibly provide a more holistic assessment of teacher performance.

Posted by Guest author at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Minnesota Council on Foundations is presenting an Advanced Grantseeking Seminar in Duluth, MN on October 3rd and 4th at the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center. The seminar is sponsored by the Duluth Superior Area Community Foundation and Northland Foundation. For more information go to the MCF web site at www.mcf.org.

If you already have that grant and are facing a reporting deadline come to the Improve Group Evaluation Workshops also on October 3rd and 4th held here at our offices in Bloomington, MN. Bring your challenges and concerns and these workshops can help you learn how to collect and analyze the data needed for your reporting requirements. For more information see our workshop page on our web site or call Susan Murphy toll-free at 1-877-467-7847.

Posted by admin at 02:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A few years ago someone (I can't remember who it was to give them proper credit!) suggested that the National Association of State Boards of Education was a good resource for education data, information and legislation. I became a member and have been very pleased with the variety of information available on a range of topics from school improvement to nutrition in cafeterias.

The following was the content of a recent email titled "bill watch" - it listed all of the recent bills introduced in the U.S. Senate and House.

** Senate Bills Introduced **

S 1159 (Hagel, Nebraska) introduced the “IDEA Full Funding Act” to amend Part B of IDEA to provide full Federal funding of that part.
S 1167 (Harkin, Iowa) introduced the “Legal Aid Attorney Loan Repayment Act” to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 in order to provide funding for student loan repayment for civil legal assistance attorneys.
S 1185 (Bingaman, New Mexico) introduced the “Graduation Promise Act of 2007” to provide grants to States to improve high schools and raise graduation rates while ensuring rigorous standards, to develop and implement effective school models for struggling students and dropouts, and to improve State policies to raise graduation rates. I think this is also co-sponsored by Senator Kennedy (Massachusetts).
S 1194 (Dodd, Connecticut) introduced the “No Child Left Behind Reform Act” to improve NCLB.
S 1199 (Wyden, Oregon) introduced the “Nanotechnology in the Schools Act” to strengthen the capacity of eligible institutions to provide instruction in nanotechnology.
S 1217 (Boxer, California) introduced to enhance the safety of elementary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher learning.
S 1228 (Durbin, Illinois) introduced the “Campus Law Enforcement Emergency Response Act of 2007” to amend Section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding law enforcement emergencies.
S 1231 (Reed, Rhode Island) introduced the “Preparing, Recruiting and Retaining of Education Professionals (PRREP) Act” to amend Part A of Title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to enhance teacher training and teacher preparation programs.
S 1232 (Dodd, Connecticut) introduced the “Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2007” to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of Education to develop voluntary policy managing the risk of food allergy and anaphylaxis in schools, to establish school-based food allergy management grants.
S 1236 (Murkowski, Alaska) introduced the “School Accountability Improvements Act” to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding highly qualified teachers, growth models, adequate yearly progress, Native American language programs, and parental involvement.
S 1241 (Grassley, Iowa) introduced to amend the IRS Code of 1986 to clarify student housing eligibility for the low-income housing credit.
S 176 (Clinton, New York) introduced this resolution congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers and administrators across the U.S. for their ongoing contributions to education.
S 1261 (Cantwell, Washington) introduced the “Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act” to amend Title 10 and 38 of the US Code to repeal the 10-year limit on use of the Montgomery GI Bill’s educational assistance benefits.
S 1262 (Enzi, Wyoming) introduced the “Student Loan Accountability and Disclosure Reform Act” to protect students receiving student loans.
S 1278 (Hagel, Nebraska) introduced the “Veterans and Survivors Employment and Training Act of 2007” to amend Title 38, US Code, to expand the scope of programs and education for which accelerated payments of educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill may be used.
S 1294 (Durbin, Illinois) introduced the “Homeland Security Education Act” to strengthen national security by encouraging and assisting in the expansion and improvement of educational programs in order to meet critical needs at the elementary, secondary and postsecondary levels.
S 1302 (Kennedy, Massachusetts) introduced the “Keeping Parents and Communities Engaged [PACE] Act” to amend Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to encourage and support parent, family, and community involvement in schools; to provide needed integrated services and comprehensive supports to children; and to ensure that schools are centers of communities for the ultimate goal of assisting students to stay in school, become successful learners, and improve academic achievement.

** House Bills Introduced **
HR 1994 (McKeon, California) introduced to provide more transparency in the financial aid process and to ensure that students are receiving the best information about financial aid opportunities.
HR 2004 (Petri, Wisconsin) introduced the “Higher Education for Freedom Act” to establish and strengthen postsecondary education programs and courses in the subjects of traditional American history, free institutions, and Western civilization available to students preparing to teach these subjects and to other students.
HR 126 (Engel, New York) introduced supporting the goals and ideals of the Day of Silence with respect to discrimination and harassment faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals in schools.
HR 2017 (Holt, New Jersey) introduced to provide access and assistance to increase college attendance and completion of part-time students.
HR 2023 (Tancredo, Colorado) introduced to establish a student loan forgiveness program for members of the Sudanese Diaspora to enable them to return to southern Sudan and contribute to the reconstruction effort of southern Sudan.
HR 334 (Miller, North Carolina) introduced a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Community College Month.
HR 2063 (Lowey, New York) introduced to direct the to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of Education to develop voluntary policy managing the risk of food allergy and anaphylaxis in schools, to establish school-based food allergy management grants.
HR 2070 (Udall, Colorado) introduced to amend Part A of Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding adequate yearly progress and assessments.
HR 2073 (Kennedy, Rhode Island) introduced to increase the number of well-trained mental health service professionals, including those in schools, who provide clinical mental health care to children and adolescents.
HR 344 (Boustany, Louisiana) introduced this resolution congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers and administrators across the U.S. for their ongoing contributions to education.
HR 2087 (DeLauro, Connecticut) introduced to improve the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.”
HR 2111 (Holt, New Jersey) introduced to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a partnership program in foreign languages.

Posted by admin at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While conducting research for a recent proposal, I came to a rather hopeful conclusion. I found that the literature on teacher quality offers promise for helping disadvantaged students overcome community barriers. The studies I reviewed showed that schools have greater influence on student achievement than community characteristics.
This presents a great opportunity, but also a great responsibility for teachers.

Linda Darling-Hammond’s (2000) study of the correlation between the existence of institutions that set licensure policies and percentages of qualified teachers has implications for a licensing and monitoring infrastructure that is currently lacking in early childhood education. The findings suggest that policymakers could play an influential role in ensuring the quality of early childhood programs by increasing requirements.

Early childhood providers also need to be aware of what qualities make an effective teacher. As Carroll Helm indicates, caring and empathetic teachers are more able to build students self-esteem, which is important for future academic performance (2007). More advanced teacher screening processes would need to be used in order to take these qualities into account.

Policy makers and school administrators face two challenges in reforming current practices. First, there is a great amount of variance in the qualifications of current early childhood teachers. In standardizing the credentials, administrators need to be sure not to marginalize the experience of current teachers who lack the credentials. Second, costs will increase with demands for more qualified teachers. College students are looking to get a return on their education, therefore, in order to draw graduates into the field, sufficient compensation will have to be provided. Schools will also incur higher costs in recruiting, screening and training highly qualified teachers. Because the costs of early childhood education and childcare are so entangled, the funding streams are complicated. Individual parents, communities, school districts and charitable organizations are all likely to see increased responsibilities to cover these costs.

Sources:
Darling-Hammond, L. 2000. Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 8:1–48.

Helm, C. (2007). Teacher Dispositions Affecting Self-Esteem and Student Performance. The Clearing House, 109-110.

Posted by Guest author at 02:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Improve Group staff are devoted to using evaluation to improve outcomes, so conducting a test presentation of our new workshop series seemed natural. On June 14th, 2007 we gave a pilot run of How Do I Know That: Creating tools to understand program outcomes and Inside Knowledge, Outside Perspective: Evaluating your organization form within. The series is aimed at those who want to begin or expand their evaluation knowledge and feel empowered to use it in their organization.

Presenter Leah Goldstein Moses taught participants how to develop evaluations that fit smoothly with program activities while maintaining validity and accuracy. Presenter Marian Kimball Eichinger gave insight into how to improve the evaluation work within organizations and how to select the right tools to get legitimate results.

Attending the pilot was Cassaundra Adler - Financial Educator with Lutheran Social Services, Trisha Lee Cook – Member Services Associate for the Minnesota Council on Foundations and Nathan Salzl – Evaluation Specialist for the Greater Twin Cities United Way 211 Call Center. Also attending was Improve Group consultant Jules Goldstein (who is a member of the Board of United Jewish Fund and Council) and staff member Susan Murphy.

Our thanks to Cassaundra, Trisha Lee and Nathan who were a perfect blend of non-profit experience, foundation background and small and large organization perspectives. The attendees gave honest and valuable feedback on what were the most useful aspects of the training, what could be added or deleted to better serve the needs of the target audience and how to enhance specific exercises and teaching materials.

The pilot group gave a unanimous thumbs-up to the new series, saying:

• The workshops helped me figure out where to start with my organization's evaluation. I felt overwhelmed before and unsure whether I was representing my own opinions or had solid facts; now I know how to collect, analyze and present accurate data.
• I gained a great vocabulary for talking with funders, program managers and staff; the tools provided during the workshop can easily be adapted for our programs.
• I am excited to use the information for my program; I like learning and continually improving my program and was never sure how to ask questions to get honest and fair responses. I am going to review our surveys to make sure they are gathering the information I need.
• The workshops were very fun, very informative and I feel lucky to be invited.

Space in the July 19th sessions is available; to download a registration form click here.

Posted by admin at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A few years ago, I looked into newspaper clipping services as a way of staying informed about topics of interest to me and my clients. I wanted an easy way to scan multiple sources of information without having to read dozens of newspapers, magazines and journals. However, I found most clipping services at the time to be cumbersome and difficult to use, with paper rather than email-based summaries. They were also fairly expensive for what I hoped to do.

I did find one resource that I liked called the MovingIdeas network. This site had an RSS feed that I could have published on our website. The articles that fed into the RSS had a decidedly progressive slant, although most had very detailed and valuable information about public policy, budget issues, education and health care compiled from a variety of sources. I continue to visit the site, although I no longer subscribe to the feed.

Recently I began using a newer resource, Google Alerts. This service basically performs a Google search at desired intervals (continuously, daily or weekly) and emails the search results. The search can be confined to news, blogs, groups or be comprehensive. I started a weekly search for news related to Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SSHS), as we've worked with a number of SSHS grantees and are anticipating a new SSHS grant to be released shortly. The weekly results are very interesting; today there were stories on a school uniform initiative promoted through an SSHS grant; a story on a recent shigella outbreak (which my son had a few months ago - yuck!); and a story on the limits of legal options around mental health services from the New York Times.

All staff members have also created their own alerts to monitor their areas of interest. It's led to some additional discussion within the office, about topics ranging from the most recent research on childcare to the latest gadgets available for analysis.

Posted by admin at 04:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the things that may have triggered my interest in research and evaluation is my participation in the Youth Development Study. Starting at age 17, as a senior in high school, I began participating in this annual survey of education, work experiences, civic activity, general well-being, and family life. This study continues to this day, and has resulted in four books, 77 academic papers, and numerous dissertations. From the time I first began participating in the study, I was interested in how the questions were worded, why I was selected, and why they wanted to know three people who may be able to find me as I moved. I was also curious about the incentive - starting at $10 in the first years and gradually increasing (I believe I get $25 each year now). Most of all, I have been interested in the results of the study -- which have been much harder to come by. When I was selected for a sub-group of follow-up questions three years ago, I began probing the interviewer about study results and trends. This year, the University of Minnesota's Department of Sociology provided participants with a newsletter. Some highlights:

1. In 17 years, the study has had an attrition rate of about 31%.
2. More than 2/3 of study participants are married or cohabitating
3. 20% of women and 12% of men were not working at ages 30-31 - which is a slight increase from when the cohort as a group was aged 24-25
4. Income for the 30-31 cohort increased significantly from when they were aged 24-25, with household incomes increasing from $19,000 to $55,000.

I continue to be fascinated by this data set, and more than a little interested in what others in my age group are doing. The most recent publication from the data is:

"Career Beginnings American Style: Agency and Floundering in Subjective Perspective." Jeylan T. Mortimer and Laura Fischer. In Inside the Frontiers of Adulthood: How Young Adults Understand and Navigate Their Lives. Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood Qualitative Study Cross-Site Volume, edited by Teresa Toguchi Swartz, Douglas Hartmann, and Ruben Rumbaut. Forthcoming. 3rd Annual Conference on Emerging Adulthood, February 15-16, 2007, Tucson.

Posted by admin at 03:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An article I read in the NY Times about the federally funded Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD) stated that keeping a preschooler in child day care a year or more increased the chances that the child would become more disruptive in class. I found even more interesting the study’s finding that this result held up regardless of the child’s sex or family income, and regardless of the quality of the day care center.

What intrigued me most about the article is the criticism that the researchers were unable to use a research method called “random assignment” in their study. Random assignment is a research method where a study’s participants are pooled into two groups, an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group receives the treatment that the study is measuring (in this case child day care). The control group receives no treatment (no child day care). The theory is any differences between the groups are due to treatment alone. Random assignment is widely used in studies with numerous participants and currently is widely used in federally funded studies.

After reading about this criticism and through my knowledge of random assignment-based research, a couple of points came to mind:

• Due to ethical issues such as denying children who otherwise qualify for day care services to create a control group, testing the effects of specific treatments on a certain population is very difficult to do because it may adversely affect children’s development process.

• Random assignment generally does not accurately measure the effects of cultural factors between the experiment and control groups in the results of the study.

• In long-term studies such as SECCYD, it is difficult to control for unanticipated changes in the conditions between the two groups, which potentially weakens the validity of the differences when the two groups are compared.

In short, while random assignment may seem like a straightforward way to do research, especially with large groups of participants, one must be aware of potential weaknesses of this method.

Posted by Guest author at 03:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My weekly email from www.edweek.org announced that all of their statistics and data will be accessible over the next several weeks; their is a lot available on their website if school-based research interests you. Here is the full announcement:

The doors to edweek.org – your source for the best information on K-12 education – will be wide open from March 19th (that’s TODAY) until April 15th. So while you are enjoying your Spring Break, come enjoy ours at www.edweek.org and see everything premium subscribers see every day.

You won’t want to miss any of this valuable K-12 information, including:

· current issue of Education Week, plus daily updates and web-only stories

· 25 years of archives, perfect for researching issues of importance to you

· all issues of Teacher Magazine

· all of the special reports – Quality Counts, Technology Counts and Diplomas Count – from the Research Center

· The Daily News, with updates from across the country

Posted by admin at 01:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When conducting an evaluation, we are required to minimize the risks to participants; however we sometimes struggle to identify what those risks may be and how they relate to any potential benefits. Particularly when the study involves issues like the arts, academic achievement or interest in extra-curricular activities, the risks may seem very remote or negligible.

However, professional ethics demands that we fairly weight these risks and be honest with participants about what the risks may be. A training from the National Cancer Institute helped us to define these risks recently. Risks to individuals are classified as physical, psychological, social, legal, and economic. In the process of determining what constitutes a risk, only those risks that may result from the research, as distinguished from those associated with therapies participants would undergo even if not engaged in research, should be considered.

In our work, the most apparent risks are psychological or social. We must be careful that the participants in our evaluation studies do not suffer any social stigma from their participation. Also, we must be careful when wording questions and designing evaluation studies that the process is not traumatic in any way for participants.

Posted by admin at 02:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

March just happens to be National Women’s History Month. As a young girl in school I barely remember hearing about women’s historical contributions outside of Dolly Madison and Harriet Tubman. In an article in the Feb/Mar issue of NAWBOtime, the newsletter of the National Association of Women Business Owners, I found a link to the National Women’s History Project. If you have some time to visit this site I urge you to do so. I learned a great deal about who is currently being honored for their work and how to celebrate the power and impact of women in history. I also tried my hand at their “Test Your Knowledge of Women’s History” quiz to embarrassing results. Here is a sample question:

“Who opened up social work as a profession for women, and also won the 1931 Nobel Peace Prize for her anti-war organizing work?”

Do you know the answer? (I should have but I didn’t). Visit this link to find out http://www.nwhp.org/whm/test.php and remember to take time to give credit to the women who have shaped our lives today.

Posted by admin at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This week I attended an event sponsored by the Minnesota Evaluation Association. They had invited folks from Minnesota's Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA). I see OLA reports from time to time but it was interesting to learn more about how they work.

They evaluate not only state agency programs, but also issues that might cut across several agencies. Though an audit commission makes final recommendations on projects, the OLA takes requests from various sources throughout the year before the formal solicitation period at this time each year. After the projects are decided, the OLA works independently on their research projects - returning to the legislature at the start of the following year with a report on findings and recommendations. I was encouraged by the independence of the office and the importance of their work in providing facts to inform legislative debate. Interestingly, they noted their awareness that facts will not always decide every debate, value judgments and political imperatives also shape (if not decide)debate.

They seem very aware of their unique assets and niche. Every evaluator would love to have access to the data that the OLA has. Because they are working on behalf of the state, they have access to ALL state data. They do case studies and interviews to provide a qualitative counterpart to quantitative data, but this state data is a major source for their evaluation. Even they face challenges though, since datasets may not be aligned (common identifiers) even WITHIN agencies. I thought of the frustration of all those lost opportunities to better understand state programs and issues.

Evidently, OLA hardly ever chooses to use surveys. Of course they have access to all this great data that so few others have access to, but they mostly do surveys when it is important for them to understand what people think about a program or issue, not to assess the program or issue itself. Their timeframe can also be short for designing, implementing and analyzing surveys. Perhaps related to this, the OLA mentioned that one group they feel they miss out on are the clients of state programs. They also limit comparisons to other states since so much may differ in the environment and relevent variables between states.

OLA reports have certainly had an impact on state progams and issues; it was fascinating to get this insight into how they work.

Posted by Guest author at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Arts Education Partnership's Critical Link newsletter had information about a new resource available for evaluators, researchers and educators:

The U.S. Department of Education announced the updated Federal Resources for Education Excellence (FREE) website. It now provides richer, more expansive resources to teachers and students alike. There are over 1500 resources to take advantage of at FREE, ranging from primary historical documents, lesson plans, science visualizations, math simulations and online challenges, paintings, photos, mapping tools, and more. This easily accessible information is provided by federal organizations and agencies such as the Library of Congress, National Archives, NEH, National Gallery of Art, National Park Service, Smithsonian, NSF, and NASA.

Posted by admin at 10:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

To continue my primer on the best practices in blogging I would like to give another nod to Debbie Weil and her helpful book Corporate Blogging. She emphasizes that writing for a blog is neither technical nor formal in nature. Here are some of her suggestions that I felt were most helpful.

A blog should:

• Be written in a conversational tone – as if you were talking to a friend
• Be written about something you care about
• Be written in short, easy to read paragraphs
• Be interactive – solicit feedback about your subject matter
• Be frequently updated – to make the most of search engines
• Include photos, vlogs (video logs), links and podcasts

I think a blog should also be fun to read and write. I’d like to challenge my readers to send me your ideas for best blogging practices and links to some of the sites you like to visit that really exemplify the best in blog writing.

Posted by admin at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The great thing about a blog is that it is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and just about everything on it becomes permanently archived somewhere in the blogoshere. The scary thing about a blog is that it is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and just about everything on it becomes permanently archived somewhere in the blogoshere. In other words, blogger be wise!

I do not want to discourage anyone from adding their thoughts and ideas to the group consciousness of the blogging world. Contributing to a blog can be a fun and powerful way to share ideas and learn new information. I recently read a very helpful book titled Corporate Blogging by Debbie Weil. It has useful information about the history, style, content and ethics of writing blogs which I feel are pertinent for business and personal blogging. Here are a few important points I would like to share with you:

 Avoid any racist or sexist commentary
 Respect other people’s confidentiality
 Give credit to sources of information/don’t plagiarize
 If stating something as a fact, check the accuracy of the information
 If writing for business, don’t use the blog to complain about your company
 Use appropriate language, no profanity
 Be respectful when disagreeing with opinions of others
 Don’t be afraid to print a correction on inaccurate or changing information
 Use spell check

Next week in part two of Blogger Be Wise! I will share the “dos" of blogging with a list of items to include in when writing.

Posted by admin at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)