Developmental evaluation: Bridging the gaps between proposal, program, and practice (original) (raw)
Related papers
Innovative Developmental Education Programs: A Texas Model
Journal of Developmental Education, 2014
This article frames the issues facing developmental education (DE) in Texas where it has been placed front and center with extensive state-level grant funding and program development. In this study, we assessed DE components through a 2-year cross-site evaluation ofTexas institutions of higher education that participated in a state funded DE program built on existing, best-practices research. The funding has resulted in a combined effort at four universities and five community colleges impacting more than 4,000 students. The intent is to bring the identified scalable components to the entire state as a model and offer a state model nationally. Funded sites that participated in the cross-site evaluation reported here were asked to respond and to provide specific context to the broad findings.The term "developmental education" refers to a field of practice and research within higher education with a theoretical foundation in developmental psychology and learning theory. It p...
Given that students will be unequally prepared for college, we can assume that there will always be a need for developmental education in some form. Even the debates about mainstreaming developmental education still recognize the need for some kind of integrated, expanded support services such as study skills courses and learning centers to support all students. Whatever the focus—integrated services or separate programs— the fact is that work needs to continue to provide innovative and expanded versions of developmental education in the future. The breadth of programs in developmental education is far ranging, from inclusive English as a Second Language (ESL) programs to federally funded academic support and bridge programs like TRIO’s Upward Bound and Talent Search programs. It is important to examine the ways that these programs presently serve students, as well as continuing to identify the best locations and configurations for these programs. A deeper consideration of the relationship of these programs to each other, and how they fit under the umbrella of developmental education, is a key issue in the future.
Journal of Prevention & Intervention in The Community, 2003
Large community initiatives are a growing phenomenon both in the U.S. and worldwide. These initiatives address a wide variety of issues, including early childhood development, by integrating institutions such as schools, health agencies, and faith-based institutions that focus on separate but related aspects of community concern. A major challenge facing these initiatives is the competing demands of developing organizational capacity to promote effective programming while simultaneously delivering demonstrable results and accountability. Empowerment evaluation (Fetterman, Kaftarian, & Wandersman, 1996) is an approach to evaluation and organizational capacity building that equips participants at all levels of an organization to pursue programming quality and results. This article describes and presents lessons learned from the development and implementation of a system of tools and processes, grounded in the principles of empowerment evaluation, designed to promote quality in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of a statewide school readiness initiative. While these lessons are specifically applicable to community-based early childhood development initiatives, they are broadly applicable to initiatives fostering systems change through community development.
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 2022
Public schools are responsible for educating all students, including students with disabilities (SWD). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires school personnel to use evidence-based practices (EBPs) to address the learning needs of their students. In 2014, the federal Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs adopted a Results Driven Accountability framework to target work and investments to support states in improving results for SWD. The Office of Special Education Programs requires each state education agency (SEA) to develop a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) describing a comprehensive and multi-year strategy to achieve these outcomes. The multiyear nature of the state systemic improvement plan creates an opportunity for SEAs and local education agencies (LEAs) to build infrastructure to implement, sustain, and scale EBPs and inform enabling policies. The purpose of this article is to illustrate, by way of a case example, the use of an implementation science approach applied to Check and Connect (Christenson et al., 2012), an evidencebased practice, to improve outcomes for SWD, specifically, 6-year graduation rates of Black and American Indian students enrolled in special education. Implementation Science Approach: Active Implementation Frameworks Education systems struggle to transfer research-based practices into educators' everyday skill sets (Madon et al., 2007). Implementation science addresses this challenge by determining conditions and activities that facilitate the use of EBPs. Implementation science is the study of "methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of an intervention" (Powell et al., 2015). The Active Implementation Frameworks (AIFs), (Fixsen et al., 2005, 2019) are the selected implementation science approach used in this article. The AIFs have a history of applied use across disciplines, including education (Horner et al., 2017); across operationalized practices; and
School Development Program, Benton Harbor, Michigan. Process Evaluation Report
1986
This study gathered information and perceptions regarding the School Development Program's (SDP) history, structure and procedures within the Benton Harbor Area School District (Michigan). The study sample included 46 people. SDP was created to be part of a comprehensive desegregation/educational improvement program for the district. Using a field survey and a structured interview approach, the study found a general perception that student achievement is improving, school climates are becoming more positive, parents and teachers are finding more avenues of communication and the decisionmaking processes are becoming more democratic in SDP schools. The most frequently mentioned obstacle to the achievement of SDP goals was a general resistance to challge among the school staff. The second most frequently mentioned obstacle was a perception that procedures and expectations were unclear. The report also discusses study design, method, and analysis. An appendix includes the interview protocol and tables with response information. The predominant attitude about the SDP seems to be one of cautious optimism. (PS)
Division For Early Childhood Council For Exceptional Children, 2007
/SDE). The DEC document includes three sections: "Curriculum"; "Assessment"; and "Program Evaluation." The intended audiences for the document include early childhood administrators and personnel who work with young children with disabilities. Teacher educators, those providing professional development, family members, and state and federal policy makers will also benefit from these materials. Background, History, and Context The NAEYC-NAECS/SDE position statement. As described in the NAEYC and NAECS/SDE document (2003), a number of converging factors led to the development of the two organizations' joint position statement. NAEYC and NAECS/SDE had previously published a joint position statement on early childhood curriculum and assessment (1990). Since then: Much more has become known about the power of highquality curriculum, effective assessment practices, and ongoing program evaluation to support better outcomes for young children. Yet the infrastructure of the early childhood education system, within and outside the public schools, has not allowed this knowledge to be fully used-resulting in curriculum, assessment systems, and program evaluation procedures that are not of consistently high quality. (NAEYC & NAECS/SDE, 2003, p. 5) THE DIVISION FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD of the Council for Exceptional Children 1
In 2015, RAND Corporation was awarded funding from the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences to engage in a continuous improvement project. RAND partnered with American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) on this four-year study. The goals of the project were threefold: (1) to support the implementation of two developmental education (DE) reforms in Texas community colleges; (2) to build capacity at the state agency and in six partner community colleges around continuous improvement practices and evidence-based policy and practice; and (3) to contribute to the national evidence base around DE reforms. To achieve those goals, the research team has engaged in annual continuous improvement cycles with two working groups of colleges between 2015 and 2018. These efforts focused on two key DE reforms rolled out under the Texas Success Initiative: Holistic advising: The use of multiple measures alongside placement test scores for the purposes of placement into DE. The research team partnered with a working group of institutions that included Austin Community College (ACC), San Jacinto College (SJC), and Tyler Junior College (TJC) to implement and continuously improve holistic advising policies and practices. Supports for low basic skill students: Efforts to systematically identify and target supports to students planning to enroll in DE with skills below the 9 th grade level in math, reading, and/or writing. The research team partnered with a working group of institutions that included El Paso Community College (EPCC), Houston Community College (HCC), and South Texas College (STC) to implement and continuously improve supports for students with skills below 9 th grade level. Working group activities with partner institutions took place in three annual cycles between 2015 and 2018, with site visits each semester, monthly calls, collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, and discussions with critical decision-makers within each institution. The research team also engaged regularly with state policymakers at THECB to discuss the issues, learn about state policy, provide feedback on state policy and institutional practices, and discuss lessons learned and opportunities for improvement. And finally, the research team is drawing upon state and institution administrative data to conduct a range of quantitative analyses to inform improvement efforts and assess progress. On April 27 th , 2018, RAND and AIR hosted a one-day convening to provide an opportunity for the research team, state policymakers, and key stakeholders from the working group colleges to engage in discussion around DE reform.