Search

In state needs assessment meetings held in late June 2008, the leadership of two Central Region state departments of education, South Dakota and Missouri, asked Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Central to determine how the states in the region evaluate their supplemental educational service (SES) providers. Specifically, these SEA staff requested more information about Central Region states' data collection processes, examples of instruments in use, and information on state SES contacts' perceptions of their evaluation processes, including issues that have emerged and/or problems that have been solved. In response to this regional request, REL Central reviewed the federal guidance provided to states on monitoring SES providers and developed the following research questions: (1) What criteria do states have for provider performance; how do they assess provider performance; and what policies do they have for terminating a provider? (2) What systems do Central Region states use to gather information with which to evaluate their providers? and (3) What do state contacts report about their experience with the state's evaluation of providers? States are required to develop standards for monitoring and evaluating providers. Only one state, South Dakota, has standards in place. The others rely on criteria that are found in the provider application, which defines the role and expectations of the provider. Typically, adherence to the provider contract becomes a substitute for criteria in evaluating provider performance. South Dakota is the only state with a provider termination policy. The study found that the seven Central Region states include varying numbers of approved providers, eligible schools, and eligible students, which influences the scope and scale of their provider evaluations. State contacts were primarily concerned that their states did not have sufficient staffing to adequately monitor and evaluate the providers, but suggested specific aspects of evaluation and monitoring that they believed worked well in their states. Six of the states (all but Nebraska, which has an evaluation process in place but did not identify any schools qualified to receive SES in 2007) have made or are making changes to better evaluate the performance and impact of their SES providers. Two appendixes present: (1) Protocol for State Contact Interviews; and (2) Summary of Data Collected in Central Region States during the 2007-2008 School Year. (Contains 8 footnotes and 4 tables.)

The Central Region states (Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming) lag behind the nation in the rate of participation in supplemental educational services that schools failing to make adequate progress for three consecutive years must offer to eligible students under the No Child Left Behind Act. This study uses information from databases and from interviews with state education agency contacts to examine five topics about the program: its status in the Central Region, service providers, evaluation of provider programs, implementation roles, and key state agency concerns. A descriptive study, it looks at how the seven states of the Central Region are implementing the program mainly from the perspective of the state education agency staff member in charge of each state's program. Answers to five research questions provide a status report for policymakers and technical assistance providers as the program continues to get under way. Findings indicate that at just 11 percent of eligible students, participation rates in supplemental educational services-available in schools that fail to make adequate progress for three years running-are low and may not improve until provision problems are resolved and programs demonstrate effectiveness. Appended are: (1) Data collection and analysis; and (2) Interview protocol. A bibliography, separate from the list of references is also included. (Contains 8 tables, 2 boxes, and 3 notes.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education by Regional Educational Laboratory Central administered by Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.]

Three years of developing an online course, responding to student needs, technological advances, communication issues, campus policies and politics, and an assortment of other issues taught the authors of this paper many lessons about Web-based instruction at the university. Experience indicated that prior to committing a course to online delivery, four areas should be addressed: philosophy (reasons for pursuing online instruction), student needs, instructional paradigms (matching the appropriate pedagogical model/strategies to the distance learning environment), and preparation/teacher needs. The paper concludes that the delivery of Web-based distance learning is both workable and productive, and that online learning can be superior to that of traditional classroom instruction. (Contains 14 references.) (AEF)