Search

In California, the James Irvine Foundation created ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career to promote multiple pathways that link to the state's 15 major industry sectors. The ConnectEd Network of Schools, a demonstration project supported by Irvine, plays a critical role in expanding student options through multiple pathways and illuminating how pathways work and what they can accomplish. The Network consists of 16 sites spread across the state that vary significantly in structure, ranging from small autonomous schools to Regional Occupational Programs (ROPs) serving several districts, and including a charter school and a program run by a nonprofit organization. ConnectEd has made a strong commitment to rigorous evaluation of multiple pathways since its inception. A major objective of the Network sites is to provide data on a set of core indicators of student outcomes to document the effectiveness of multiple pathways. Undertaken during the 2007-08 school year, with follow-up ongoing in 2008-09, this evaluation of Network sites sought to answer these questions: (1) What is the evidence that multiple pathways produce greater student engagement, improved achievement, and higher rates of school completion than do more conventional high school programs?; (2) What is the impact of the pathways approach on student attitudes, behaviors, "soft skills," motivation, awareness of career options, and workplace readiness?; (3) What key program variables characterize implementation of pathways at each site?; (4) How well have sites implemented pathways, according to a rubric defining the key pathways features thought to contribute to improved student outcomes?; (5) What other variables (e.g., factors related to students and teachers) influence implementation?; (6) What are the relationships between student outcomes and fidelity of implementation of key features?; and (7) What major implementation themes emerge that are important to understanding whether and how pathways influence student outcomes? A full description of the evaluation methods is contained in Appendices A-C of the report. This paper presents the findings of the evaluation. Appended are: (1) Logic Model and Data Request Tools; (2) Evaluation Methods; (3) Evaluation Instruments; (4) Achievement Data Tables for Network Overall; and (5) Achievement Data Tables for Individual Site Comparisons. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 24 exhibits, 193 tables. and 3 footnotes.)

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) collects data, directs analyses, and publishes information concerning the condition of education in the United States. In this role, NCES has collected transcript data since 1982. The power of transcript data, however, can be undermined by the use of differing definitions, conflicting methodologies, and nonstandard procedures in the various studies analyzing these data. This report provides information that should lead to standardized practices and an understanding of the decisions that are made when analyzing these data. The recommendations and guidelines in this guide will be relevant mainly to those who use the student-level transcript files. Chapter 1 introduces transcript data uses. Chapter 2 covers decision rules for keeping or discarding cases in creating an analysis file, and chapters 3 and 4 contain recommendations regarding the main derived variables that researchers may want to use. An appendix lists members of the Professional Work Group that developed the procedures. (SLD)

This book discusses how to use everyday data to create strategies for educational improvement in schools. It provides users with a process for building a performance indicator system, identifying the most important aspects of a school's innovational efforts and traps to avoid that may lead to misinterpretation of data. The introduction identifies reasons and processes for developing a performance indicator system. The next section, "Getting Started," discusses how to assemble a team of education stakeholders, and explains the benefits of collaborative work as opposed to individual efforts. The following sections discuss the various steps in creating a performance indicator system and utilizing educational data, including: (1) establishing goals; (2) identifying related outcomes, practices, and inputs; (3) determining data sources and indicators; (4) examining the data; (5) setting performance targets; and (6) monitoring performance over time. Each section provides worksheets for user input, with duplicate worksheets at the end of the book. Appendices include a discussion on stakeholder groups, a sample invitation letter and agenda, and resources for developing new data sources and data collection instruments. Contains 43 references. (YKH)

This report examines the demographic and language characteristics and educational aspirations of Asian American and Hispanic American eighth graders and relates that information to their mathematical ability and reading comprehension as measured by an achievement test. Special attention is paid to students who come from homes in which a non-English language is spoken. The report uses information selected from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88). The NELS:88 administered questionnaires and tests to a national sample of 25,000 eighth grade students in over 1,000 public and private schools in spring 1988. A second data collection was conducted in spring 1990. Of the 1,505 Asian American students evaluated, 73 percent were reported as language minorities (LMs), while 77 percent of the 3,129 Hispanic American students evaluated were LMs. Of the LM students, 66 percent of the Asian Americans had high English proficiency as compared to 64 percent of the LM Hispanic Americans. Both Asian American and Hispanic American groups had 4 percent of LM students showing low English proficiency. Overall, the study found many similarities between the two groups. However, differences are apparent when data are divided along language proficiency, mathematics achievement, aspiration, and other measures. Statistical data are provided in 33 tables and 44 graphs. Appendices present selected survey questions, technical notes and methodology, and 109 standard error tables. (JB)