highly effective programs lit review - university of … · web viewaccording to the literature,...

Common Characteristics of Adult Education Programs Reporting the Highest GED Attainment Rates for Families First Participants in Tennessee

Prepared for the Tennessee Department of Human Services

by Dr. Mary Ziegler and Dr. Olga Ebert

Characteristics of Adult Education Programs Reporting Highest GED Rates

September 2003

2

The University of Tennessee College of Education, Health, and Human SciencesCenter for Literacy Studies

The Center for Literacy Studies is located within the College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, TN. Since 1988, the Center has been linking interdisciplinary efforts within the University with practitioners in the field of adult literacy. Within this field, the Center has focused on research, professional development, and dissemination of resources to practitioners.

Acknowledgements

We sincerely appreciate the cooperation from the staff of the ten Tennessee programs who participated in this study. Without their willingness to meet with us and to share their administrative and instructional practices, this study would not have been possible.

The research documented in this report was funded by a grant from the Tennessee Department of Human Services to the University of Tennessee Center for Literacy Studies. The views encompassed in this research do not necessarily reflect those of the Tennessee Department of Human Services.

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, disability or veteran status in provision of educational programs and services or employment by and admission to the University.

The University does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex or disability in the education programs and activities pursuant to the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.

Inquiries and charges of violation concerning Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, ADA or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or any of the above–referenced policies should be directed to the Office of Equity and Diversity, 1840 Melrose Avenue, Knoxville, TN 37996-3560, telephone (865) 974-2498 (TTY available). Requests for accommodation of a disability should be directed to the ADA Coordinator at the Office of Human Resources Management, 600 Henley Street, Knoxville, TN 37996-4125.

The University of TennesseeCenter for Literacy Studies600 Henley St., Suite 312Knoxville, TH 37996-4135(865) 974-4109/ Fax (865) 974-3857http://cls.coe.utk.edu


4


Table of Contents

Executive Summary i

Introduction 1Literature Review..........................................................................................................................2

Programmatic Characteristics................................................................................................3Instructional Strategies............................................................................................................5Non-academic Instruction and Support...................................................................................7

Method............................................................................................................................................8Sample of Adult Education Programs.....................................................................................8Data Collection........................................................................................................................9Data Analysis.........................................................................................................................10Descriptions of Participating Programs...............................................................................10

Findings........................................................................................................................................16Programmatic Features.............................................................................................................17

Active External and Internal Relationships...........................................................................17Effective Administrative Practices.........................................................................................19Skillful Staff............................................................................................................................21Adequate Facilities and Logistics..........................................................................................23

Instructional Strategies..............................................................................................................24Assessment-based Curriculum...............................................................................................24Regular Assessment...............................................................................................................25Methods..................................................................................................................................25Materials................................................................................................................................27

Motivational Culture.................................................................................................................28Relationship with Students.....................................................................................................29Attendance and Retention Strategies.....................................................................................30Setting Goals..........................................................................................................................30Use of External Motivators....................................................................................................32Importance of Creating a Learning Environment.................................................................32

Discussion.....................................................................................................................................33Collaboration among Community Agencies..........................................................................34Consistent, Regular Evaluation.............................................................................................35Skillful Staff............................................................................................................................35Motivational Culture.............................................................................................................37

Implications for Practice and Continuous Improvement and Conclusion.............................38Reference......................................................................................................................................41APPENDIX 1....................................................................................................................................Rates of GED Acquisition in Tennessee Families First Programs..........................................45APPENDIX 2....................................................................................................................................Letter to program supervisors....................................................................................................47APPENDIX 3....................................................................................................................................Programs with high GED rates for FF students— Supervisor interview question topics....48APPENDIX 4....................................................................................................................................

i


Programs with high GED rates for FF students— Teacher interview question topics.........50

ii


Executive Summary

Because of the value placed on the General Educational Development (GED) acquisition

by Families First participants and employers, adult education programs that report the highest

GED attainment rates for participants are of particular interest for Tennessee educators and

policy-makers. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of the programs that

report high GED rates and identify implications for practice and program improvement. Three

research questions guided this study. Which programs report the highest GED attainment rates

for Families First participants enrolled in their programs? What are the common characteristics

of the programs that report the highest GED attainment rates? What are the implications for

practice and continuous program improvement; specifically, what types of programmatic and

instructional characteristics have implications for professional development of AE teachers who

work with Families First participants?

Ten programs were identified as having high GED rates for Families First participants.

CLS researchers visited each of these programs and interviewed program staff to identify

characteristics that contributed to their higher-than-average GED rates. The research team

analyzed these data and identified the characteristics that were common across the programs.

The data showed that characteristics of Tennessee programs reporting the highest GED

rates paralleled the reviewed literature primarily in programmatic characteristics. Programmatic

characteristics included active internal and external relationships, effective administrative

practices, skillful staff, and adequate facilities. Instructional characteristics included customized

curriculum, frequent assessments and addressing weaknesses revealed by assessments, mixed

individual and whole class instruction, and traditional materials. These findings were less

i


consistent with the literature on effective programs that stressed the use of “real-life” learning

materials. One additional area mentioned only briefly in the literature but prominent in the data

reported by the programs was the presence of a motivational culture. Motivational culture

included caring relationships with participants, effective attendance and retention strategies,

establishment of mutually agreed-upon goals, use of external incentives, and intentional creation

of a learning environment. These characteristics have implications for practice and continuous

improvement.

The findings from this study are only suggestive because of the small sample of

participating programs. However, if all programs had the average GED attainment rate of the

programs in this study, theoretically it would be possible to raise the average GED attainment

rate for Families First.

Implications for practice and program improvement include: a) knowing the ratio of GED

attainment to enrollment and compare these data from year to year, b) collecting information

after instituting changes to see if the changes are effective and lead to higher GED attainment, c)

placing an emphasis on a motivational culture where Families First participants are attracted to

engage in learning and accomplish their goals, and d) augmenting instruction with real-life

materials as the literature suggests to test whether GED rates improve. These areas could be

among the topics for further investigation by researchers and practitioners.

Although helping Families First participants attain a GED is multifaceted and complex,

program practices, a motivational culture, and instructional approaches do appear to make a

difference. This study is a valuable start in understanding the characteristics of programs that

report the highest GED rates for Families First participants in the state.

ii


Introduction

Educational level plays a key role in predicting the earnings of welfare recipients. More

than half of the adults who receive welfare do not have a high school credential, making them

ineligible for entrance into most educational programs that provide licensure or occupation-

specific skills or for training programs offered by business and industry (Carnevale &

Desrochers, 1999). A high school equivalency diploma is a basic requirement for the type of

employment that has the potential to lead to increased earnings over time. The recent US Census

(2000) shows that adults who have a high school diploma or General Educational Development

(GED) credential earn 30% more than those who do not. Tennessee legislation for welfare

reform, Families First (FF), recognized the role that education plays in employment opportunities

by making a provision for adult education classes for those who dropped out of high school or

who needed to increase their basic skills. Through an agreement with the Tennessee Department

of Human Services (DHS), administration agency for Families First, adult education programs

(most affiliated with the state Office of Adult Education and some affiliated with other agencies

or community-based organizations) offer customized classes for welfare recipients in almost

every county in Tennessee. Participation in adult education (AE) satisfies the work requirement

outlined in the Families First legislation. Although welfare recipients enroll in these adult

education classes for a variety of reasons, they report that the most prominent reason is to obtain

a GED credential (Ziegler & Cope, 2000).

Because of the value placed on the GED by Families First participants and employers,

programs reporting the highest GED attainment rates for these participants are of particular

interest. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of adult education programs

1


that report the highest GED attainment rates and identify implications for practice and program

improvement.

Literature Review

Most of the studies cited in the literature do not explicitly define “effective programs” or

“effective practice,” nor the types of outcomes that can be expected from effective programs.

After a thorough search of the literature, we found no research that examined the link between

characteristics of an adult education program and a particular outcome such as the rate at which

participants attained the GED. Some studies may have included the GED passing rate as a factor

of “effective programs;” however, the authors, with the exception of Office of Vocational and

Adult Education [OVAE], (2000) did not make this explicit.

The only one of these studies with a research question similar to that of this study (in a

sense that there was a research process identifying characteristics of effective basic education

programs) was Lerche, 1985, presenting the findings of the National Adult Literacy Project

(NALP). The programs participating in NALP were nominated by acknowledged literacy

experts; however, Lerche did not clearly describe whether GED acquisition was an indicator of

program effectiveness in that study. Similarly, reports by OVAE for 1997 and 2000 described

characteristics of individual programs nominated for the Secretary of Education Award for

Outstanding Adult Education and Literacy Programs. There was no mention of GED acquisition

rates being among the criteria for nomination.

Other research studies reviewed included Beder & Medina (2001); Purcell-Gates,

Degener, Jacobson, & Soler (2000); Lauer (2001); Brouliette (1999); Black (1997); and

Harrington & Goudreau (1994). Cochran’s (2000) and Dreybus’s (2000) papers were included in

Practitioner Research Report Series of Virginia Adult Education Research Network. Most of

2


these studies focused on a few selected factors that were seen as contributing to the success of

adult education programs. The remaining sources reviewed in this paper that presented effective

components of adult education programs were grounded in practice but not necessarily research-

based.

Although the literature was not accommodating in identifying studies that linked program

characteristics with outcomes, it contributed helpful information on the types of characteristics

possibly common to programs reporting the highest GED attainment rates. The literature

described “effective” characteristics of the programs in two broad areas: programmatic and

instructional. The next section summarizes these effective characteristics.

Programmatic Characteristics

3


According to the literature, successful Adult Basic Education [ABE]/GED programs

shared several programmatic characteristics. Programmatic features that seemed to influence the

effectiveness of a program were community ties, professional development activities of staff,

recruitment and retention strategies, ongoing evaluation of the program, and accessibility.

Community ties. Several authors (Fisher, 1999; Lerche, 1985; OVAE, 1997 and 2000;

and Solorzano et al., 1989) stressed the importance of good community relationships and

collaborations with other community agencies. Examples of community agencies that were likely

candidates for collaboration with AE programs included local employers and vocational schools

(OVAE 2000); possible funders and literacy volunteers (Lerche, 1985, OVAE 1997); and

welfare and other social agencies (Fisher 1999; Lerche 1985; OVAE 1997 and 2000.

Professional development. Another frequently mentioned characteristic of successful

programs was commitment to continuous professional development for teachers or other staff

(Fisher, 1999; Lauer 2001; Lerche 1985; OVAE 1997 and 2000). For example, Lauer (2001)

found that teachers in high-performing, high-needs schools reported that effective professional

development activities shared the following characteristics:

Addressed content standards, deepened content knowledge, addressed diverse

learners, applied to the classroom, and modeled teaching strategies,

Led to improvements in teaching,

Were grounded in research.

According to the literature, teachers who participated in professional development and who were

intentional about increasing their skills were more effective in their work.

4


Recruitment and retention strategies. Effective ABE/GED programs focused significant

effort on recruitment and retention of participants in their programs (Friedlander & Martinson,

1996; Lerche 1985; OVAE, 1997 and 2000; and Solorzano et al., 1989). Particular strategies

included having a specific plan for recruitment and retention (OVAE, 2000); intensive and

timely monitoring of attendance (Friedlander & Martinson, 1996); orientation and learner

contract (Lerche, 1985; OVAE, 1997). Besides monitoring attendance, a good system for

keeping records was also needed (Lerche, 1985; OVAE , 2000). OVAE (1997) found that

computerized record keeping was a feature of high performing programs.

Program evaluation. Program evaluation was another component emphasized in the

literature (Lerche, 1985; OVAE, 2000; Solorzano et al., 1989). According to Lerche (1985),

successful ABE/GED programs:

Developed measurable goals for every component of the program (e.g., recruitment,

orientation, counseling) so that they could monitor success in meeting these goals;

Frequently evaluated their program’s effectiveness in meeting its goals in each of the

component areas,

Used those evaluation data to improve their literacy program.

Accessibility. Lerche (1985) and OVAE (1997) mentioned the need for convenient

location, facilities, and schedule. These features made programs more accessible, especially for

participants that might be working part-time or who might not have reliable transportation.

Although programmatic features appeared to play a major role in a program’s effectiveness,

instructional strategies also contributed.

Instructional Strategies

5


In the literature about effective instructional strategies, a key focus was on the importance

of innovation that captured the interest of adult learners and helped keep them engaged in the

learning experience. In addition, researchers found that high-performing programs set learning

objectives and goals, focused on employment, and provided non-academic instruction and

support.

Innovative instruction strategies. Innovation, according to the literature, was a principal

way to ensure that adults were able to meet their learning needs. The literature on instructional

strategies in GED programs recognized the broad and varied needs of their students calling for

innovative teaching practices. For example, Purcell-Gates, Degener, Jacobson, & Soler (2000)

stated that, “Literacy practices of adults can change . . . in response to adult literacy instruction

that is reflective of real-life practices” (p. 60). Other sources discussed the use of real-life

applications for instruction, the importance of context in learning, and concrete models related to

individual adult-centered experiences (Black, 1997; Florida Community College, 1998; Lerche,

1985; OVAE, 2000; Solorzano et al. 1989).

Successful adult education teachers used a variety of methods other than drills and

practice, according to Black (1997), Florida Community College (1998), Lerche (1985) and

OVAE (1997). Many programs attempted to make instruction holistic, rather than concentrating

on isolated skills (Lerche, 1985; Black, 1997; OVAE, 2000; Harrington and Goudreau, 1994) so

that students used language skills, including reading, writing, thinking, talking, and listening, in

all of their lessons. Literature and the arts were used as curriculum materials and provided

opportunities to explore feelings (Harrington and Goudreau, 1994; OVAE, 2000).

6


Researchers described innovative practices that included varying teaching styles and

media in order to appeal to the needs of a particular population and to their different learning

styles (OVAE, 1997; Friedlander & Martinson, 1996). Some examples mentioned were small

group activities, simulations, role playing, brain storming, computers, individualized self-paced

instruction, tutors, reading silently alone, reading aloud with a group, or journal writing (Black,

1997; Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System [CASAS], 1996; Fisher, 1999; Florida

community college, 1998; Harrington and Goudreau, 1994; Lerche, 1985; OVAE, 1997 and

2000; Solorzano et al., 1989).

Learning objectives and participants’ goals. Successful adult education programs

emphasized clearly defined learning objectives that they linked to the strategies, materials, and

performance indicators (Friedlander & Martinson, 1996; Lerche, 1985; Florida Community

College, 1998; OVAE, 2000). In successful programs, in addition to learning objectives,

teachers were aware of their students’ needs and goals, and the barriers to reaching them (Fisher,

1999; OVAE, 2000). Encouragement was given to the students, along with frequent assessment,

and documentation. Feedback was important because it emphasized progress toward goals

(CASAS, 1996; Florida Community College, 1998; Lerche, 1985; OVAE, 2000; Solorzano et al,

1989).

Employment focus. Other successful programs were effective because they realized the

importance of organizing their curricula around local job market requirements (Ascher, 1994;

OVAE, 1997 & 2000). “In the most successful programs, the goal of employment is manifest

from the outset and permeates the instructional program” (Fisher, 1999, p. 14).

7


Instructional strategies described in this section focused primarily on academic areas. The

literature also documented that non-academic instruction and other types of support were evident

in effective programs.

Non-academic Instruction and Support

8


Teachers focused some of the instructional activities on the personal lives of students and

their families, such as self-discovery and agency, counseling, early childhood development,

parenting skills, health and nutrition, violence and abuse, and consumer economics (Black, 1997;

Fisher, 1999, Florida Community College, 1998; Friedlander & Martinson, 1996; OVAE, 2000).

Positive student/teacher and student/student interaction, often encountered in an environment

where teachers encouraged students to share ideas and give and receive peer support, was a key

characteristic of effective programs (Black, 1997; Cochran, 2000; Florida Community College,

1998; OVAE, 1997 & 2000). Helping students get counseling and other support services to “deal

with other needs, such as child care, health, housing, violence and abuse, transportation and so

on” (Fisher, 1999, p. 33) was seen by several other authors as an important part of an effective

adult education program (Friedlander & Martinson, 1996; Lerche, 1985; OVAE, 2000).

9


While the literature described research that examined specific types of practices that led

to effective or high-performing programs, the meaning of “effective” or “high-performing”

varied widely. To begin defining effective adult education, this study focused on identifying the

programs in Tennessee that reported the highest GED rates for Families First participants. We

studied these programs in order to describe their characteristics and identify the practices that

supervisors and teachers believed contributed to their success. Three research questions guided

this study: Which programs report the highest GED attainment rates for Families First

participants enrolled in their programs? What are the common characteristics of the programs

that report the highest GED attainment rates? What are the implications for practice and

continuous program improvement, specifically, what types of programmatic and instructional

characteristics have implications for professional development of AE teachers who work with

Families First participants? The following section on methods describes the steps we took to

answer these questions.

Method

Sample of Adult Education Programs

10


The first step in selecting the programs for this study was to determine which ones

reported the highest GED rates for Families First (FF) participants. Adult education programs

annually report the number of students in their programs who attain a GED to the Office of Adult

Education at the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Eighty-four local

program supervisors entered their total Families First enrollment and GED rates for the program

years 2000-01 and 2001-02 into an online database designed for this purpose. From these data,

using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program, we calculated the

ratios of GED attainment to total enrollment for fiscal years 2000-01 and 2001-02. SPSS then

categorized these ratios for each year into four categories, using “natural” breaks in data (see

Appendix 1 for this categorization). The programs that had the highest percentages of GED

recipients among Families First students and therefore fell in the top category for both years

constituted the sample for this study. The lowest ratio among the programs that fell into the top

category was 27%, while the average ratio was that year among all FF programs was less than

15%.

The locations of all of the programs in the top category were in rural counties. To obtain

representation from urban programs, we added two urban sites to this group. Urban programs

have different characteristics from rural programs because their location in a city often indicates

that they face numerous challenges that rural counties do not. The two sites consisted of: 1) the

class with the highest GED rate among Tennessee’s urban programs; and 2) the class with the

highest GED rate among the 17 classes within the largest FF program in the state. The total

sample for this study included ten Adult Education program sites that served Families First

participants; eight were located in rural areas/small towns and two were in urban areas.

Data Collection

11


Once the programs were identified, the Center for Literacy Studies (CLS) sent a letter to

the selected programs inviting them to participate in the research (see Appendix 2). All programs

invited to participate volunteered to do so. We visited each of these programs and interviewed

program staff to identify which characteristics contributed to their higher-than-average GED

rates. The literature review, as well as the professional experience of the Center for Literacy

Studies employees, who provide staff development for ABE programs, informed the interview

questions. Separate interview protocols were developed for teachers and for supervisors (see

Appendices 3 and 4 for the interview protocols.)

Eight programs had one teacher designated to work with FF participants and two

programs had more then one teacher. In most cases, we interviewed the supervisors and teachers

from the selected programs individually. If programs had more than one teacher, they were

interviewed in a group. In three programs, AE teachers also worked with FF students and

participated in the interviews. In one of the programs, a paralegal who worked with FF students

was also interviewed. A total of 22 interviews were conducted in the 10 programs. The length of

the interviews ranged from 45 minutes to 2 hours. Interviewers took notes during the interviews

rather than audiotaping and transcribing the interviews. This practice is common in qualitative

research and is generally used when audiotaping is impossible or when financial constraints limit

the ability to create verbatim transcriptions (Patton, 1990).

Data Analysis

12


Interviewers wrote brief summaries of the programs they visited focusing on the reasons

to which program staff attributed their high GED rates. All the other data from interviewer notes

were entered into NVivo software which provided tools to code the data into thematic categories

of characteristics. The research team met to analyze the data and to identify the characteristics

that were common across the programs. As a part of the data analysis, we constructed a matrix

that summarized the themes and listed them by each program for comparison. The next section

presents summaries of the ten programs participating in the study; following those are findings

from the data analysis.

Descriptions of Participating Programs

13


The first and broadest question of the interviews was “To what do you attribute high

GED rates in your program?” Program summaries include responses given to this question by

teachers and supervisors, as well as the most relevant impressions of the interviewers about the

programs. Summaries are listed from the smallest rural program (an average of 3-4 students in

classroom on any given day) to the largest urban (approximately 30 students in class daily).

Rural A. The staff of this program attributed its high GED rates largely to its facilities

and the “extras” available to students: “We have childcare on site, a computer lab, free breakfast

and lunch. Field trips.” There were also afternoon tutoring and family literacy activities available

to FF students. The supervisor said that the teacher was experienced and well liked by students.

According to the teacher, she had good students who were very motivated and she did her best to

encourage them. She created a pleasant atmosphere in the classroom, which was partly due to her

efforts and partly due to the comfortable facilities provided by the school board (including a

kitchen with a well-stocked cupboard). The staff also commented on their excellent cooperative

relationship with local DHS office (we learned in the course of another project that in this county

all FF participants without a high school diploma attended AE, mostly because of a limited

number of employment opportunities available).

14


Rural B. In this program, staff attributed their high GED rate to consistency of instruction

because the teacher has been there since the beginning of FF program. They also commented on

the high reading and math entry skills of the students that they have had for the last few years.

“When a student comes through the door, we do whatever it takes to help her/him,” says the

supervisor who feels that the test-taking strategies they teach are also key to the success of their

students. In this program, they have luncheons on occasion to help the staff and participants

bond. The teacher says that she does focus on GED, but as a long-range goal. She tries to help

students set short-range goals and to let them know that she cares that they are there. An

important part of her job is a “mother-like” role of listener, role model, and the one who cares, to

the point that she becomes too involved at times because their problems become her problems.

She does want students to know that they are the ones who have control over their learning, and

she works hard to change the bad perception of “welfare people” in the community. Talking to

several community groups has made a difference in that aspect.

15


Rural C. In this county, the teachers and the supervisor offered different explanations of

FF students’ high GED rates. The supervisor credited the former teacher (who had recently left

the program and could not be interviewed) with this success. The supervisor emphasized that

teacher’s professional qualities and her willingness to continuously engage in staff development,

which was seen as very helpful if taken seriously and used in the classroom. Two current

instructors in the program, who were interviewed “in lieu” of the former teacher, suggested that

the key to success lay in the program-wide method to target the weaknesses indicated by the

students’ TABE tests. This program appears to have excellent and extensive community

relationships, and the supervisor puts a lot of effort into searching for supplemental resources

from the community. Another prominent feature of this program was a strong emphasis on

postsecondary education as a key to successful employment.

16


Rural D. The supervisor of this county has no doubt but that the success of the program is

attributable to the teacher and her caring, persistence, and ability to bond with the students.

Everyone has the floor in her classroom and is respected. The supervisor is very active in the

community and tries to keep her program visible. Her goal for the program is to “make every

person more productive than when they walked in.” The teacher works intentionally to help

students feel relaxed in the classroom so that it is “a safe place to be yourself,” to create an

environment where students feel comfortable sharing their lives with each other so that they

know they are not alone with their obstacles. The teacher relates much of their learning to how it

can be used to help their own children. She calls students when they miss classes, especially

when they have sickness in their families, so that they could feel supported and know they are

missed. They celebrate level gains and other achievements. This teacher also wants students to

learn what a workplace environment is like and incorporates many workplace characteristics into

the classroom.

17


Rural E. This program emphasizes two factors as contributing to their success in having a

high rate of adult learners receive the GED. The first is that they personally contacted and

encouraged to return those students who had dropped out of the program just short of getting

their GED. Their second reason why learners succeed in the program is their relationship with

the two teachers (who share FF and traditional AE classes). The supervisor says, “The students

stay because of our teachers. They’re comfortable here.” The teachers give strong support to the

learners as evidenced by the “breakfast club” to which learners always have an open invitation.

There is always coffee and often more substantial breakfast available, and teachers and adult

learners visit together, over breakfast and “needlework,” discussing problems and life in general.

Another example of program support for students is providing transportation to the GED test

site. In the supervisor’s words, “The test-taking center that we use is really good at working with

us. It’s a comfortable setting. And we go with our students. They have to be there early in the

morning and we go to ‘run interference’ for them. They just need the moral support…. We

encourage them to sign up, to retake the test if they didn’t pass it, and we follow up

individually.”

18


Rural F. The primary reason for high GED acquisition rates, according to the staff,

appears to be the individual attention given each student, not only by the instructor, but also by

the paraprofessional and the supervisor. There is initial counseling at the time of assessment and

then students are contacted by phone or postcard when they are absent. In addition, there is

almost daily contact with the local DHS staff, and there is a follow-through from DHS on any

problems with students. Students are learning to graph their own attendance so they can take

charge of it. The staff lets the students know they are interested in their challenges and barriers,

but they try to get students to “leave their problems behind” when they come to class. Students

are encouraged to use this time in school to concentrate on themselves. In this program, good

supervisory management and the emphasis on attendance and student responsibility seem to be

more evident than any particular instructional strategies or classroom activities.

Rural G. The supervisor feels that a close relationship with DHS in his county is crucial

for their success because caseworkers send well-prepared participants. Strict sanctioning by

DHS is also helpful for student attendance and, consequently, achievement. The staff treat the

classroom as a workplace and try to teach leadership skills with a student government

committee. This teacher says success is due to dedicated students who are willing to work hard,

and she provides challenging work for them to do. There is a difference in teaching adults and

children - adults are more willing and able to learn. The teacher tries to make sure that she

doesn’t embarrass them, but after rapport is built they can “kid around.” She gives quizzes that

really help the students feel successful and become more open in the class. The students want to

improve the life of their children and be able to help them in school – so classroom learning is

often related to these issues. She says “FF students won’t come if they don’t like the teacher”

who often has to act as counselor.

19


Rural H. This class meets in one unit of a housing project; the room is crowded, but

orderly, bright, and cheery. Several factors contribute to the success of the program, according to

the teacher. As each learner enters the program, the teacher starts out with an individual

orientation including extensive goal setting with each learner. Strong emphasis on academic

skills as well as personal goals is part of the curriculum. Each student has a separate curriculum

tailored to individual needs. The teacher uses frequent testing to determine student progress and

additional needs and assigns work using individual workbooks and teacher-prepared materials.

“A key to having our students progress is to have the best materials you can find....and then the

next thing is to know your materials....Once I assess my student’s needs, I go to what I think they

will benefit from.”

Urban I. The students in this program, taught by a team of four teachers, are grouped by

level for each separate subject, and there is a strong academic focus. Teachers and supervisor

meet weekly to make plans and talk about how the program can be improved. Record keeping is

standardized and methodical. Teachers and supervisor are in agreement that maintaining

structure and consistency seems to make it easier to be more responsive to the inevitable

individual problems and needs of students. Teachers credit the supervisor for establishing this

structure. “She stays on top of everything. Students are motivated here; they say, ‘I want to get

my GED, how can you help me?’ The motivation comes from the structure.” Another teacher’s

comment was, “First they [participants] learn to follow the rules, and then self-discipline kicks

in.” Self-esteem building is a primary goal. The supervisor says, “I’m so amazed that some

people come in here and are so smart and don’t know they’re smart. They truly don’t know.

Their self-esteem is so bad.”

20


Urban J. The class is jointly taught by three teachers. This method of teaching was seen

as a key to success both by the instructors and by their supervisor because it enabled each of

them to focus on a particular area of the curriculum. They used a variety of activities designed to

improve basic skills: “skills centers,” peer tutoring, one-on-one instruction. There was ongoing

assessment and emphasis on improving the “weak” areas. These teachers also seemed to have a

strong relationship with students and tried hard to create a learning culture in their classroom.

Creating a classroom atmosphere of mutual respect was important to them. “[We are] keeping

the students motivated. We try to make them comfortable and enjoy the class, be a part of the

program. Whenever they succeed, they become even more motivated. We encourage

participation. Allow them to assist each other, to interact.” Although the main emphasis in this

class was on academics, the teachers saw themselves as committed to “educating the whole

person” and did not hesitate to address what they perceived to be the lack of life skills.

Findings

Characteristics reported in the findings were common to more than one program and in

most cases were common to multiple programs. The data showed that characteristics of the

programs reporting the highest GED rate paralleled the literature primarily in programmatic

characteristics. Programmatic characteristics include active internal and external relationships,

effective administrative practices, skillful staff, and adequate facilities. Instructional

characteristics were less consistent with the types of practices described in the literature.

Findings for instructional characteristics included customized curriculum, frequent assessments,

mixed individual and whole class instruction, and traditional materials. One additional area that

was mentioned only briefly in the literature but was prominent in the data reported by the

programs was the presence of a motivational culture.

21


The following section describes each of the characteristics we identified. The findings

will show that the characteristics are less descriptive of programs than we had anticipated; rather,

they were actions that program staff took to assure the success of the participants. We found that

it is not what programs are but what they do that matters. A brief description of each

characteristic is followed by an excerpt from the interviewer’s notes that illustrates the

characteristic with a concrete example (because the interviews were not transcribed, quotes are

generally not verbatim quotes). Quotes are usually from one person in one program as being the

most representative. Occasionally, it is specified that both the supervisor and the teacher from the

same programs are quoted (this was done in cases when their combined words gave the most

complete picture of a particular aspect of a program).

Programmatic Features

Programmatic features include aspects of the program that are not instructional. This

section includes descriptions of the programs’ external and internal relationships; administrative

practices; staff characteristics and development; and facilities and logistics.

Active External and Internal Relationships

Adult education programs in this study were not isolated; rather, they were visible in their

local communities and in the agencies or school systems where they were located. These

relationships fostered by the program staff brought a variety of resources to the program.

Resources were primarily of four types.

Community ties. Overall, the programs actively pursued community support (supervisors,

particularly, commented on the importance of it). Both supervisors and teachers acted as liaisons

between the program, the participants, and the community. Resources obtained for the program

from the community most often included speakers and financial support, although community

22


organizations contributed other resources as well.

The literacy council helps with graduation and other things. We also had a CPR class,

speakers from the community - said a supervisor. A teacher from the same program

continued: It’s made a difference to talk about the program in church and the Rotary

Club.

Role of local school boards. The degree of school boards’ involvement varied from

program to program. Generally, the smaller the county, the more closely the Board of Education

and the AE program seemed to work together. Overall, supervisors and teachers described

Boards as supportive and non-interfering. They usually provided facilities, sometimes a

computer lab, materials, and professional development (PD). In several cases, there was internal

sharing of resources between agencies within school boards. In some counties, board members

showed their support by attending AE meetings, graduations, and other program events.

According to one supervisor,

County Schools pay [a part of] my salary. They provide the facility, the secretary, the

custodial care. I work hard to make the school board feel ownership for the program….

Every year, [there is] a graduation with caps and gowns that is well attended by school

board members.

Working with DHS staff. Most program staff confirmed the importance of a good

relationship with DHS staff. Program supervisors described their efforts to establish a positive

relationship. Teachers often try to communicate with case managers; however, their accessibility

varies from program to program. Several respondents commented on the benefits of having the

“live presence” of DHS staff members such as Family Service Counselors (FSC) or caseworkers

who make visits to the program.

23


We are in almost daily contact with our DHS person and let her know immediately when

things are not right. We keep that fine line open between our job and the DHS’s job. We

are clear that our job is the education piece only. The case manager works closely with

us and we decide together ways to help students.

Collaborations within programs. In several of the programs, teachers who work with FF

participants collaborate with teachers who work with the traditional AE students. Often this

meant combining FF and AE students when it was perceived to be beneficial, both because of

curricular reasons, and also in cases where more self-sufficient AE students could provide a

positive example for FF students.

FF and AE students are mixed in each class. Having a mix has been an invaluable thing

[because AE students] tend to be more serious students.

Teachers who worked with Families First participants often exchanged materials, both

with AE teachers and with K–12 teachers within the school district. In some cases, programs

combined FF resources and services with other resources and services from different funding

sources. These combined resources were used for the benefit of all students (computer labs,

tutors, etc.). In the program where there is an Adult High School and an Even Start family

literacy grant, the teacher, literacy coordinator, and Even Start teacher plan together based on

each family’s needs. In the same program, teachers in FF, AE, and Adult High School all worked

together to set up a computer lab.

Effective Administrative Practices

Program staff reported that they did not view administrative practices as a burden. Rather

they explained that they were intentional about administrative tasks because they contributed to

the services that enabled Families First participants to attain the GED. Effective administrative

24


practices included supervision, program quality reviews, record keeping, and orientation.

Supervision. The programs shared some common characteristics with regard to program

supervision. The supervisors were not prescriptive about curriculum and instruction; they hired

teachers who could provide customized curriculum to meet the participants’ needs. The teachers

usually characterized supervisors as supportive. Even when supervisors were less involved with

teaching, teachers reported that supervisors did not cause them unnecessary stress interfering in

their job performance. According to teachers, that supervisors trusted their judgment and did not

micromanage them. The primary role of the supervisors was dealing with administrative issues,

such as motivating staff and participants; reporting information including attendance; resolving

policy questions with DHS; and planning events such as motivational speakers and celebrations.

This is how one teacher describes her supervisor’s role:

The supervisor announces on the intercom level gains that Families First participants

have made. She visits the classes, meets people, and invites guest speakers or

motivational speakers from the community. She allows us freedom to teach whatever the

students need.

Program Quality Reviews. Tennessee Quality Award (TQA) is an award given by the

Tennessee Center for Performance Excellence for organizations that use the National Malcolm

Baldrige Quality Performance Excellence criteria for continuous program improvement. Most of

the programs were in the initial stages of conducting their self-examination of the TQA processes

as a part of a program quality review. These processes are a comprehensive analysis of the

program based on the seven Baldrige areas considered essential for excellent management. Five

of the programs had received an award by reaching the TQA Interest level or above, and four

were working on reaching the Interest level. Some said that having received TQA was useful for

25


their program’s public relations efforts.

We have been involved [in the TQA process]. When we were getting ready, it was helpful.

I think any time you have a goal [such as those established in the TQA process, you are

going to work harder to reach it. Teachers do. And students do.

Record keeping. In most of the programs, official record keeping was taken seriously

(whether staff liked it or not). Teachers and supervisors developed systems to meet reporting

requirements. Besides the required documentation, many teachers described the emphasis they

placed on keeping detailed academic records for each student in order to document progress.

Teachers saw this documentation as an integral part of their individualized/customized

instructional goals.

We have a folder on each student, kept forever! Test scores, attendance, referral forms, –

said a supervisor. A teacher from the same program continued: I keep roll every day. I

have to fax the FF attendance to DHS. We have a file on each student with their PRP

[Personal Responsibility Plan], their work, their excused absences. I have quite a few logs

I keep on each one of them. And I keep all their work. Test scores in the filing cabinet.

They have to take their tests every three or four months, so I keep track of who needs to

take the test each month.

26


Orientation. Although each program had a unique orientation that met their needs, all

programs had an orientation that prepared participants for entrance into an AE class. Supervisors

and teachers reported that this was one of the primary tools to connect participants to the

program. In some cases, in addition to program-wide orientation, teachers reported that they also

saw a need for their own classroom orientation in order to learn about each participant’s goals

and needs and to make them more comfortable.

Goals are set at orientation. Once a week, there is a new FF student orientation in the

main office. Then I [the teacher] have my own. I go over TABE scores and work from

that to determine what students need to work on. I explain classroom rules, lunch rules,

and the classroom schedule.

Skillful Staff

One of the strongest characteristics that programs reported was the importance of having

skillful staff. Supervisors and teachers whom we interviewed were enthusiastic about their roles

and dedicated to helping Families First participants achieve their goals. The category of “skillful

staff” includes teacher qualification, turnover, and engagement in professional development.

Teacher qualification and turnover. Most programs had long-term FF teachers, many of

whom had previously taught at public school. Some teachers had worked since the inception of

Families First in 1996. Because of this, they had considerable experience in working with FF

participants. Two of the supervisors reported being concerned about potential staff turnover

because of low pay; otherwise, teachers seemed satisfied with their positions and supervisors

with qualification and experience of the teachers. Says one supervisor:

A good teacher is someone varied in their experiences, who had a special education or

alternative school background, and who has tried to teach in different ways; one who is

27


caring, understanding, patient, and empathetic.

In two cases where FF teachers were relatively new, they reported their intention to

continue “traditions” established by their predecessors in FF class or by other teachers in the AE

program. This resulted in a consistency and continuity of the program that was seen as important

by teachers, although not always easy to maintain.

We have worked and worked to iron out the structure so that we felt it was as good as we

could get it. And we all work together, – says a supervisor. A teacher from the same

program adds: The program is very structured, students know what to expect every day.

Even if someone gets special treatment, it’s fair. Consistency [is important]. Everyone is

free to choose their own materials, although efforts are made to ensure continuity from

level to level. The structure for planning is in place.

Professional development (PD). Most of the teachers and supervisors we interviewed

believed that PD activities were valuable for several reasons. First, sharing with other teachers

can introduce a variety of new instructional strategies and can provide an outlet for expressing

concerns common among FF teachers. In addition to sharing with other teachers, the content of

the PD activities can be very useful, although some teachers reflected that not all PD is “exactly

what is needed.” Teachers reported that, other than state-sponsored events, staff development

was available either through school boards or through other community resources. In seven out

of ten programs, staff participated in FF electronic discussion lists.

28


Our teacher can attend any local school in-service program. There are legal workshops

for students and staff about their rights. The teacher also participates in school in-services, like

writing workshop, PLATO software. Some PD [activities] are more useful than others, – said a

supervisor. A teacher from the same program added: Some PD is useful, like hands-on

workshops for FF teachers. Some of it can be used in class.

I do appreciate that at the in-services, they allow you to sit with the other teachers and

mostly work in groups with FF teachers from other counties. I have picked up a lot of great ideas

from those other teachers at in-services.

Adequate Facilities and Logistics

29


Facilities of the ten programs ranged from excellent to less-than-satisfactory. Supervisors

reported that improvement and upkeep could be quite irritating and required a lot of effort and

fund raising. Some programs conducted fund-raising events for improvements in their facilities.

A few of the interviewed staff commented on the benefits of having a kitchen on the premises.

Program staff who had less-than-satisfactory facilities seemed to be involved in improvements

even though this was not a part of their jobs. Because of the disparity among facilities, we

determined that excellent facilities were not a common characteristic of high-performing

programs. Rather, with only adequate facilities, program staff was able to help their students

attain their GED.

We painted the whole school; we scrubbed the floors. We put cabinets in and went over

and got all of these supplies that were going to be thrown away. And then we had a

fundraiser and bought the refrigerator and the stove. That’s what we have to do to get

what we have to have.

In addition to the characteristics that were common at the program level, programs that

reported the highest number of GED recipients also shared similar instructional strategies. The

next section describes these strategies.

Instructional Strategies

Instructional strategies relate to the content and process of learning basic skills in the AE

classroom. The following areas are included in instructional strategies: use of an assessment-

based curriculum, regular assessment, customized instructional methods, and materials.

Assessment-based Curriculum

30


The Office of Adult Education does not prescribe curriculum for the adult education

programs it funds. This decision is left to the supervisor and teachers in the local program.

Classes for Families First participants are no exception. Teachers generally choose a curriculum

based on the participants’ needs as diagnosed by tests and by the Families First policy

requirement that advancement in basic skills must be measured by such standardized

achievement tests as the TABE or GED. At times, curriculum choice is based on the materials

available from a particular publisher (Steck-Vaughn, Contemporary, or the GED manual), but

even the choice of these instructional materials is generally linked to the academic needs of an

individual participant.

With our adults, teaching a standard curriculum is not going to get us there. Use of

various methods and various programming keeps them excited. We also give people wide

experiences as they relate to AE. Our goal is to try to get students to the GED and job as

fast as we can and we help support them to keep them in the labor force.

Regular Assessment

In the majority of the programs in this study, the teachers test students consistently and

regularly to diagnose their learning needs and to measure progress. Although the TABE is the

prescribed assessment instrument according to Families First policy, teachers do not rely on the

results of the TABE alone. Many of the teachers use workbook pre-tests, design their own tests,

and use other techniques for additional assessment. Overall, staff members in these programs try

to create a system to help participants track their own progress on a regular basis.

31


The teacher uses TABE testing, informal testing, and also observations. We have

purchased BEST testing for low level students, – said a supervisor. A teacher from the

same program added: Teacher-written quizzes really help [the students] feel successful.

Methods

32


Customized academic instruction based on needs. Customized or individualized

instruction was the most common instructional method used by the teachers in these programs.

Teachers recognized differences in GED readiness between students and recognized that GED

may not be an appropriate goal for all. They emphasized the GED, but many have additional

emphases, particularly for lower-level students. Several noted that low-level students still could

learn without getting discouraged. For students whose immediate and realistic objective is the

GED, teachers set post-secondary goals, expose students to the idea of further education, and

support and prepare them.

If it is an attainable goal, there is a lot of emphasis [on GED]. If not, then individualized

approach is used. Some learn faster than others. What was taught last week needs to be

done again this week for new or slow learners. A lot of our students say they want to go

to college so they’re needing to pick up more algebra, more geometry. We help them fill

out Pell Grants [applications], we do keyboarding, computer skills, things they will need.

Teachers in these programs attempt to differentiate instruction based on the variety of

levels and abilities of students. They group students when they can but generally individualize

instruction because of student needs. Student needs are identified by the TABE and GED

assessments.

Our students work in groups until they get about ready to go take the test or have taken it

and have to take one part again. Then they work individually on just what it is that they

need work on.

33


Overall, the teachers reported the need to make their classes varied and interesting. In

many cases, they did non-traditional activities such as providing “extra help,” conducting games.

In most programs, peer tutoring was a frequent activity, and a few programs had outside tutors.

In programs that had more than one teacher, they “team taught” (departmentalize instruction) and

reported that it was effective and participants seemed to like it. Sometimes similar collaboration

occurred with AE teachers.

One of our best successes was “Early Bird Math.” We came up with “Early Bird Math”

after two participants cried because they thought they could never get math. It gets them

to come in on time and helps everybody who lacks math skills to prepare for GED…We

have skills centers one day, mostly math. Like one table is on fractions, another one

percentage. [Instructors and learners] rotate during this so that everyone’s needs are

met. Higher-level people help lower-level. We also try to help new students this way.

Whole class instruction. Although less frequently than individualized instruction,

teachers conducted group instruction, particularly in the areas of workplace or life skills.

Programs tried several ways to prepare participants to become successful workers. First, there

were field trips to local employers. Second, several teachers said they tried to establish a

“business-like classroom atmosphere” modeling a workplace. There were also work-related

materials (see Materials section).

It’s important… as far as classroom policies and we go ahead then and set the workplace

tone. ‘This is now your job, and you have some job-like responsibilities.’ Because we not

only want our students to progress in basic skills, we also want them to begin to develop

some habits that will help them be successful in the workplace.

34


In addition to workplace activities, other skills such as parenting were incorporated into

the classroom curriculum.

We do videos for the life skills, especially parenting. The students love those videos. And

I get videos concerning interviewing and trying to find a job; and I have the materials for

resume writing and how to get a job and keep it.

Materials

Most commonly used are commercial materials (mostly from Steck-Vaughn). Many

teachers supplement these with other materials (some are teacher-made).

We use lots of books: Steck-Vaughn, Contemporary, New Readers’ Press, fiction books,

and books on tape. We use handouts/shortcuts for math and old GED preparation books

for lower levels. The books on tape are used for low-level readers. Also we do hands-on

activities for problem solving, “challenges.” You can re-use materials because students

forget them and repeating reinforces skills. We have math contests. We try to encourage

critical thinking.

Real-life or authentic materials are mostly newspapers and magazines. Most programs

had some work related materials, usually resumes, job applications, career advertisements, or

commercial workforce preparation resources.

When students complain about math word problems, I tell them that they are real life

problems. I use ads from stores to help them see best value, measuring…I use telephone

conversations, role-playing.

All programs reported that they use computer-assisted instruction for individualization.

Those frequently mentioned were Plato, Destinations, GED tutorial, and Skills bank.

35


NCR Invest software and Plato are very thorough and good for individualized

instruction. The software is very expensive though.

We use Plato computer-aided instruction. It helps students focus on what they need.

Students work individually. Plato leads them through so that they have to master certain skills

before moving on to the next level.

Programmatic and instructional areas were prominent among the reasons that program

staff gave for achieving the highest GED rates in state. However, culture was another substantial

characteristic that emerged from the data.

Motivational Culture

Although supervisors and teachers reported that programmatic and instructional

characteristics affected their GED rates, establishing and maintaining a culture that focused on

motivation was a prominent theme among the programs. The American Heritage Dictionary

(2000) defines culture as the predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the

functioning of a group or organization. In a culture, a group of people shares a set of

understandings or meanings. The meanings are largely tacit among members and are passed on

as new members join the group (Louis, 1980). Shein (1992) describes a culture as “the way we

do things around here” (p. 4). The “motivational culture” identified in this study explains how

programs “do things around here” so that participants feel welcome, at ease, engaged, and

motivated to learn. The next section describes the motivational culture that includes caring

relationships with participants, effective attendance and retention strategies, establishment of

mutually agreed-upon goals, use of external incentives, and intentional creation of a learning

environment. Although the categories we identified are explicit descriptions of culture, an

implicit regard for the participants permeated even the programmatic and instructional

36


characteristics.

Relationship with Students

In all the programs in this study, teachers reported (and supervisors confirmed) good

rapport with students. Teachers see personal relationships with students as very important for

achieving good results. They are very aware of a variety of levels and abilities among

participants and of barriers and difficulties they encounter. The teachers express empathy for

students’ personal difficulties and show that they care. At the same time, they provide

encouragement for learning and several said that they try to maintain a “business like”

atmosphere to remind students that education is a priority.

This job is very rewarding, I see [the former students] working [at their new jobs], and

they want to hug me and tell me what they are doing. They want me to know what they’ve

accomplished.

[Sharing newspaper pictures of successful peers] is an opportunity to begin to empower

them and say, “This is something you can do, too.” Because so much of what our students have

said is that they come in here very uncertain about their abilities to be successful. So right off the

bat, we want them to know that we believe in them and that we want to help them develop that

belief in themselves.

Attendance and Retention Strategies

Establishing relationships with participants may also improve attendance and retention in

the programs. Teachers told us that they “tried to keep classes interesting” in order to motivate

participants to come.

You have to make the class exciting to the point where they want to do it. You have to

relate their life to it and not do the same thing every day. You can correct these students

37


in a way that shows that I’m not trying to be bossy, to lord it over them. I try to get down

eye-to-eye with them. I’m no better than they are and they’re no better than I am.

In most of the programs we visited, teachers (in a few cases, other program staff) call

students when they were absent for several days and asked them why they missed. Other

strategies included incentives for good attendance (certificates, “points,” snacks); some

flexibility of hours (5-hour day with 4 hours mandatory; make-up time; “extra help” time).

I call students frequently when they are out to check on them. It’s important to the

students that someone cares, especially when they are sick. I encourage other students to

call too. We celebrate good attendance with certificates and occasionally go out for food

when the whole class has had a good attendance week.

Setting Goals

Using participants’ goals. Teachers use participants’ PRP goals in selecting curriculum

and planning learning experiences and sometimes expand these goals as learners express other

desires. Typical goals mentioned by teachers included an increase in basic skills (TABE);

receiving the GED; participants’ personal goals, such as being able to help children. The extent

to which learners’ goals were used varied by program.

38


Our major goal is to prepare them for the GED or to brush up on the skills they already

have. We have now several students preparing for LPN [Licensed Nurse Practitioner] training,

for example, so I try to help them individually with their goals as needed.

When I’m working on fractions, I’m not working just toward the test. These people have

small children. I had a participant whose daughter asked her for help with how to do fractions

for her homework, and she was ashamed to tell her that she didn’t know how. She told me the

other night her daughter came in and asked her for help and she actually could help her on her

fractions. So we’re helping that way.

Program goals for participants. Besides using PRP and other goals of learners, many

teachers have additional goals for the participants in their programs. These mostly have to do

with preparing for and obtaining a job.

Our goal is that EVERY student will improve. We want to maximize everyone’s potential.

Our philosophy is that everyone can learn, even if they cannot pass the GED, – says a

supervisor. A teacher from the same program adds: Our goal is to help them get a job,

teach them responsibility, and help them get their GED. We want students to be

successful in whatever their endeavors are—to do better with their children and to be

more involved in their children’s education.

When teachers sometimes sense a lack of direction in a participant, they can be

prescriptive as to what skills and knowledge participants need.

Other goals we have for them are that we want them to be able to “dress for success”

without dressing up, to dress like we do, to know that you can look nice wearing jeans;

we also teach them make-up.

39


Use of External Motivators

All the respondents saw the value of external motivators and used a variety of them to

improve attendance, engage participants in learning, and motivate them to persist and achieve.

Among the motivators were DHS bonuses that were in place during the period of this study.

Other motivators included informative speakers, graduation celebrations, parties and food, field

trips, and achievement certificates.

We have lots of “extras”: incentives, awards for achievement (advancing a level on

testing), attendance, and citizenship (attitude), prize drawings, field trips, and interesting

speakers.

In some cases, teachers used participant success for motivation because they would invite

program graduates to return and serve as inspiration to current participants.

GED graduates are invited back to ceremonies as guest speakers. We also participate in

[our] county formal cap and gown GED graduation.

Importance of Creating a Learning Environment

Teachers and supervisors recognize that, in order to be effective, classroom environment

needs to be conducive to learning and that there needs to be a proper attitude before academic

learning can take place. This is especially important with Families First participants, as many

have issues that prevent them from making education a top priority.

We are trying to set an environment where they can share, be comfortable, get past that

point in their lives, so that they could learn academics. We tell them they need to study

for their children. We try to create a desire to succeed so we create situations that will

help their self-esteem.

40


To help students engage in learning, teachers gradually make them comfortable, build

rapport, create a “community in the classroom,” a safe place to work with others (as they will

have to do in the workplace). To achieve this, teachers try to establish peer relationships among

students: a sense of caring, helping each other, and sharing successes and troubles. Teachers also

talked about the need to build self-esteem, confidence, and a “can do” attitude.

The atmosphere is very critical. It’s the “can do” attitude. It’s a very positive, friendly,

relaxed atmosphere with limits. We have to keep our students talking low so that we

don’t infringe on someone else’s need to have a quiet place. And in talking about

environment and thinking about learning styles, one of my students asked me if she could

bring a CD player and headphones to school to see if that helped her concentrate. That

made the biggest difference…she just took off! It was like everything else was blocked

out and she could focus. So letting them try things that might help is good.

Discussion

Examination of the perceptions that Tennessee supervisors and teachers have about their

programs’ high GED attainment rates for Families First participants is a first step toward linking

program characteristics and program outcomes. Because of the lack of research in this area, the

purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of adult education programs that

reported a higher GED attainment rate than in similar programs and to identify implications for

practice and program improvement. Results showed that programs in this study emphasized

programmatic features and the establishment of a motivational culture. Instructional practices

recommended in the literature were not as prominent among our sample.

Adult education programs for Families First participants are distinct from programs

offered to the general population who volunteer to take adult education classes. Classes for

41


Families First participants are conducted for 20 hours a week in contrast to most adult education

programs that meet from only four to six hours a week. The goal of welfare reform is to provide

educational services that may lead to a wider range of employment options for Families First

participants. The targeted goal for Families First participants may be narrower than the goals of

many individuals who attend classes in adult education. In addition, Families First participants,

because of their status as welfare recipients, may need services other then adult basic education

to help them meet the goals of welfare reform. Therefore, effective adult education programs for

Families First participants appear to differ in some fundamental ways from the programs

described in the literature.

Collaboration among Community Agencies

Although DHS administers Families First, it relies on other agencies to provide services

for its clients. Through interagency agreements, Families First has led to unprecedented

collaboration among various state agencies and local service providers. Although the literature

stresses the importance of forming interagency partnerships (OVAE, 1997 & 2000), few have

examined in depth the type of collaborative relationship that has evolved between DHS and

Adult Education systems. In addition to forming a positive relationship with DHS staff, the local

programs in this study actively pursue personal relationships with individuals from the local

school board, business and industry, other public service agencies, local service organizations,

and local community leaders who are invited to serve on literacy councils or speak to Families

First participants. The primary advantages of these strong ties to the community are the resources

that come into the program and the ways that the program staff leverages these resources into

more significant learning opportunities for participants. Programs with strong community

partnerships also appear to emphasize internal collaboration as a way to increase available

42


resources for Families Fist participants. The programs in this study placed more emphasis on

their community context and collaboration than is evident in the literature.

Consistent, Regular Evaluation

In addition to their role in the community, the programs reporting the highest GED

attainment rates regularly evaluated their program’s effectiveness. Lerche (1985) recommended

that programs develop measurable goals for every component that matters for staff and/or

students. Many programs in this study developed such goals because of using the Malcolm

Baldrige framework for continuous improvement. The framework provides a way for program

managers to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their programs and use feedback on student

performance to make improvements. Use of the Malcolm Baldrige framework for creating

excellent programs is not possible without accurate and timely record keeping. Programs that are

not only conscientious about record keeping but use their data to make improvements in their

services appear to have an advantage over programs that do not. Record keeping is tied to other

generally effective administrative practices. For example, program staff members provide the

types of services such as orientation and personal follow-up as retention strategies. The

predominance of characteristics at the program level highlights the link between management

practices and outcomes.

Skillful Staff

Program supervisors insisted that the teacher is the key to their success in helping

Families First participants attain the GED. What is interesting about the findings in this study is

that the teachers we interviewed placed far more emphasis on the learning “process” that they

used rather than the specific instructional “academic content” that they taught. Teachers viewed

content from the perspective of the gaps in an individual’s knowledge of a particular subject

43


based on test results. Since the focus of instruction is to show an increase in skills on the TABE

or pass the GED examination, learning content links to these instruments. Teachers report that

participants sometimes resist instruction that they feel does not directly relate to their increased

performance on achievement or GED tests. Therefore, both participants and policy influence the

teachers’ focus on filling in gaps in skills rather than other types of educational activities. These

findings raise the question about the efficacy of this practice, even though it appears to produce

results. Is there a direct connection between the materials used for instruction and success on the

GED test? Would the use of more real-life materials, as the literature suggests, result in even

higher GED attainment rates?

When group instruction generally occurred, it was in the area of life or work skills, and

did not override the emphasis on preparation for the GED or on academic advancement. While

there was some use of what Purcell-Gates, Degener, & Jacobson (1998) refer to as “adult literacy

instruction that is reflective of real life practices” (p. 60), this was not emphasized to the extent

that research says it should be for maximum learning effectiveness. The literature says that

successful adult education teachers use a variety of methods beyond drill and practice (Black,

1997; OVAE, 1997); however, the emphasis in the programs we studied was on drill and practice

because teachers said these were the primary methods that they believed would lead to higher

scores on the standardized tests prescribed by policy. Our findings correspond more closely with

the findings of Beder and Medina (2001) who discovered that most AE classroom instruction

focuses on basic skills, not higher-level abilities. Although programs may be effective at helping

participants attain a GED, Families First policy and AE teachers may unwittingly shortchange

participants because time pressures and focus on tests may limit the higher order thinking skills

that participants acquire which might be beneficial in the workplace.

44


Motivational Culture

Although authentic or real-life instructional strategies were not commonplace, what was

commonplace was a type of program culture, a concept neglected in the literature on successful

programs. A culture comprised of the values, beliefs, and activities that create a motivational

environment was, according to teachers and supervisors, essential to their accomplishments.

One reason that the literature may not mention culture is that a motivational culture may be more

important to Families First participants than to more traditional, self-directed AE students. Once

Families First participants agree to enroll in AE, policy requires them to attend a high percentage

of the time in order to continue to receive benefits. Persistent attendance is a challenge for many

participants because of other pressing concerns that they have (Ziegler, Ebert, and Henry, in

press). Without a motivational culture that attracts and engages participants, other priorities in

their lives may interfere with attendance and prevent programs from achieving their goals for

participants’ success in attaining a GED. An authentic motivational culture established by

dedicated staff appears to influence retention and achievement in adult education. It should be

noted that, although motivational culture does seem to be a positive factor for GED attainment, a

question arises as to whether it prepares the participants for the rigorous and often inflexible

environment of the workplace or postsecondary education. This question may merit further

investigation in the future.

Use of external motivators is a part of the motivational culture that is less obvious in the

literature. Cameron and Pierce (1994) concluded that incentive systems were an effective method

for motivating students in classroom settings and that extrinsic rewards did not adversely impact

intrinsic motivation. Although the GED is a powerful motivator for most adults who dropped out

of high school regardless of whether or not they receive welfare, external incentives appear to

45


help welfare recipients persist in attending adult education classes when they otherwise might be

tempted to drop out (Ziegler, Ebert, & Cope, 2002).

Programs that report the highest GED attainment rates for Families First participants

share key characteristics. These characteristics have implications for practice and continuous

improvement.

Implications for Practice and Continuous Improvement and Conclusion

Some adult education programs have higher GED attainment rates than others. Findings

of the present study of such high-performing programs are only suggestive because of the small

sample of participating sites. However, if all programs had the average GED attainment rate of

the programs in this study, theoretically it would be possible to raise the average GED attainment

rate for Families First participants. Although the findings are not conclusive because other than

identified variables may have affected GED attainment rates, they do suggest some practical

implications for practice that may lead to continuous improvement.

Effective program management and administration appear to influence results. Since the

GED is a key quantitative measure of a program’s effectiveness, all program staff should know

what their GED attainment rates are and how these compare from year to year. Not all program

staff may identify the link between the characteristics of their programs and the results the

programs achieve. This study shows that GED attainment rates are not the sole responsibility of

the Families First participants; rather, programs have the responsibility to monitor their services

to determine what practices give participants the highest probability of success. Program

practices that appeared to impact GED rates included developing community partnerships, record

keeping and reporting, retention practices that encourage persistence of participants, and hiring

and maintaining skillful staff.

46


If management and administrative areas connect to the Malcolm Baldrige Framework for

Excellence, program staff will begin to link these improvements to goals they are in the process

of establishing for their programs. For continuous improvement, program staff can learn to

collect information after they institute changes to see if the changes are effective and lead to

higher GED attainment.

Brouillette (1999) identified an interesting contrast between program management and

relationships with students. “[In GED programs] the role of setting academic standards – and

enforcing them – was separated from the role of interacting with students. This allowed teachers

to position themselves as coaches, as resource persons capable of helping students accomplish an

important goal.” (p. 4). As Brouillette (1999) suggests, supervisors and teachers were able to

separate the management of their programs, setting and enforcing standards, from their roles as

coaches and resource persons. This may be why the motivational culture was so apparent. A

motivational culture appears to be one that creates the kind of environment where Families First

participants are attracted to engage in learning and accomplish results for themselves. This study

only begins to identify the indicators of a motivational culture. Practitioners could examine their

own programs for concrete indicators of a motivational culture. Differences between creating a

supportive environment and an environment that creates dependency would be an interesting

area for practitioner research.

Finally, since standardized testing determines assessment, it is understandable that

teachers focus on the skills that tests require. Their explicit goal is to help participants increase

the basic skills that are measured on the TABE or to attain a GED. Can this goal be met while

using more real-life materials as the literature and adult education principles appear to suggest?

Are skills besides the ones the TABE measures useful for passing the GED and for entering

47


postsecondary education or other training programs? Materials and instructional content might

become the topic of discussion on the Families First electronic discussion list and teachers can

consider this question with regard to their experience.

Although helping Families First participants attain a GED is multifaceted and complex,

program practices, a motivational culture, and even instruction do appear to make a difference.

This study is a valuable start in understanding the characteristics of programs that report the

highest GED rates for Families First participants in the state. Further research and inquiry might

investigate whether skills besides the ones the TABE measures useful for passing the GED and

for entering postsecondary education or another training program. Materials and instructional

content might become the topic of future discussions and/or research and teachers can consider

this questions with regard to their experience.

48


Reference

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, (2000). (4th Ed.). Houghton Mifflin:

Boston.

Asher, C. Cooperative education as a strategy for school-to-work transition. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED365798).

Beder, H. & Medina, P. (2001). Classroom dynamics in adult literacy education. NCSALL

Report No. 18. Retrieved August 8, 2003 from

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ncsall/research/report18.pdf.

Beder, H., & Medina, P. (2001). Classroom dynamics in adult literacy education. NCSALL

Reports No. 18a. Cambridge, MA: The National Center for the Study of Adult Learning

and Literacy.

Berger, J.I. (2001). Effectiveness of computers in the ABE classrooms: an analytical review of

the literature. Adult Basic Education, 11, 162-183.

Black, S. (1997, November). Late lessons. The American School Board Journal, 40-42.

Brouillette, L. (1999). Behind the statistics: urban dropouts and the GED [Electronic version].

Phi Delta Kappan, 81 (4), 313-315.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-

analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363-423.

Carnevale, A. P., & Desrochers, D. M. (1999). Getting down to business: Matching welfare

recipients’ skills to jobs that train. Retrieved August 6, 2001, from Educational

Testing Service Web site: ftp://etsis1.ets.org/pub/corp/16045.pdf.

49


Castleberry, S.E., & Enger, J.M. (1998). Alternative school students’ concepts of success

[Electronic version]. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 82(602),

105-111.

Cochran, E. (2000). FutureWorks: An alternative avenue to success. Practitioner Research

Briefs, 1999-2000 Report Series. Arlington, VA: Virginia Adult Education Research

Network. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED445240).

Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (1996). Student Progress and goal attainment

in federally funded ABE programs in California: 1996-1997. San Diego, CA: Author.

Condelli, L., & Kutner, M. (1992). Quality Indicators for Adult Education Programs: Lessons

Learned From Other Programs. Washington, D.C.: Pelavin Associates, Inc.

Dreybus, M.E. (2000). Art for art’s sake and more. Practitioner Research Briefs, 1999-2000

Report Series. Arlington, VA: Virginia Adult Education Research Network. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED445238).

Fisher, J.C. (1999, Fall). Research on adult literacy education in the welfare-to work transition.

New Directions For Adult and Continuing Education, 29-42.

Florida Community College, Jacksonville. (1998). Basics For Successful GED Instruction:

Working With Adult Learners. Jacksonville, FL: Florida Department of Education.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430102).

Friedlander, D. & Martinson, K. (1996). Effects of mandatory basic education for adult AFDC

recipients. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 327-337.

Harrington, M., & Goudreau, N. (1994). A feel for books (Adult learner book discussion

program). Program effectiveness study. Washington: District of Columbia Public

Library.

50


Imel, S. (1995). Inclusive Adult Learning Environments. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED385779).

Johnson, A., & Hartman, A. (1998). Adult education and literacy public policy: what it is and

how it is shaped. In M.C. Smith (Ed.), Literacy For the Twenty-First Century (pp.

29-36). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kirsch, I. S. (1998). Literacy in America: a brief overview of the NALS. In M.C. Smith (Ed.),

Literacy For the Twenty-First Century (pp. 13-28). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Lauer, P. (2001). Preliminary findings on the characteristics of teachers learning in high-

performing high-needs schools. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research

and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED460084).

Lerche, R.S. (1985). Effective Adult Literacy Programs: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York:

Cambridge.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Organizations as culture bearing milieux. In L. R. Pondy, et al, (Eds.).

Organizational symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Martin, L.G. (1999, Fall). Continuum of literacy program models: alternative approaches for

low-literate welfare recipients. New Directions For Adult and Continuing

Education, 43-59.

Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (1997). Promising Practices For The Twenty-First

Century: The Secretary’s Awards For Outstanding Adult Education And Literacy

Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED457332).

51


Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (2000). Outstanding Results – Tomorrow’s

Challenge: Adult Education Changes Lives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED446258).

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

Purcell-Gates, V., Degener, S., & Jacobson, E. (1998) U.S. adult literacy program practice: A

typology across dimensions of life-contextualized/decontextualized and

dialogic/monologic. NCSALL Reports No. 2. Cambridge, MA: The National Center for

the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.

Purcell-Gates, V., Degener, S., Jacobson, E., & Soler, M. (2000) Affecting change in literacy

practices of adult learners: Impact of two dimensions of instruction. NCSALL Reports

No. 17. Cambridge, MA: The National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and

Literacy.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Solorzano, R., et al. (1989). Reducing illiteracy in California: Review of effective practices in

adult literacy programs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED335526).

Wayman, J.C. (2001). Factors influencing GED and diploma attainment of high school

dropouts [Electronic version]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9 (4). Retrieved on

September 10, 2002, from http://epaa.asu/epaa/v9n4/.

Ziegler, M., Ebert, O., & Cope, G. Effectiveness of Completion Bonuses for Achievement in Adult

Education (2001). Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Human Services.

Ziegler, M., Ebert, O., & Henry, J. (in press). My Children First: Choices Made by Welfare

Mothers About Participation in Adult Education. Knoxville, TN: Center for Literacy

Studies.

52

http://epaa.asu/epaa/v9n4/


APPENDIX 1

Rates of GED Acquisition in Tennessee Families First Programs

Total enrollment

2000-01

GED 2000-01

Ratio 2000-01

Total enrollment

2001-02

GED 2001-02

Ratio 2001-02

Categorization 2000-01

Categorization 2001-02

1 13 8 61.50% 21 6 28.60% 4 42 14 8 57.10% 21 4 19.00% 4 33 15 7 46.70% 33 6 18.20% 4 24 20 8 40.00% 65 9 13.80% 4 25 58 22 37.90% 94 21 22.30% 4 36 24 9 37.50% 22 7 31.80% 4 47 35 13 37.10% 48 13 27.10% 4 38 56 20 35.70% 56 23 41.10% 4 49 18 6 33.30% 15 5 33.30% 4 4

10 18 6 33.30% 10 1 10.00% 4 111 34 11 32.40% 33 4 12.10% 4 212 16 5 31.30% 7 1 14.30% 4 213 16 5 31.30% 16 2 12.50% 4 214 105 32 30.50% 83 22 26.50% 4 315 30 9 30.00% 26 9 34.60% 4 416 10 3 30.00% 15 4 26.70% 4 317 74 22 29.70% 75 9 12.00% 4 218 24 7 29.20% 18 9 50.00% 4 419 40 11 27.50% 39 14 35.90% 4 410 44 12 27.30% 37 11 29.70% 4 421 59 16 27.10% 42 18 42.90% 3 422 83 22 26.50% 82 27 32.90% 3 423 23 6 26.10% 17 2 11.80% 3 224 31 8 25.80% 27 11 40.70% 3 425 74 19 25.70% 96 22 22.90% 3 326 56 14 25.00% 59 15 25.40% 3 327 53 13 24.50% 53 10 18.90% 3 228 21 5 23.80% 18 5 27.80% 3 429 21 5 23.80% 44 4 9.10% 3 130 60 14 23.30% 79 15 19.00% 3 231 43 10 23.30% 35 4 11.40% 3 132 56 13 23.20% 131 19 14.50% 3 233 22 5 22.70% 27 7 25.90% 3 334 40 9 22.50% 25 15 60.00% 3 435 54 12 22.20% 85 10 11.80% 3 236 68 15 22.10% 48 15 31.30% 3 437 104 23 22.10% 104 16 15.40% 3 238 87 19 21.80% 61 16 26.20% 3 339 39 8 20.50% 22 6 27.30% 3 340 88 18 20.50% 99 13 13.10% 3 241 30 6 20.00% 46 22 47.80% 2 442 10 2 20.00% 11 5 45.50% 2 4

53


43 5 1 20.00% 8 3 37.50% 2 444 30 6 20.00% 23 6 26.10% 2 345 87 17 19.50% 80 9 11.30% 2 146 49 9 18.40% 37 9 24.30% 2 347 28 5 17.90% 30 6 20.00% 2 348 39 7 17.90% 38 4 10.50% 2 149 35 6 17.10% 42 9 21.40% 2 350 59 10 16.90% 59 3 5.10% 2 151 24 4 16.70% 28 8 28.60% 2 452 36 6 16.70% 24 4 16.70% 2 253 74 12 16.20% 85 4 4.70% 2 154 32 5 15.60% 54 12 22.20% 2 355 59 9 15.30% 74 7 9.50% 2 156 27 4 14.80% 25 6 24.00% 2 357 34 5 14.70% 40 4 10.00% 2 158 104 15 14.40% 120 34 28.30% 2 459 28 4 14.30% 39 3 7.70% 2 160 36 5 13.90% 83 20 24.10% 2 361 36 5 13.90% 32 4 12.50% 2 262 104 14 13.50% 104 17 16.30% 1 263 104 14 13.50% 104 9 8.70% 1 164 67 9 13.40% 35 7 20.00% 1 365 15 2 13.30% 38 8 21.10% 1 366 31 4 12.90% 20 6 30.00% 1 467 31 4 12.90% 48 13 27.10% 1 368 140 18 12.90% 107 20 18.70% 1 269 97 12 12.40% 97 20 20.60% 1 370 36 4 11.10% 49 8 16.30% 1 271 183 20 10.90% 183 20 10.90% 1 172 48 5 10.40% 52 16 30.80% 1 473 39 4 10.30% 36 6 16.70% 1 274 62 6 9.70% 96 10 10.40% 1 175 236 23 9.70% 218 18 8.30% 1 176 296 28 9.50% 347 35 10.10% 1 177 43 4 9.30% 43 6 14.00% 1 278 12 1 8.30% 27 2 7.40% 1 179 354 28 8.00% 318 31 9.70% 1 180 38 3 7.90% 30 3 10.00% 1 181 13 1 7.70% 23 2 8.70% 1 182 1884 126 6.70% 2769 142 5.10% 1 183 Not available 12 2 16.70% . 284 30 2 6.70% . 1

Total 6453 951 14.7% 7652 1015 13.3%

54


APPENDIX 2

Letter to program supervisors Dear [Supervisor]:

The Center for Literacy Studies is conducting a study for the Department of Human Services to identify some of the factors in Tennessee Adult Education programs that lead to higher GED completion rates among Families First participants. We are interested in programmatic, instructional, and student characteristics that might contribute to GED completion.

Your program has been selected to be a part of this study based on your GED completion rates for Families First students for 2001 and 2002 as reported online in end-of-the-year reports. The total sample selected includes the top eight FF programs in GED completion when both years were considered, plus additional classes in urban areas with comparatively high GED rates.

I hope that you are willing to be a part of this study. The study will consist of on-site interviews by Center for Literacy Studies staff with you and one or more of your Families First teachers. We anticipate that this visit will take only part of a day. Any other information we would need for clarification would be done by phone or email.

You will be receiving a call from one of our staff soon about setting up a time for the visit. If you have questions or concerns before you hear from us, please contact Olga Ebert ([email protected] or 865-974-9663.)

Sincerely,

Jean Stephens, Director

55

mailto:[email protected]


APPENDIX 3

Programs with high GED rates for FF students— Supervisor interview question topics

Initial question: To what do you attribute high GED rates in your program? Then probe for:

Programmatic

1. Program goals and philosophy

a. Supervisor involvement – DO NOT ask directly

b. Funding/control of spending – Do you get extra contributions? Is your budget sufficient

for everything you and you teachers need to do?

c. Measurable goals – Are there goals set in your program beyond NRS?

d. Program planning processes

e. Attendance/retention strategies in the program

f. Student orientation – managed enrollment may come up here or under d).

2. Records and accountability

a. Record keeping

b. Program evaluation – How is your program evaluated (internally and externally)

c. Assessment/documentation of learning – What assessment methods are used and how

rigorously (portfolios)?

3. Program support

a. How does local school district or other agencies support you?

b. DHS & FSC relationship

c. Community relations

4. Have you been involved in the total quality improvement processes?

56


5. Facilities/class times

Students:

6. Average student attendance

7. Classes with random achievement levels or grouped by level

8. What kind of FF students did you have in 2000-2002?

Teachers

9. Number of teachers and how long have they taught FF

10. Describe materials, methods, technology

a. Do you teachers use group or individual work?

b. Do you have tutors?

c. Are real-life materials used?

11. Teaching goals/objectives

d. Do you use student goals and needs and how?

e. How much focus is there on specific outcomes, particularly GED?

f. Is there a “fixed” curriculum?

g. Does curriculum address family or work, or other things relevant for students?

h. What is student-teacher relationship?

12. Teacher support

i. PD (by CLS or other). How helpful is it? Has your FF teacher been involved in any

special projects?

j. Contact/collaboration w/ other teachers

57


APPENDIX 4

Programs with high GED rates for FF students— Teacher interview question topics

Initial question: To what do you attribute high GED rates in your program? Then probe for:

Teachers

1. How long have you taught FF

2. Describe materials, methods, technology

k. Do you use group or individual work?

l. Do you have tutors?

m. Are real-life materials used?

3. Teaching goals/objectives

n. Do you use student goals and needs and how?

o. How much focus is there on specific outcomes, particularly GED?

p. Is there a “fixed” curriculum? What is your curriculum?

q. Does curriculum address family or work, or other things relevant for students?

r. Do you have any particular attendance/retention strategies?

s. Relationship with students.

4. Teacher support

t. PD (by CLS or other). How helpful is it? Have you been involved in any special projects?

u. Contact/collaboration w/ other teachers

Programmatic

58


5. Program goals and philosophy

a. Supervisor involvement

b. Funding/control of spending – Is your budget sufficient for everything you need to do?

c. Measurable goals – Are there goals set in your program beyond NRS?

d. Program planning processes

e. Student orientation – managed enrollment may come up here or under d).

6. Records and accountability

f. Record keeping

g. Program evaluation – How is your program evaluated (internally and externally)? How is

your teaching evaluated?

h. Assessment/documentation of learning – What assessment methods are used and how

rigorously (portfolios)?

7. Program support

i. How does local school district or other agencies support you?

j. DHS & FSC relationship

k. Community relations

8. Have you been involved in the total quality improvement processes?

Students:

9. Average student attendance

10. Classes with random achievement levels or grouped by level

11. What kind of FF students did you have in 2000-2002?

59


60

highly effective programs lit review - university of … · web viewaccording to the literature,...

Documents