0361 - Anne Arundel Annapolis (1999)_2005_6th Year Evaluation Report

Annapolis GEAR-UP: Sixth Year Evaluation Report

November 2005

RMC Research Corporation

Annapolis GEAR-UP: Sixth Year Evaluation Report

November 2005

RMC Research Corporation 1501 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1250 Arlington, VA 22209 703-558-4800

Executive Summary Anne Arundel County (Maryland) Public Schools was awarded a 5-year local GEAR-UP grant from the U.S. Department of Education (USED) to increase participation of disadvantaged students in post-secondary education. True to the program design, Annapolis GEAR-UP: Project Achieve began services to middle school students and expanded a grade level in each year of project implementations as those students moved up. Originally funded for a five-year period, the U.S. Department of Education funded a sixth year, which enabled the students in the original cohort to reach grade 12 while the project was operational and addressed sustainability of project activities and services. This report addresses the project’s sixth year of operation. In the 2004-05 school year, Annapolis GEAR-UP served a total of 2,316 students in grades 6–12. Annapolis GEAR-UP functions as part of whole school improvement in the grade levels served by the program. Based on need, willingness to make good use of program resources, and match with program intent (increase the participation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in post secondary education), some students receive more intensive services. Target groups of approximately 25 students have been chosen in each entering cohort. This core group is supplemented by additional students who wish to access GEAR-UP services. The target students plus students who received at least six GEAR-UP services during the year are referred to in this report as Target Plus students. This evaluation examines both implementation and impact of the project. Since this was the last year of funding, the implementation evaluation was based on data from (a) a focus group of high school students to obtain their perspectives on what the project has accomplished and how it has assisted them in accessing a post-secondary education, and (b) an interview with the director of the school district’s development office, the project’s principal investigator who was responsible for district oversight of the project, to obtain her perspective on the impact of the project, lessons learned, and sustainability of project services. The impact evaluation is based on analyses of data provided by the district on student course participation, grades, attendance, and suspensions/discipline referrals. These data were supplemented with findings from surveys of students on their attitudes and perceptions about going to college. Together, data from district databases and surveys were analyzed through a series of cross-sectional comparisons to make statements with regard to project indicators. Taken as a whole, all project data indicate that Annapolis GEAR-UP did well during its sixth and final year. Of particular interest is the extent to which project personnel have integrated GEARUP services and activities into the whole school through participation in school improvement planning and implementation of improvement strategies. Perceptions of teachers at the schools indicate that project staff are highly visible and generally regarded as helpful, caring, and a source of good ideas and positive attitudes. •

Academic Achievement: Although not as extensive as in Year Five, the project showed good performance in quantitative analyses of academic achievement in Year Six. There continued to be significant differences favoring the project for taking Pre-Algebra by 8th grade. There were also significant findings favoring the project for students receiving free or reduced meals (FARM) assistance. At the middle school, project FARM students iii

were more likely to complete Phase 3 and 4 courses and to earn high grades in these courses, as well as in French or Spanish. At the high school, these students were more likely to complete Geometry, Chemistry, and honors courses. •

School engagement: Quantitative analysis showed positive findings in attendance. At grades 8 and 11, there was a difference favoring the project between all Target Plus students and all Not Target Plus students meeting an attendance rate of at least 94%. Additionally, this finding held in grades 9 and 11 when comparing FARM Target Plus and Not Target Plus students. A modest interpretation of these data, combined with student perceptions, is that Annapolis GEAR-UP students are in school and believe that education has something to offer for their futures.

•

College preparation: College preparation has been an ongoing strength of the project. The student focus group data supported the premise that the project has provided a number of high quality services related to getting ready for college that might be reasonably assumed to get results.

Overall, the students appreciated the services they received through GEAR-UP. Among the activities, the students preferred the college visits and guest speakers, as well as the tutoring services. The students valued teachers and project staff who had high expectations for all students. The students recommended that parents be more involved in the GEAR-UP activities and preparing students for college. The Principal Investigator believed that the expansion of GEAR-UP services beyond the 25 Target students created schoolwide interest and support without diluting the impact of the services. The GEAR-UP grant presented some management challenges that required leadership at the school and district level. The partnerships provided vital services for students but were not always sustained. The GEAR-UP program has established the idea that students can attend college if they are provided with academic and social supports. However, there is a need to get parents more involved in helping students prepare for college.

iv

Table of Contents Executive Summary......................................................................................................................iii List of Tables................................................................................................................................vii List of Figures ...........................................................................................................................viii Section I: Introduction...................................................................................................................1 About Annapolis Middle School........................................................................................1 About Annapolis High School............................................................................................1 About Annapolis GEAR-UP...............................................................................................1 This Evaluation Report.......................................................................................................3 Section II: Evaluation Design and Methods..................................................................................4 Program Logic Model.........................................................................................................4 Alignment of the GEAR-UP Logic Model with AACPS Goals.........................................5 Evaluation Framework........................................................................................................5 Data Collection and Analysis Methods for Outcomes Monitoring....................................8 Data Collection and Analysis Methods for Implementation Evaluation............................8 Data Collection and Analysis Methods for Impact Evaluation..........................................8 Section III: Findings....................................................................................................................13 Project Outcomes..............................................................................................................13 Project Implementation.....................................................................................................16 Factors that Facilitated or Inhibited Full Implementation of the Grant................16 Stakeholders’ Perceptions of GEAR-UP Performance.........................................19 Project Impact...................................................................................................................28 Summary...........................................................................................................................35 Section IV: Conclusions and Recommendations.........................................................................36 Appendices...................................................................................................................................38 Appendix A: Interview and Focus Group Protocols........................................................39 Appendix B: Student Survey Instrument.........................................................................43 v

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables................................................................................47

vi

List of Tables Table 1: Annapolis GEAR-UP Program Logic Model .................................................................5 Table 2: Number of Student Surveys Returned by Year by Target Status....................................9 Table 3: Student Survey Scales.....................................................................................................9 Table 4: Number of Target Plus and Not Target Plus Students..................................................11 Table 5: Academic Preparedness Services – SY 2004-05...........................................................15 Table 6: Knowledge of Careers/College Services – SY 2004-05................................................15 Table 7: Enrichment/School Engagement Services – SY 2004-05.............................................15 Table 8: Parental Activities and Services – SY 2004-05.............................................................16 Table 9: Number and Percentage of All AMS Students in 8th Grade Who Had Completed Pre-Algebra...................................................................................................................................30 Table 10: Number and Percentage of FARM AMS Students in 8th Grade Who Had Earned a B or Better in Spanish or French......................................................................................................30 Table 11: Number and Percentage of FARM AMS Students in 6th Grade Who Earned a B or Better in a Phase 3 or 4 Course.....................................................................................................30 Table 12: Number and Percentage of FARM AMS Students in 7th Grade Who Completed a Phase 3 or 4 Course......................................................................................................................31 Table 13: Number and Percentage of FARM AMS Students in 7th Grade Who Earned a B or Better in a Phase 3 or 4 Course.....................................................................................................31 Table 14: Number and Percentage of All AMS and Comparison School Students in 8th Grade Who Had Completed Pre-Algebra................................................................................................31

vii

Table 15: Number and Percentage of FARM AHS Students in 10th Grade Who Had Completed Geometry......................................................................................................................................32 Table 16: Number and Percentage of FARM AHS Students in 10th Grade Who Had Completed Chemistry......................................................................................................................................32 Table 17: Number and Percentage of FARM AHS Students in 10th Grade Who Completed an Honors Course.......................................................................................................32 Table 18: Number and Percentage of All AMS Students in 8th Grade with an Attendance Level of At Least 94 Percent..................................................................................................................33 Table 19: Number and Percentage of All AHS Students in 11th Grade with an Attendance Level of At Least 94 Percent..................................................................................................................33 Table 20: Number and Percentage of FARM AHS Students in 9th Grade with an Attendance Level of At Least 94 Percent........................................................................................................33 Table 21: Number and Percentage of FARM AHS Students in 11th Grade with an Attendance Level of At Least 94 Percent........................................................................................................34

List of Figures Figure 1: GEAR-UP Evaluation Model.........................................................................................7 Figure 2: Student Distribution by Grade Level...........................................................................13 Figure 3: Student Distribution by Ethnic Background................................................................13 Figure 4: Student Distribution by Gender...................................................................................14 Figure 5: Student Distribution by Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)..................................14

viii

Section I: Introduction GEAR-UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs) was created in the 1998 Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965. The purpose of the program is to form partnerships between local education agencies (LEAs), institutions of higher education (IHEs), and community organizations to work with students in high-poverty schools to ensure that these students receive the support they need to prepare for college. GEAR-UP begins to work with students in middle school and continues through their high school years, providing support that the students need to stay in school and enroll in post-secondary education. Anne Arundel County Public Schools was awarded funding in the 1999-00 school year. The project, called “Annapolis GEAR-UP: Project Achieve” (hereafter referred to as Annapolis GEAR-UP or the project) was originally funded for a 5-year period, but received additional funding from the U.S. Department of Education for a sixth year. This report reflects project status at the end of its sixth year of implementation. About Annapolis Middle School Located in a high poverty section of Anne Arundel County, Annapolis Middle School (AMS) has a 40-acre campus that serves a little less than 600 students from diverse economic and cultural backgrounds. Approximately 67% of AMS students represent minority populations (principally African Americans). In 2004-05, 15% of students received special education services. About Annapolis High School Annapolis High School (AHS) is a comprehensive high school located four miles from downtown Annapolis. It is accredited by the Middle States Association and has a student body of approximately 1,800 students in grades 9 through 12 and a faculty of approximately 100. Fifty-nine percent of AHS students are from minority groups (principally African American). In 2004-05, 12% of the students received special education services. About Annapolis GEAR-UP Cohorts, Target and Target Plus students. GEAR-UP serves grade-level cohorts of students. In each project year an incoming class (cohort) of 6th graders was added to the project roster. All students in the cohort grade levels were eligible for and received benefits from GEAR-UP activities, though at varying levels of intensity. Throughout the life of the project, Annapolis GEAR-UP identified approximately 25 high-ability, low-income students in each cohort to receive intensive services. These are referred to as Target Students. The targeting strategy was part of the original proposal under which the grant was funded. In the fourth project year, the group of students receiving more intensive services was expanded beyond the historic target group (those receiving intensive service since middle school). At the request of the Project Director, the comparisons of groups were also based on this expanded group of students receiving intensive services, which is referred to as the Target Plus group. This is true to the original evaluation design and allows the project to more accurately measure effects by including

1

all students who received intensive service to be included in comparisons of groups. Begun in the fourth year evaluation, use of Target Plus status as an analytic category is continued in this evaluation. Annapolis GEAR-UP partner organizations. In order to address the intent and purpose of the authorizing legislation, GEAR-UP projects establish partnerships between IHEs and highpoverty middle schools and high schools. Working with AMS and AHS, the partner organizations offer a comprehensive array of activities and services to address the purpose of the GEAR-UP program. By providing (a) a rigorous academic program including high expectations for all students and (b) a comprehensive approach to providing students with information about post-secondary education, Annapolis GEAR-UP has strived to ensure that its students are well prepared to continue their education beyond high school. The partner organizations involved in Annapolis GEAR-UP have changed over the years in response to project needs. At the end of the sixth project year, partner organizations included • • • • • • • • • • • •

Annapolis Chapter of the Links, Inc. Anne Arundel County Community College Bowie State University Morgan State University Leadership Anne Arundel National Coalition of 100 Black Women St. John’s College University of Maryland, Baltimore County U.S. Naval Academy Youth Services Bureau YWCA Force Three, Inc.

Project leadership and staff. There was continuity of leadership and staff in Annapolis GEARUP between years five and six. The project team consists of a Project Director based at the High School, a Coordinator at the Middle School, and a Parent-Community Liaison for each of the schools. These four individuals serve as the linkage point with school principals, teachers, and parents. The Project’s Principal Investigator, who is employed by the district office, has worked with the project since inception, and decreased her involvement over the years as the Project Director and her staff have taken over day to day project operation. •

Principal Investigator. Ms. Lois Kleinhenn Lanier is the Principal Investigator for GEAR-UP. Ms. Lanier is the Anne Arundel County Public Schools Chief Development Officer. She serves as the liaison with the AACPS Central Office and is responsible for project oversight and technical support.

•

Project Director. Ms. Yolanda Clark is the GEAR-UP Project Director. Her responsibilities include provision of overall project management, coordination of day-today activities of the project, supervision of project staff, partner coordination, fiscal

2

management, and report preparation. Ms. Clark also serves as the coordinator of GEARUP services at the High School. •

Middle School Coordinator. Ms. Stefanie Grate is the Middle School Coordinator. In that capacity, she organizes and provides services for middle school students, monitors student performance, and maintains continuous communication with classroom teachers.

•

Parent –Community Liaisons. Ms. Shanita Spencer and Ms. Odessa Ellis are assigned to the Middle School and High School, respectively. They play the essential function of coordinating parent activities and facilitating communication between the school and families.

The positions listed above represent key project staff. The Middle School Coordinator and the Parent-Community Liaisons are funded through the GEAR-UP Grant. The Project Director’s salary is paid entirely by AACPS as a non-federal match, and the Principal Investigator’s time is also a non-federal match. The project includes other staff from AACPS and the partner organizations who provide part-time services on a non-federal match basis. These in-kind contributions are tabulated and recorded regularly for project records. This Evaluation Report The U.S. Department of Education (USED) requires biennial evaluation reports, one at the end of the second project year and another at the end of the fourth project year. The Project elects to conduct evaluation in each project year in order to provide on-going feedback for its own use. This sixth year evaluation report covers September 1, 2004–August 31, 2005. Using an evaluation design established at the inception of the project (described in Section II), the report utilizes qualitative and quantitative data to report on project implementation and project impact (presented in Section III).

3

Section II: Evaluation Design and Methods Program Logic Model Program logic models have long been used in the field of evaluation, and they have recently attracted renewed interest as part of the push to use performance measurement to document program outcomes. Classic program logic models contain a flowchart starting with program inputs (resources) that are used for program activities and strategies and then show a progression from program outputs (e.g., hours of service and numbers of service recipients) to short-term outcomes and long-term impacts that directly address the purposes and objectives of the program. The GEAR-UP program logic model was developed by project partners and is a variation on this theme. It differs primarily in that it includes identification of underlying causes that project activities are meant to address. Using a program logic model is advantageous because it helps clarify the focus of activities and their impact on targeted outcomes. In the case of a collaborative project like GEAR-UP, engaging all project stakeholders in development of the model can be an effective way of building consensus regarding what the project is attempting and how it will evaluate success. In September 2000, a joint partner/advisory committee meeting was held in order to use findings from the partner interviews conducted as part of the First-Year Evaluation to develop Annapolis GEAR-UP’s program logic model. This model is presented in Table 1.

4

Table 1: Annapolis GEAR-UP Program Logic Model Program Logic Model Component The causes of historically low participation of economically disadvantaged students in postsecondary education

Annapolis GEAR-UP Our discussion identified three main causes. (1) The most highly weighted cause was low expectations for academic achievement and going to college on the part of students themselves, teachers, and parents. (2) The second ranking cause was low academic achievement. (3) Finally, lack of information on the value of a college education, how to prepare for it, how to get access to financial assistance, how to apply, and what college life consists of is another causal factor.

Strategies and activities that are sufficient to address the causes

Expected results

Strategies and activities are outlined in the project’s annual work plan. Each year when the work plan is developed, activities are reviewed to ensure that they address one or several of the underlying causes we identified. Partners confirmed that project indicators in the 5-Year Evaluation Design are of key interest.

Alignment of the GEAR-UP Logic Model with AACPS Goals This logic model continues to be an organizer for project activities, although it has evolved in the past two years to take a sharper focus on county-wide goals that were established when Dr. Eric Smith became Superintendent of Anne Arundel County Public Schools. The County-wide goals are well aligned with the intent and purpose of the GEAR-UP program, creating the opportunity for synergistic collaboration in which the district provides infrastructure that supports GEARUP’s effectiveness in bringing about whole school reform and GEAR-UP adds value to district efforts by bringing additional resources. Evaluation Framework Over the life of Annapolis GEAR-UP project, evaluation has served two main purposes: (1) to improve project processes (implementation evaluation), and (2) to document project results (impact evaluation). The evaluation of processes provides information about how a program functions at a given point in time and is a mechanism for program improvement. The evaluation of results takes a long-term perspective and makes statements about what was ultimately

5

accomplished by the program. These two fundamental purposes of evaluation are well established in the literature and are generally considered to be equally important. Annapolis GEAR-UP’s approach to evaluation is best characterized as performance measurement. Performance measurement is based on the continuous documentation of program outcomes with regard to short- and long-term indicators and is frequently tied to a continuous improvement orientation to program implementation. In this sense, performance measurement incorporates both of the fundamental purposes of evaluation; processes are examined as the organization makes decisions on how to modify the program, and results are measured against meaningful targets. Performance measurement is consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. GPRA requires that all federal agencies develop performance indicators related to the objectives and purposes of programs and measure the extent to which those indicators are reached. The Annapolis GEAR-UP evaluation framework is found in Figure 1. There are four major components that comprise the evaluation framework. Reading from the top left of the graphic, first there are inputs into the GEAR-UP project, including funding, partnerships, staffing, and annual work plans, and the project database. These are prerequisites that must be in place before the project can be considered fully functional. Once the project is established, the basic descriptive facts of what happens in the project can be documented (outcomes monitoring). Outcomes monitoring is continuous throughout the project and provides information used in evaluation of both implementation and impact. The three main components of the evaluation framework—outcomes monitoring, implementation evaluation, and impact evaluation—each entail data collection and analysis procedures.

6

Figure 1:

GEAR-UP Evaluation Model

INPUTS Funding Partnerships Staffing Annual work plans Project database

• • • • •

PROJECT ACTIVITIES

OUTCOMES MONITORING (each project year) •

•

•

What program activities were offered and who participated in them? To what extent were the activities in the work plan carried out?

IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION (each project year, but emphasis in years one to three) •

What is the project intended to be?

•

What was actually delivered?

•

How can the project be improved?

To what extent were participants satisfied with the activities? 7

IMPACT EVALUATION (project years three to six) •

To what extent was the intent and purpose of the GEARUP program met?

Data Collection and Analysis Methods for Outcomes Monitoring The evaluation design includes an activity database that is developed and maintained by project staff. This database contains comprehensive data about services offered and student participation in them. The Anne Arundel County Board of Education Technology Information Services developed the activity database, and it became operational in the fourth year of the project. Data Collection and Analysis Methods for Implementation Evaluation The evaluation design calls for qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups to collect implementation evaluation data and facilitated conversations between project partners with the aim of using data in decision making. In the sixth project year, a focus group with high school students was convened in early summer 2005, and the principal investigator was interviewed by telephone in October, 2005. The students ranged from 9th and 12th grade and included some students who had participated in GEAR-UP since their 6th grade year. The students discussed the GEAR-UP activities, academics, preparing for college, and the role of support from teachers and project staff. The principal investigator participated in the writing of the grant proposal and had provided oversight throughout the six years of GEAR-UP. The interview covered the history of the GEAR-UP grant, the challenges of managing the project, the successes and areas for improvement for planning for the future after GEAR-UP. The protocols for the student focus group and the principal investigator interview can be found in Appendix A. Content analysis was used to derive descriptive themes. Data Collection and Analysis Methods for Impact Evaluation The heart of Annapolis GEAR-UP’s impact evaluation is a series of project indicators derived from the federal GPRA indicators and objectives from the proposal under which GEAR-UP was funded. Data to address Annapolis GEAR-UP’s indicators are drawn from a variety of sources: (a) district databases, (b) GEAR-UP student and parent surveys, and (c) a district survey of high school seniors. The senior student survey is administered by the state of Maryland. Its results were not examined until this sixth year since previous seniors did not include a GEAR-UP cohort. Also, the parent survey was not administered in the sixth year. Low response rates in prior years led to this decision. Consequently, only the student survey is described below. The data used for the impact evaluation are stored in files maintained by the evaluator. Student survey. The evaluator developed a student survey by carrying out a review of the literature on similar surveys and then constructing a new survey to meet the specific needs of Annapolis GEAR-UP. The survey uses a series of items on a five-point Likert scale to measure student perceptions and attitudes (see survey description and instrument in Appendix B). The first administration of the survey took place in fall 2000, and it has been administered annually each spring thereafter. The number of surveys returned by year is found in Table 2.

Table 2: Number of Student Surveys Returned by Year by Target Status

1

Target (Plus) Not Target (Plus) Total

2000 79 368 447

Student Surveys 2001 2002 80 93 307 535 387 628

2003 103 895 998

2004 159 809 968

2005 26 274 3002

1

The Target vs. Non-target distinction for 2000, 2001, and 2002 refers to the historic way that the project has used the terms. Starting in 2003, numbers or surveys returned reflects the revised Target Plus vs. Not Target Plus distinction. 2 The number of surveys in 2005 was much smaller due to a late administration that excluded 12th grade students and to the misplacement of the AMS surveys.

Survey scales, which are groupings of items correlated with each other to an acceptably high level, were developed based on findings from the first survey administration. Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the internal consistency reliability of these scales. Table 3 presents the scales, items comprising each scale, and the alpha levels obtained. An alpha of 0.8 is desirable and 0.6 is the minimum acceptable level. Table 3: Student Survey Scales Scale School has helped prepare student for college. Student has knowledge/plan regarding college/career. Student has a positive attitude toward going to college. Student has a positive attitude toward school. Student regards his/her academic abilities, efficacy, effort positively.

Items 12,17,25,34,40 2,3,4,9,10,21,27,28,29,35,38 5,11,15,23,30,32,33,36,39 7,13,14,19,31,37 1,6,8,16,18,20,22,24,26

Alpha .71 .70 .81 .71 .70

The benefit of developing scales and using them for analysis is that they reduce a larger number of survey items to a much smaller list of concepts that are meaningful to the goals of the project and, therefore, to the analysis of project outcomes. Once scales were established, the project indicators that address attitudes were modified in order to be easily measured with survey data. Project indicators. The evaluation design identified a series of indicators of student readiness for and progress toward post-secondary education. These indicators are listed below, along with the data source and the baseline year. 1. Students participate in challenging courses. Data source: District databases Baseline year: 1998-99 school year 2. Students attend school regularly. Data source: District databases Baseline year: 1998-99 school year

3. Students are not suspended or the recipients of disciplinary actions. Data source: District databases Baseline year: 1998-99 school year 4. Students take the SAT. Data source: District databases Baseline year: 1998-99 school year 5. Students have knowledge/plan about attending college. Data source: Student survey Baseline year: Fall 2000 6. Students perceive that the school has helped prepare the students for college. Data source: Student survey Baseline year: Fall 2000 7. Students have positive attitudes about the children attending college. Data source: Student survey Baseline year: Fall 2000 8. Students have positive attitudes about school. Data source: Student survey Baseline year: Fall 2000 9. Students have positive attitudes regarding their own academic abilities, efficacy, effort. Data source: Student survey Baseline year: Fall 2000 10. Students in high school maintain a high grade point average (GPA). Data source: District databases Baseline year: 1998-99 school year 11. Students stay in high school and graduate. Data source: District databases Baseline year: 1998-99 school year 12. Students have plans to enroll in post-secondary education. 1 Data source: District senior survey Baseline year: 2004-05 school year Data summary tables. For each of the project indicators, a table was created to summarize relevant information for the baseline year and each project year, broken out by the following groups in each pertinent grade level: all students, students receiving Free and Reduced-Price 1

The senior survey is administered by the state and it does not record the Anne Arundel County Public Schools student identification number. Therefore, student responses could not be linked to participation in GEAR-UP activities.

Meals (FARM), and students in the target and target plus groups. Indicators pertaining to middle school grades provide data separately for AMS and a comparison school; indicators pertaining to high school grade levels provide data for AHS. The summary tables were created from a database containing student-level data on the indicators. The school district provides the evaluator with data annually in August. Summary tables are found in Appendix C. Comparison group data. The evaluation design consists principally of within-school and between-school comparisons in each of the project years. •

Within-school comparison: At both AMS and AHS, the following within-school comparisons of performance on project indicators are performed in each project year: 1. Comparison of Target and Target Plus students to Not Target Plus students (The Target Plus group consists of students who have received intensive services, operationally defined as six or more activities recorded in the project database, to students receiving fewer individual services, operationally defined as five or less activities recorded in the project database). It should be noted that prior to year four there was no Target Plus group defined. The comparison definition was revised beginning in the fourth year report in order to accommodate the expansion of intensive services to students in a given school year who were not identified as a target student in 6th grade (e.g., students who may have joined an intensive project service in the 10th grade). Table 4 presents the number of Target Plus and Not Target Plus students that were the basis of the analyses described in this report. 2. Comparison of Target Plus students having FARM status to Not Target Plus students having FARM status. Table 4: Number of Target Plus and Not Target Plus Students Grade Level 6 (AMS) 7 (AMS) 8 (AMS) 9 (AHS) 10 (AHS) 11 (AHS) 12 (AHS) Total

•

2

Target Plus 40 51 40 46 44 21 21 263

Not Target Plus 130 143 147 520 433 317 363 2053

Total 170 194 187 566 477 338 384 2316

Between-school comparison: AMS performance on project indicators are compared to another middle school in the district with similar demographic characteristics where GEAR-UP is NOT being implemented. 2

The original evaluation design called for extending the between-school comparison to the high school level by comparing performance of students according to feeder school. However, this would require excluding students from feeders other than AMS from GEAR-UP services at

In performing the within-school and between-school comparisons, the most appropriate statistic is used based on the type of data under analysis: chi square for categorical (yes-no) data; and the F-test in the analysis of variance for interval data (means on survey scales).

AHS. This is contrary to the whole-school reform intent of GEAR-UP and the plan for this analysis has been dropped so that all students at AHS may participate in GEAR-UP services. However, these feeder school comparisons are presented for information only in Appendix C.

Section III: Findings Findings are divided into three parts, reflecting the three components of the evaluation framework: project outcomes, project implementation, and project impact. Project Outcomes Project outcomes are defined as the descriptive facts about whom the project served and what activities were provided. Figures 2–5 describe the demographic characteristics of students served by GEAR-UP at AMS and AHS. These figures show that the Target Plus student group has a much greater proportion of African American than the overall population of students served by GEAR-UP and a somewhat greater proportion of females than males. Figure 2: Student Distribution by Grade Level All Students

384

170

Grade 6 194 187

338

Target Plus Students Grade 6

Grade 7

21

21

40

Grade 8

Grade 8

Grade 9

44

566

Grade 9

51

Grade 10 477

Grade 7

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 11 46

Grade 12

40

Grade 12

Figure 3: Student Distribution by Ethnic Background All Students

249

911

5

65

Target Plus Students

A merican Indian

1086

10

11

A merican Indian

A sian American

A sian American

A f rican A merican

A f rican American

Caucasian

Caucasian

Hispanic

Hispanic 242

Figure 4: Student Distribution by Gender All Students

1160

1156

Target Plus Students

110

Male Female

Male Female

153

Figure 5: Student Distribution by Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)

1751

All Students

Target Plus Students

255

23 IEP

IEP

No IEP

No IEP 230

Tables 5 through 7 provide descriptive information about the services that Annapolis GEAR-UP provided to AMS and AHS students in the 2004-05 school year. These figures are based on data from the project’s activity database that was periodically updated as new activities occurred throughout the course of the year. Each table lists the frequency of each listed activity (number of times it occurred over the school year), the average number of students/parents participating in a session, and the average duration of one session of the activity.

Table 5: Academic Preparedness Services – SY 2004-05

Activity AP History AP Psychology College Knowledge/Sojourner Douglass College Track Accelerated Reading Program PAC PAC/NSBE Star Academy 2004

Frequency 1 2 1 15 95 1 84

Average Number of Students 6 3 9 15.9 14.1 12 11.5

Average Number of Hours 15 12 15 5 1.4 8 3

Table 6: Knowledge of Careers/College Services – SY 2004-05

Activity Coppin State/Bowie State Campus Tours Hampton University Campus Tour Let’s Go To College Morgan State Trip Morgan State Youth Day Pennsylvania College Tour Southern College Tour U. of Maryland College Park Campus Tour

Frequency 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1

Average Number of Students 51 39 22 24 36 42 42 40

Average Number of Hours 7 12 0 5.5 8.5 17 120 3.5

Table 7: Enrichment/School Engagement Services – SY 2004-05

Activity GEAR UP Assembly Just Lunch Mentoring Ladies Mentoring Program Step Afrika Dance Company Residency Title I Student Mentor Program

Frequency 1 16 1 4 1

Average Number of Students 74 13.7 2 14.5 12

Average Number of Hours 2 1 4 0.75 8

Table 8 provides similar descriptive data about project services for parents in the 2004-05 school year. Parental involvement activities were fairly limited in scope and level of participation.

Table 8: Parental Activities and Services – SY 2004-05

Activity 9 Grade Parents Forum AMS Newsletter AMS/ASHS January Parent Workshop AMS/ASHS Parent Workshop Notification ASHS Back to School Night ASHS Newsletter Family Night Father Son Day January Parent Workshop May Parent Workshop Mother Daughter Day Parent Luncheon Senior Luncheon and GEAR UP Convocation * Duration not provided th

Frequency 1 6 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Average Number of Parents 2 131 3 1 26 1 10 13 3 11 26 6 3

Average Number of Hours 1 0.3 3 4 * 1 3 4 2 3 4 1 4

Project Implementation Over the life of the GEAR-UP grant, the implementation evaluation has been based on qualitative data collection in the form of focus groups with project staff, teachers, and parents at the Annapolis schools where GEAR-UP has been implemented. Implementation evaluation has focused on two main questions: • •

What factors have facilitated or inhibited full implementation of the grant with regard to the intent and purpose of the GEAR-UP program? How do GEAR-UP stakeholders perceive the program’s performance in serving them?

These questions will be the main focus for this section of the report. Each section will provide some background from implementation evaluation findings in previous years in order to contextualize the Year Six findings. Factors that Facilitated or Inhibited Full Implementation of the Grant Year Six was Annapolis GEAR-UP’s last year of funding. Evaluation reports from previous years documented the challenges that the project faced in finding and maintaining consistent, high quality leadership and staffing. Year Four established a new project team—consisting of the Project Director and Parent Involvement/Student Service Support staff person based at the Annapolis High School, a Project Coordinator and Parent Involvement Coordinator based at Annapolis Middle School. This team worked to bring the project together with specific strategies. They instituted project management procedures including weekly staff meetings, clear descriptions of roles, and effective relationships with the principals and staff of the schools

where they worked. This team established a vision for student achievement, a positive and supportive climate, and day-to-day procedures that ensured smooth project functioning. These policies enabled the team to complete the final year of GEAR-UP as a “mature service provider.” Integration of GEAR-UP into the whole school. The intent and purpose of the GEAR-UP program is to serve as a mechanism for promoting whole school reforms that increase the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds who participate in high level courses and prepare for post secondary education. Such a purpose can only be accomplished if GEAR-UP is incorporated into the fabric of the school and becomes part of the school’s overall culture and operations. Annapolis GEAR-UP has worked to integrate its services into the school in this fashion. Some of the specific factors that have supported this integration are •

A new superintendent came to Anne Arundel County during the implementation of the GEAR-UP project, bringing strong leadership in many goal areas that were similar to those of the GEAR-UP program (such as Algebra in the 8th grade). The Superintendent also showed a willingness to make changes in the way schools do business to support those goals. The project staff explicitly connected GEAR-UP goals to County goals and, thereby, were able to leverage their efforts with the initiatives the County as a whole was undertaking. It has proven more effective and efficient for federal GEAR-UP funds to supplement and build toward goals held in common with the County, rather than rely only on the leverage of the GEAR-UP program to make changes from the ground up.

•

In addition to aligning with County goals, GEAR-UP also aligned its services to goals in the middle school and high school improvement plans. GEAR-UP staff served as members of the school improvement teams in both the middle school and the high school, a key mechanism for integrating the project into the schools overall. As a member of the school improvement team, GEAR-UP personnel had the opportunity to bring student needs to the table for discussion, to participate in determining improvement strategies, and to contribute to conversations on resource allocation. Participation of GEAR-UP staff in school improvement teams promoted both effective use of GEAR-UP resources that benefited the whole school. Principal leadership was key to inclusion of GEAR-UP staff in the school improvement teams. The principal at the Middle School recognized the value of improvement planning and was skilled in its implementation. In Year Five, this principal went to the High School, which created continuity in school improvement planning at both schools.

•

In addition to goal setting, planning, and participation in resource allocation at the school level, integration of GEAR-UP into the whole school meant reaching ALL students. Under the Annapolis’ original proposal for GEAR-UP funds, there were approximately 25-30 students identified in each 6th grade class who were to receive intensive services as target students, and these intensive services were supplemented by activities that were available to all students. While target students were still identified and served, project activities were extended to a much broader range of students. In the words of teachers, “GEAR-UP does the students and the school a service…they don’t close their doors to anybody.”

GEAR-UP Project staff identified the extension of services as a break-through in the project implementation. It seems that artificially limiting services to “target” students had the unintended consequence of under-utilizing project resources. Opening services to all enrolled students resulted in all project activities operating at full capacity and greater visibility for project services throughout the whole school. The participating students shared the value of the GEAR-UP services and generated interest among the other students. Then, once students were accustomed to particular activities and forms of support, their expectations for continuing or increasing participation were raised. Through this mechanism, project staff reported that student participation in GEAR-UP was self-perpetuating and continued to grow over time. •

Similar to its emphasis on all enrolled students, the project also focused on parents of participating students through a variety of activities and services: workshops/speakers that brought parents into the school; mass mailings; inclusion of GEAR-UP-related articles in both school newspapers; dissemination of suggested “Talk About” topics related to classroom occurrences, study tips, or parenting tips that parents can use to engage their children in conversation; and phone calls to parents about their child’s achievement, attendance, or behavior.

Clarity of vision in what makes a difference in helping students. While Annapolis GEARUP accomplished integration of the program into the whole school, the program also established a clear understanding of what works in enabling disadvantaged students to prepare for college. This understanding is manifested in two ways: (1) services that provide on-going opportunities for students to prepare for college through exposure to academic settings; and (2) a climate in which the student is personally supported by one or more caring adults who set and enforce high expectations for the students. •

Opportunities for exposure, practice, and on-going support: Annapolis GEAR-UP pinpointed a small number of critical areas of knowledge/skill for college readiness (for example, taking Algebra early; taking AP courses; and understanding the process for selecting a college, applying for admission and applying for financial aid) and approached each area with preview and support activities. To illustrate, the summer Algebra Academy gave participating students a chance to preview material for the school year. The academy provides both bolstering of the math content foundations that will be needed to succeed in the course and gives the students the opportunity to interact with the material in a safe context. In the words of one middle school parent, “The Algebra Academy gave [my daughter] a fighting chance.” Once activities like the Algebra Academy served as a preview, the project followed up with additional support services are needed once the student is enrolled in the high level course or applying for college. On-going academic support was provided at the high school through the Homework Club, which met after school.

•

Importance of relationship with a caring adult. Beyond providing services to support academic achievement and build knowledge of college, Annapolis GEAR-UP staff

realized how important it is to understand and interact with the child from a human and developmental perspective. As staff interacted with students in specific project activities and talked with students about life situations they encountered at school and at home, they formed personal relationships with students. In a very significant way, GEAR-UP staff provided students with a trusted adult who they could talk to was accessible formally and/or informally. For example, one of the high school project staff talked about “being in the hallways” and how that gave students the opportunity for brief interactions that keep her abreast of what is going on with students and gives them opportunities to raise questions about project activities or other things that may be going on in school or at home. When particular issues came up in students’ experiences, project staff often found themselves playing a coaching role in which they helped students ‘think a situation through,’ ‘try to see it from the other person’s perspective,’ and brainstorm appropriate actions they could take. Finally, GEAR-UP staff supported and respected family relationships and endeavored for an atmosphere of partnership with parents. In taking a personal interest in students, they frequently found that they made phone calls to families on specific aspects of student achievement or behavior, thereby creating parent involvement in the child’s education and supporting families in their role in educating their children. Stakeholders’ Perceptions of GEAR-UP Performance Throughout the implementation of Annapolis GEAR-UP, parent and teacher focus groups have always revealed strong support and appreciation for the GEAR-UP project. For Year Six of GEAR-UP, the students became a particular area of interest, largely because the first cohort of students who entered the GEAR-UP program as sixth-graders were graduating from high school. Thus, the stakeholder perceptions for this evaluation are represented by GEAR-UP students are different grades and stages of the program. In interpreting these comments, project staff and other readers should bear in mind that focus group participants are not a random sample and that comments are representative of the individuals who made them, not all students. Also, considering that the GEAR-UP program is completing its final year in Annapolis, providing the perspective of someone who has overseen the implementation of the grant may give some important lessons for reflecting on the process. To collect this information, an interview was conducted with a district staff person who entered the district before the first year of the GEAR-UP grant and managed the reporting requirements for the grant. Students. Students participating in the focus groups generally understood that GEAR-UP was designed “to help students get into college.” •

One student commented that GEAR-UP “gives you what you need to be successful,” helping with developing good study habits and preparation for the PSAT test. However, some students mentioned that they did not have an understanding of GEAR-UP when they first entered the program.

Among the GEAR-UP activities that were made available to the students, the college tours were favored by the students as providing the greatest benefit. •

Some of the students mentioned that the college tours helped them to learn the study skills and preparation they needed to succeed in college. One student mentioned that the college tours encouraged her to “want to attend college” and helped her to determine how she could attend through locating the finances. She also stated that the tours helped her to decide on a potential career from talking to college students and reviewing the requirements for each major.

•

A few students also mentioned that the tutoring sessions were very helpful. The students felt that the tutoring assistance helped them to study and “get good grades.”

Another of the most valued activities was the guest speakers. Several of the students felt that the guest speakers were “really motivating.” •

The students said that the guest speakers spoke about their lives and experiences through interesting stories. One of the students expressed that “when you listen to the speakers and hear where they have come from, you think ‘I can do this.’ You can really see yourself in the speakers’ stories.”

All of the student focus group participants believed that they were “college material” at this stage of their education. However, all but one of the students believed they were college material before they participated in the GEAR-UP program. At least among this sample of students, the GEAR-UP program may have helped students to prepare for college but may not have reached the students who were less likely to attend college without the GEAR-UP experience. All of the students expressed that different teachers had different expectations of students. •

According to the students, teachers with high expectation do not just “leave you alone.” Teachers with high expectations often ask or call on students in class and require their participation in the lessons. Teachers with high expectations also check with students to see if the students are maintaining their coursework and “keeping up.” Finally, teachers with expectations provide new experiences for students to learn.

However, according to the students, some teachers did not exhibit high expectations for students, as evidenced by their behavior. •

Teachers with low expectations tended not to call on students in class or even make eye contact. Teachers with low expectations tended to focus on the students who exhibited (or were known to exhibit) behavior problems, sometimes even when those students were not “acting out.” The students suggested that students’ reputations mattered to teachers with low expectations.

One of the students emphasized that teachers have many pressures and expectations on them also, which she notices.

•

She stated that “teachers are tired from having to cover too much material in too little time to cover it.” She observed that it only takes about five students out of a class of 30 to disrupt the class for all of the students.

Most of the students in the focus group had taken higher-level courses, which are an important component of preparing students for college. •

Most of the students found the content in the upper-level courses to be less challenging than they expected. However, half of the students withdrew from the courses because of the workload. One of the students withdrew because she wanted to “enjoy her senior year” and prepare for college (college visits, applications, etc).

•

Two of the students mentioned that the tutoring program was really helpful for doing well in the higher-level courses.

Based upon their experiences with GEAR-UP, the students had definite ideas about what it takes to succeed in college. •

One student felt that students must “work to their strengths and set goals for themselves.” Most of the group agreed that students must be motivated and must “want to succeed.”

•

One sentiment shared by all of the focus group was that even students who are not considered “college material” can succeed if they are motivated. One of the students also emphasized that “you must have the right kind of people around you”, which referred to having friends who have the goal of going to college also.

In considering how the school district could support students in succeeding in college, the students had several suggestions. •

First, students suggested that the district should continue the Homework Club program, which provided tutoring in different courses. Also, different adults should provide tutoring, especially teachers and adults from other schools, since some of the students would prefer someone other than their classroom teachers.

•

Second, the students felt that programs like GEAR-UP must include staff who genuinely want to work with students. One student mentioned that one of the GEAR-UP staff was not supportive and seemed surprised when the student won an academic award in a district contest. The students could see a difference with the adults who really believed in the program.

•

Next, the students mentioned that the college visits were important because many students “need to travel and see the colleges they only heard about.” The group explained that when students visit the colleges and “see the environment, they can see themselves going to college there.”

The students had other suggestions to improving the GEAR-UP program. •

The students suggested that while more students need to be involved in the college visits, the district needs to screen the students to insure that there is a commitment to learn and gain something from the college visits.

•

The students also suggested that the district follow-up with students during their college careers. One student felt once she was in college, she might have questions or needs for which the district staff could provide assistance.

•

One member of the group suggested that the GEAR-UP program should involve students in coordinating the activities. Her statement was that “students get so much out of the GEAR-UP program, so they should give back.”

•

All of the students felt that the district should speak to parents more to get them more involved. Some of the participants expressed that their parents were unaware of “what is takes to get into college.” The students agreed that parents could help if they had more information.

•

Lastly, the 12th grade students mentioned that when they were introduced to the GEARUP program in 6th grade, they were simply told they had been chosen for a program. The group suggested that students be made aware of the purpose of GEAR-UP (or similar programs) when they are brought into the program.

All of the students expressed appreciation for the services they received from the GEAR-Up program. •

Several of the students mentioned the last GEAR-UP project director by name as very helpful and supportive with the application process for college.

•

Several of the students also expressed that GEAR-UP helped them when their parents were unable to. One of the students referred to the GEAR-UP program as “like having a parent who knows all about college.”

Principal Investigator. While the GEAR-UP program has seen several project directors who provided the school-level leadership, one individual has maintained oversight of GEAR-UP at the district level since the proposal-writing stage. This individual provides the long-term perspective of the GEAR-UP program from someone who has watched the program evolve. The insights from the management level provide some important lessons for establishing and sustaining similar services for students in the future. According to the Principal Investigator, during the implementation of GEAR-UP, the student population being served changed from a small group of about 25 “target students” with particular needs to include all students in Annapolis Middle and High School.

•

The program staff believed that expanding the participation to include all students did not affect the mission of GEAR-UP. On the contrary, the expansion to include all students helped to make the program a schoolwide initiative, which integrated with the schools’ mission and raised awareness for GEAR-UP.

•

The Principal Investigator believed that the level of student participation in GEAR-UP was consistent throughout the years, in that enrollment did not increase or decrease. However, the Principal Investigator was not satisfied with the overall level or number of students who were involved in GEAR-UP, feeling that more students should have been involved.

•

The GEAR-UP program provided students with a variety of services, including motivational speakers, field trips, college visits, academic tutoring, academic academies and service learning opportunities. The Principal Investigator felt that among all of the student needs the GEAR-UP programs were intended to address, the academic needs of students were most important.

The GEAR-UP grant represented the first competitive federal grant awarded to the Annapolis Public School system. •

The Principal Investigator believed that GEAR-UP program differed from other local and federal non-competitive grants in that the district was expected to manage the resources and insure effective implementation of the grant.

•

The expectations from the U.S. Department of Education created a different dynamic from other grants, which only required the management of the budget.

•

The changes in leadership at the district superintendent and principal levels also created additional challenges to managing the grant.

The Principal Investigator felt that one of the decisions that influenced the overall success of the GEAR-UP program was the choice to have the program managed through the Development Office at the district level. The learning curve for new federal applicants is tremendous. Developing a systemwide understanding of federal requirements and accountability requires time and much technical assistance. Due to changes in project management at the school level, as well as changes in federal program officers early in the project, AACPS upper management assigned the Chief Development Officer oversight duties (as Principal Investigator) of the GEAR-UP project. Further changes occurred with a new Superintendent and new principals. While the Chief Development Officer’s responsibilities provided continuity throughout the GEAR-UP project, there were also challenges. •

Ideally, the school-based project manager should maintain primary responsibility for managing the project. Doing so allows the manager to see the overall picture of the project and to anticipate future needs.

•

The Principal Investigator asserted that the Development Office’s primary role should be to provide technical assistance and training in grant project management in order to build the management team capacity.

•

The Development Office did not have direct supervision over the GEAR-UP project team and did not influence staff reviews or evaluations. Therefore, the Principal Investigator felt that the Development Office did not have the authority that was needed to insure implementation of GEAR-UP.

•

Much of the paperwork for GEAR-UP was processed at the district level, although it could have been managed at the school level. As a result, the Principal Investigator felt that the Development Office was often viewed by staff as an extension of school-based clerical support.

•

The schools had many people to report to, between the development office and the district-level director. One suggestion would have been to appoint a school-level director who managed the daily functions of the program and reported to one district-level director.

The GEAR-UP Project Director needed to have many different skills to be successful in providing oversight for the program. •

One of the particularly important skills is that the Project Director must be able to work with different stakeholders (central office, principals, teachers, partners). This diplomacy skill is key for maintaining consensus and support for the program.

According to the Principal Investigator, the system of communication for GEAR-UP activities worked well at the school level because of the active sharing of information among the staff. •

The communication with the community was also effective, due to the efforts of the GEAR-UP parent/community involvement coordinators.

•

However, the communication between the schools and the district was more difficult because of the need for an overall view and management of the GEAR-UP project at the Project Director level.

•

The Principal Investigator stated that the mission and activities of the GEAR-UP project must be effectively marketed at the district level to create better communication overall.

The Principal Investigator believed that one of the factors that was most vital to the overall success of GEAR-UP was the partner organizations. •

GEAR-UP partner organizations provided important services and activities that supported the mission of GEAR-UP.

•

The GEAR-UP program lost some partners over the years for various reasons. However, the Principal Investigator felt that the district should have been able to involve and sustain the GEAR-UP partners.

•

The challenge with partnerships was a public relations problem, as evidenced in the conflict in the expectations, roles and responsibilities of both the school system and the partners.

•

Not all of the stakeholders had a shared understanding of how the district, schools and partners would work together to implement GEAR-UP. A Memorandum of Understanding would have helped define the partnerships better and create a consensus on what was expected from partners.

•

Among the GEAR-UP staff, the focus was on how much money was being paid to partners instead of the quality of the services the partners were providing.

One effective partner was the University of Maryland at Baltimore County (UMBC), which provided a Saturday Academy, teacher training and other programs. While the partnership was initially effective in providing services, the partnership declined because of loss of staff at UMBC. Bowie State was another effective partnership, largely because of the long-term relationship between the university and the school personnel. •

The Principal Investigator emphasized that to be successful with partnerships, the district should work with organizations with which there is a long-term connection.

•

Also, as mentioned previously, it is important to have a shared understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each of the stakeholders.

Among the different activities for students, the Principal Investigator stated that supporting student achievement (such as the Algebra Academy, tutoring in the core courses, teaching study skills, etc.) and the college visits were considered the most effective activities. •

The students seemed to have the greatest needs in areas of improving their study skills and building expectations about going college.

•

One potential change to the services provided would be to start college visits with middle school students and their parents. The Principal Investigator believed that of the students and parents would benefit from raising their expectations much earlier in their schooling.

The Principal Investigator felt that the GEAR-UP program has had some impact for students who were involved as far as changing their expectations. However there has been minimal impact overall for all schools. •

Students who have been involved in GEAR-UP are more aware of their ability to get into college through the college trips and exposure to the college experience.

•

GEAR-UP has created a districtwide awareness of the need to identify students and move them towards college. People in the district have started talking about the need for students to go to college. Students’ academics and expectations have become more important. Now, going to college is expected for students in the district.

The Principal Investigator believed that the area of greatest improvement for GEAR-UP would be parent involvement, especially involving parents in hands-on programs (college visits, offering community college courses to improve job skills) and increasing the parents’ expectations for their children.. •

One of the challenges for involving parents concerns the issue of time, with many parents having to hold multiple jobs to support their families.

•

Informing parents and involving them in preparing their children for college must be established from the early grades, even before middle school. For example, the college application process can be mind-boggling; parents need assistance in this area to complete all the requirements to gain acceptance into a good college.

Summary. The students did not have an understanding of the purpose and function of the GEAR-UP program when they were initially enrolled but they developed an understanding as they participated. Overall, the students were very appreciative of the services and supports they relieved from GEAR-UP. The students valued the information on study skills and other preparation for college they received from the college visits. They also enjoyed the motivational quality of the guest speakers. The students noticed the teachers that had higher expectations for them and appreciated that quality. The students typically thought of themselves as ‘college material’ and believed they would be successful in college if they were motivated, set goals for themselves and worked towards their goals. Regarding how the district could improve GEAR-UP or similar programs, the students suggested that the college visits should continue. However, the students suggested that the students who attend the college visits should be screened or informed of the importance of taking advantage of the visits. The students also felt that the ‘Homework Club’ and other tutoring and academic support should be maintained. The students also emphasized the importance of having program staff who believe in the program and have high expectation of students. Students would like to see parents involved in GEAR-UP activities more, perhaps through activities to inform parents of how to help prepare their children for college. Finally, students recommended that students be more informed and involved about the purpose and activities in GEAR-UP. The Principal Investigator felt that the expansion of the GEAR-UP program beyond the ‘Target Group’ of students served to provide more services to the whole student body, which raised the awareness and commitment to GEAR-UP without diluting the effectiveness of the services.

GEAR-UP represented the first competitive federal-level grant the district had received, which raised the level of documentation and accountability and created some management challenges. While the communication between the school staff was effective, the level of communication between the schools and the district was more problematic. The issues with management and communication could be resolved with assigning one school-level Director to report to one district level Director. The Principal Investigator stated that the partnerships with the universities and other community organizations provide important services that supported the mission of GEAR-UP. While some of the partnerships were not sustained, the Principal Investigator felt that having previous relationships with partners and establishing roles and responsibilities would remedy the challenges with maintaining partnerships. Finally, the Principal Investigator believed that the GEAR-UP project has been effective in creating the expectation among student and staff that students can attend college. The district staff also understand the need to identify and support students in preparing them for college. One area in the which the district needs to progress is involving more parents in preparing their children for college. The district also needs to start preparing students for college before their middle school years.

Project Impact The third part of this section addresses the impact of the project. Impact is addressed in three main areas that underlie the intent and purpose of the project: • • •

impact on student achievement impact on student engagement in school impact on student preparation for college

This section identifies the project indicators (see Section II for Evaluation Design and Methods) that are appropriate to each of these three broad categories and then discusses findings for each indicator in turn. Two analyses methods were used: 1. Chi square tests based on crosstabulations of frequencies were calculated when indicators were measured with categorical data (i.e., frequencies of students with “yes” and “no” on an indicator, such as whether students took Algebra by the end of 8th grade). 2. F-tests based on analysis of variance were used with survey data. Survey data are expressed as mean scores on survey scales. Because survey data are on an interval scale (not categorical) and we are comparing means (not frequencies), analysis of variance is an appropriate technique for comparing groups of students. Both types of analyses were used in order to make the group comparisons that are the basis of the evaluation design. Within the 2004-05 school year, the following comparisons were made: (a) at the Annapolis Middle School and the Annapolis High School, Target Plus students were compared to Not Target Plus students, (b) at AMS and AHS, Target Plus students with FARM designation were compared to Not Target Plus students with FARM designation, and (c) all students at AMS were compared to all students at a similar middle school where GEAR-UP was not implemented. The reader should keep in mind the following when interpreting data presented in this section: •

•

Only comparisons that were statistically significant are reported. A p level of .05 or less is interpreted as evidence of statistical significance. A p level of .05 means that the difference found would have occurred by chance alone only 5 times out of 100. The smaller the p level, the more desirable (e.g., a p level of .001 would mean the difference would occur by chance alone one time in 1000). A statistically significant difference may be favorable or unfavorable to the project. For example, a finding that shows significantly more Target Plus students completing Algebra by the end of 8th grade would be a favorable finding. Conversely, a finding showing that significantly more Not Target Plus students took Algebra would be unfavorable. Significant differences that are favorable to the project are presented in tables; significant differences that are unfavorable to the project are presented in the text.

•

Statistical significance does not prove that the project caused the effect. Nor does it by itself predict that the effect is likely to be maintained in the future. Because statistical significance only established that chance only is unlikely to have been the cause of the difference, an argument must be made that the finding could reasonably be attributed to project activities.

Student achievement. High student achievement is foundational to Annapolis GEAR-UP and to AACPS goals. For example, GEAR-UP provides academic support starting in middle schools so students can participate in challenging courses and complete Algebra I by the end of 8th grade. Research has shown that Algebra is a gateway course to rigorous coursework at the high school level. Therefore, the project pays particular attention to math achievement. The project evaluation also looks at the full range of higher level courses available to students in middle school and high school (see Appendix C for complete, descriptive data on course completion). Annapolis GEAR-UP believes that not only must students enroll in advanced courses, but they should also complete those courses with a grade of B or better in order to be ready for college. Accordingly, the following student achievement indicators are addressed below: •

Number of students who participated in Pre-Algebra by the end of 8th grade Algebra by the end of 8th grade French or Spanish by the end of 8th grade Phase 3 or 4 courses in any Middle School grade (AMS only) Geometry by end of 10th grade Algebra II by end of 10th grade Chemistry by end of 10th grade Physics by end of 11th grade Advanced Placement by end of 12th grade Honors courses in any High School grade

•

Number of students who earned a B or better in Pre-Algebra by the end of 8th grade Algebra by the end of 8th grade French or Spanish by the end of 8th grade Phase 3 or 4 courses in any Middle School grade (AMS only)

As indicated above, comparisons are made between Target Plus and Not Target Plus students for all students at AMS and AHS and for students receiving free or reduced meals (FARM). Also, comparisons involving middle school indicators (except Phase 3 or 4 courses) are made between all AMS students and all students in the comparison middle school. The comparisons involving students in middle school yielded seven statistically significant differences, six of which favor the GEAR-UP project. A significantly higher percentage of 8th

grade Target Plus students had completed Pre-Algebra compared to Not Target Plus students (see Table 9). For Target Plus students in the 8th grade, 37 out of 40, or 92.5 percent had completed Pre-Algebra, compared to 114 out of 147 (77.6%) of Not Target Plus 8th grade students. Table 9: Number and Percentage of All AMS Students in 8th Grade Who Had Completed Pre-Algebra Completed Pre-Algebra? No Yes

Target Plus N % 3 7.5 37 92.5 Chi square p ≤ 0.033

Not Target Plus N % 33 22.4 114 77.6

Looking only at students receiving free or reduced meals (FARM), a higher percentage of 8th grade Target Plus students had achieved a grade of B or better in Spanish or French (see Table 10), a higher percentage of 6th grade Target Plus students earned a B or better in at least one Phase 3 or 4 course (see Table 11), and a higher percentage of 7th grade Target Plus students both completed and earned a B or better in at least one Phase 3 or 4 course (see Tables 12 and 13). Table 10: Number and Percentage of FARM AMS Students in 8th Grade Who Had Earned a B or Better in Spanish or French Earned B or A in Spanish or French? No Yes

Target Plus N % 15 65.2 8 34.8 Ch square p ≤ 0.050

Not Target Plus N % 50 84.7 9 15.3

Table 11: Number and Percentage of FARM AMS Students in 6th Grade Who Earned a B or Better in a Phase 3 or 4 Course Earned B or A in Phase 3/4 Course? No Yes

Target Plus N % 17 68.0 8 32.0 Ch square p ≤ 0.022

Not Target Plus N % 60 88.2 8 11.8

Table 12: Number and Percentage of FARM AMS Students in 7th Grade Who Completed a Phase 3 or 4 Course Completed a Phase 3/4 Course? No Yes

Target Plus N % 23 60.5 15 39.5 Ch square p ≤ 0.013

Not Target Plus N % 42 84.0 8 16.0

Table 13: Number and Percentage of FARM AMS Students in 7th Grade Who Earned a B or Better in a Phase 3 or 4 Course Earned B or A in Phase 3/4 Course? No Yes

Target Plus N % 27 71.1 11 28.9 Ch square p ≤ 0.010

Not Target Plus N % 46 92.0 4 8.0

The other two significant middle school results involved comparisons between AMS and the comparison middle school. A higher percentage of AMS 8th grade students had completed PreAlgebra than 8th grade students in the comparison middle school (see Table 14). Table 14: Number and Percentage of All AMS and Comparison School Students in 8th Grade Who Had Completed Pre-Algebra Completed Pre-Algebra? No Yes

AMS N % 36 19.3 151 80.7 Chi square p ≤ 0.000

Comparison School N % 78 37.3 131 62.7

On the other hand, 18.7 percent of 8th grade students in the comparison school had earned a B or better in Algebra I compared with 9.1 percent of AMS 8th graders. This was the only statistically significant comparison at the middle school level that did not favor the GEAR-UP project. Comparisons involving high school students yielded five statistically significant differences in student participation in challenging courses. There were two comparisons involving all 10th grade students that favored the Not Target Plus group: 23.8 percent had completed Algebra II versus 4.5 percent of the Target Plus group, and 41.3 percent completed at least one honors course compared to 25.0 percent of Target Plus students. When comparisons were made involving only FARM students, three significant differences favored 10th grade Target Plus students. Over half (55.6%) of these Target Plus students had completed Geometry compared to only 25.5 percent of Not Target Plus students (see Table 15). One-third of 10th grade FARM Target Plus students had completed Chemistry compared to 7.4 percent of the Not Target Plus group (see Table 16). Finally, 38.9 percent of the 10th grade

FARM Target Plus group completed at least one honors course compared to 9.6 percent of the Not Target Plus group (see Table 17). Table 15: Number and Percentage of FARM AHS Students in 10th Grade Who Had Completed Geometry Completed Geometry? No Yes

Target Plus N % 8 44.4 10 55.6 Chi square p ≤ 0.011

Not Target Plus N % 70 74.5 24 25.5

Table 16: Number and Percentage of FARM AHS Students in 10th Grade Who Had Completed Chemistry Completed Chemistry? No Yes

Target Plus N % 12 66.7 6 33.3 Chi square p ≤ 0.002

Not Target Plus N % 87 92.6 7 7.4

Table 17: Number and Percentage of FARM AHS Students in 10th Grade Who Completed an Honors Course Completed an Honors Course? No Yes

Target Plus N % 11 61.1 7 38.9 Chi square p ≤ 0.001

Not Target Plus N % 85 90.4 9 9.6

In summary, the seven comparisons involving middle school students that showed significant differences between Target Plus and Not Target Plus students favored the Target Plus groups with one exception. The significant comparisons involving high school students all occurred in the 10th grade. The two comparisons based on all students favored the Not Target Plus group. The three comparisons based on FARM students favored the Target Plus group. Based on these few significant comparisons, substantial participation in GEAR-UP project activities appears associated with more challenging course completions in Pre-Algebra, but not Algebra, and in the 10th grade for students receiving free or reduced meal assistance. Student engagement in school. In 2004-05, Annapolis GEAR-UP used indicators of attendance, suspensions, and discipline referrals as global measures that students value school and hold high academic expectations. Students who believe school is important attend regularly and are cooperative, and these behaviors can be considered indicative of students’ belief that school offers important opportunities to them. Also, Annapolis GEAR-UP used indicators of student attitudes toward school and their own abilities, efficacy, and effort to measure student engagement in school.

The following project indicators are addressed in this category: • • • •

Students attend school regularly (≥ 94%). Students are not suspended or the recipients of disciplinary actions. Students have positive attitudes toward school. Students have positive attitudes regarding their own academic abilities, efficacy, and effort.

Students Attend School Regularly Analysis of attendance data uncovered four statistically significant differences that are favorable to the project (see Tables 18-21). When the analyses were based on all students, the percentage of Target Plus students meeting the attendance criterion of 94 percent was significantly higher in 8th and 11th grade. For analyses based on FARM students, the Target Plus students did better in 9th and 11th grade. There were no unfavorable statistically significant differences found for attendance. Table 18: Number and Percentage of All AMS Students in 8th Grade with an Attendance Level of At Least 94 Percent Met Attendance Level of 94 Percent? No Yes

Target Plus N % 12 30.0 28 70.0 Chi square p ≤ 0.015

Not Target Plus N % 76 51.7 71 48.3

Table 19: Number and Percentage of All AHS Students in 11th Grade with an Attendance Level of At Least 94 Percent Met Attendance Level of 94 Percent? No Yes

Target Plus N % 3 14.3 18 85.7 Chi square p ≤ 0.000

Not Target Plus N % 177 55.8 140 44.2

Table 20: Number and Percentage of FARM AHS Students in 9th Grade with an Attendance Level of At Least 94 Percent Met Attendance Level of 94 Percent? No Yes

Target Plus N % 8 42.1 11 57.9 Chi square p ≤ 0.016

Not Target Plus N % 115 69.7 50 30.3

Table 21: Number and Percentage of FARM AHS Students in 11th Grade with an Attendance Level of At Least 94 Percent Met Attendance Level of 94 Percent? No Yes

Target Plus N % 1 16.7 5 83.3 Chi square p ≤ 0.004

Not Target Plus N % 37 74.0 13 26.0

Students Are Not Suspended or the Recipients of Disciplinary Actions There were three comparisons of student suspensions that were statistically significant and all favored the Not Target Plus group. The Not Target Plus group had significantly lower percentages of students with at least one suspension in 7th, 9th, and 10th grade. The comparisons of disciplinary referrals were consistently unfavorable for the project when looking at all students. The Target Plus group had significantly higher percentages of students with at least one referral in grades 7 through 11. In those five grades, between two-thirds and three-fourths of the Target Plus group had at least one disciplinary referral, compared to slightly less than one-half of the Not Target Plus group. There was one more unfavorable comparison regarding disciplinary referrals. When all AMS students were compared with the comparison middle school students, there was a significant difference for 8th grade students. The comparison school group had 38.8 percent of 8th grade students with at least one referral, versus 52.9 percent for AMS. In interpreting suspension and discipline data, the reader should take into consideration that the project school and the comparison school may have different policies on taking disciplinary actions, and that findings are difficult to interpret without this information. For example, in the negative findings above, AMS may have a stricter policy about taking disciplinary actions (and hence a higher percentage of students with at least one disciplinary action) than the comparison school. In other words, the fact that there is a greater percentage of AMS students with one or more discipline referrals cannot by itself be interpreted as evidence that AMS students are not as well disciplined as comparison school students. Students Have Positive Attitudes about School and Their Performance in School While attendance and suspension data provide some evidence that project students are engaged in school, student attitudes toward school are measured more directly by the project surveys. Two scales from the student survey were designed to measure students’ attitudes toward school and their attitudes regarding their own academic abilities, efficacy, and effort. Analysis of variance was used to make comparisons between Target Plus and Not Target Plus students and between FARM and Non-FARM students on these two scales. Significant differences were not found on either scale.

Student preparation for college. The following project indicators address student preparation for college: • • •

Students have knowledge about/plans for the student’s attending college. Students perceive that the school has helped prepare the student for college. Students have positive attitudes about the student’s attending college.

These indicators are also based directly on scales constructed from the student survey. The results of analyzing differences on the student survey scales yielded no significant differences between Target Plus and Not Target Plus, between FARM and Non-FARM students, or for the interaction of these two factors. Summary Annapolis GEAR-UP has a number of positive impact findings that it should be proud of for the 2004-05 year, especially in the area of student achievement. Substantial participation in the GEAR-UP project is associated with more students’ completing Pre-Algebra and, for students receiving free or reduced meals assistance, more students’ completing Geometry, Chemistry, and Honors courses. The results for student engagement in school presented a mixed picture. Students participating substantially in GEAR-UP activities were more likely to achieve the attendance goal of 94 percent. On the other hand, they were more likely to receive suspensions and disciplinary referrals.

Section IV: Conclusions and Recommendations Taken as a whole, all project data indicate that Annapolis GEAR-UP did well during its sixth and final year. Of particular interest is the extent to which project personnel have integrated GEARUP services and activities into the whole school through participation in school improvement planning and implementation of improvement strategies. Perceptions of teachers at the schools indicate that project staff are highly visible and generally regarded as helpful, caring, and a source of good ideas and positive attitudes. •

Academic Achievement: Although not as extensive as in Year Five, the project showed good performance in quantitative analyses of academic achievement in Year Six. There continued to be significant differences favoring the project for taking Pre-Algebra by 8th grade. There were also significant findings favoring the project for students receiving free or reduced meals assistance. At the middle school, project students were more likely to complete Phase 3 and 4 courses and to earn high grades in these courses, as well as in French or Spanish. At the high school, students were more likely to complete Geometry, Chemistry, and honors courses.

•

School engagement: Quantitative analysis showed positive findings in attendance. At grades 8 and 11, there was a difference favoring the project between all Target Plus students and all Not Target Plus students meeting an attendance rate of at least 94%. Additionally, this finding held in grades 9 and 11 when comparing FARM Target Plus and Not Target Plus students. A modest interpretation of these data, combined with student perceptions, is that Annapolis GEAR-UP students are in school and believe that education has something to offer for their futures.

•

College preparation: College preparation has been an ongoing strength of the project. The student focus group data supported the premise that the project has provided a number of high quality services related to getting ready for college that might be reasonably assumed to get results.

Consistent with previous year findings, qualitative data revealed very positive perceptions on the part of students and project management about the project and the project staff. Overall, the students appreciated the services they received through GEAR-UP. Among the activities, the students preferred the college visits and guest speakers, as well as the tutoring services. The students valued teachers and project staff who had high expectations for all students. As in previous years’ focus groups with teachers and parents, there was a strong message from the students that the personal attention and caring provided by project staff is a key factor in the project’s success. The students also recommended that parents be more involved in the GEARUP activities and preparing students for college. The Principal Investigator believed that the expansion of GEAR-UP services beyond the 25 Target students in each grade created schoolwide interest and support without diluting the impact of the services. The GEAR-UP grant presented some management challenges that required leadership at the school and district level. The partnerships provided vital services for students but were not always sustained. The GEAR-UP program has established the idea that students can

attend college if they are provided with academic and social supports. However, there is a need to get parents more involved in helping students prepare for college.

Appendices

Appendix A: Interview and Focus Group Protocols

Appendix A: Interview and Focus Group Protocols

Annapolis GEAR-UP Year Six Student Focus Group Protocol I. Icebreaking: Participant introductions: Name, grade, how long in GEAR-UP. GEAR-UP activities in the 2004-05 year • • II.

What is GEAR-UP? What is its purpose? How was it explained or presented to you? Describe the GEAR-UP activities you’ve been involved with this school year. Which of those activities were most meaningful for you? Why? Program Benefits

• • •

• • •

III.

How do feel about going to college? Do you think of yourself as “college material”? Why or why not? Did you feel that way when you entered the GEARUP program? Do your teachers treat you like “college material”? What did your teachers do to show you what they thought about your college potential? What do your parents think about your college potential? What does it mean to be academically prepared for college? Do you feel you are academically prepared to succeed in college (study habits, grades)? What are your grades/study habits like now compared to when you entered the GEARUP program? Do you feel you have made the other preparations to attend college (admissions, finances, etc.)? Probe HS students on what they know about the admissions process and financial aid for their institution of choice. Have you decided on a career? Do you feel you have been prepared to pursue that career? Probe for details with the HS students on what kind of courses they have taken. How has being a GEAR-UP student helped you? Probe from the list of activities in section I, asking for a more detailed description and probing on how the service helped the students in terms of academics, setting high expectations or learning about college/career. Participant Needs and Suggestions for Project Improvement

• • • •

As you look back on your experiences with GEARUP, what is the key for students to succeed in college? How can the school and district help other students to succeed in the future? Which of your GEARUP experiences provided with the most benefit? What would you change about your experiences with GEARUP?

IV. Closure • Any last thoughts on your experience with GEARUP? • Is there anything we haven’t talked about?

Appendix A: Interview and Focus Group Protocols

Annapolis GEAR-UP Year Six Principal Investigator Interview Protocol Introduction The purpose of this interview is to gather information on your experiences in managing the GEAR-UP program for Annapolis Public Schools. Your perspective will provide important insights in considering the implementation and impact of GEAR-UP over the past several years. Your experience is particularly important for sustaining the mission to prepare students for college after GEAR-UP. Impact of GEAR-UP Overall, how effective do you think GEAR-UP has been for students regarding their performance in middle and high school? Aspirations to attend college? Enrollment in college? What was the greatest accomplishment of GEAR-UP? What was the area for greatest improvement for GEAR-UP? The Students The program has changed regarding the students who are provided with GEAR-UP services. How have the changes affected the mission of GEAR-UP? How were the students being served in the later years similar or different in their needs? Describe the participation level students and parents in the GEAR-UP. Are you satisfied? What could have been done differently to increase participation? What student needs were most important to address with GEAR-UP services? How effective was the program in meeting those needs? Partnerships Describe the relationships with the partner organizations. What were the characteristics of effective partners? What would you have done differently concerning the partners? Which services provided by the partners were most effective? What would you change about the services provided by GEAR-UP? Project Management What lessons have you learned about managing the GEAR-UP program? How do your experiences with managing GEAR-UP compare to other federal and state programs? What was the managing structure for GEAR-UP? In other words, who was involved in implementing the GEAR-UP program at the central office and at the schools? How has the managing structure been effective? What challenges have you faced with the management of GEAR-UP? What was the system for communicating with principals and teachers about GEAR-UP? Was the communication system effective? What were the challenges?

Appendix A: Interview and Focus Group Protocols

Sustaining the Effort What are your plans for sustaining the effort to prepare students for college? Which of the GEAR-UP activities would you like to sustain? Why?

Appendix B: Student Survey Instrument

Appendix B: Student Survey Instrument

Annapolis GEAR-UP Student Survey Description The GEAR-UP Student Survey measures students’ self-reported perceptions and attitudes in five important topic areas (scales), which were established through tests of internal reliability. The GEAR-UP program is designed to improve participant attitudes and perceptions in the short term in order to ultimately achieve the long-term goal of boosting participants’ likelihood of attending college. The student survey is designed to be sensitive to the level of changes in attitudes and perceptions that the program might reasonably be expected to achieve. The survey items were chosen to be meaningful to students in the targeted grades. Moreover, the topics are meaningful for non-participants as well as participants, in order that the evaluation can compare the groups’ relative changes in responding over time. The GEAR-UP Student Survey was constructed by (a) adopting the most pertinent items from several existing surveys (the Student Aspirations Survey, the Attitudes Toward College Inventory, and the Student Attitude Survey), and (b) creating additional items to address topics not addressed by the existing surveys. Students complete the survey by indicating how much they agree with the statement in each item. The following five-point response scale is used: A Strongly Agree

B Agree

C Not Sure

D Disagree

E Strongly Disagree

Students respond by filling in a “bubble sheet.” The bubble sheet is a standard form often used by the school system. The form is familiar to students and scanning is performed by the District. The Student Survey was first administered in September 2000. It was re-administered in Spring 2001 and has been given in the Spring of each subsequent project year. The survey is administered during the advisory period in the school day. Teachers are provided a standard set of directions to read, including examples of responding to items on a Likert Scale. After collecting the surveys, teachers give them to the GEAR-UP Project Director, who gives them to the AACPS Director of Research for scanning. The database resulting from scanning is provided to the Project Evaluator along with the surveys (in order to carry out analysis of open-ended items). Some items are worded such that strong agreement is the desired response; for other items, strong disagreement is the desired response. This minimizes the likelihood of students simply using either end of the scale. For ease of interpretation and analysis, negatively worded items and computed factor scores were reverse-scored (e.g., changing 1 to 5) so higher scores translate into higher agreement. Psychometric analyses (i.e., tests of internal reliability) were performed to verify that the items that are intended to form scales do in fact “hang together.” Statistical analyses are then performed to compare the changes in responses from GEAR-UP participants and non-participants in various grades and schools. These analyses will include factors such as age, gender, and race to see if the program is differentially effective for various groups. The student survey is one of our most promising measures of the impact of the GEAR-UP program.

Appendix B: Student Survey Instrument

GEAR-UP Student Survey Items 1. I am better at things I do outside of school than things inside of school. 2. I don’t know how my family would be able to pay for college. 3. A student my age should choose a career then plan how to enter it. 4. I would rather work when I finish high school instead of going to college. 5. Going to college classes every day would be boring. 6. My teachers would be surprised if I did my homework or got a good grade. 7. Most of the things I learn in school are important to my future. 8. I know I can get a good grade on an assignment if I put my mind to it. 9. I have little or no idea of what college life would be like. 10. I don’t know whether or not I’ll have to go to college to get the job I want. 11. I’ve talked about going to college, but deep down I don’t think I’ll go. 12. I believe the classes I’ve taken in school have given me a good foundation for going to college. 13. I enjoy most of the things I do in school. 14. School causes a lot of stress for me. 15. Most of the jobs I’ve thought of require a college education. 16. My teachers don’t expect me to go to college. 17. I believe that my school has done a good job of getting me ready for college. 18. Having a tutor or mentor usually doesn’t make any difference. 19. It’s okay to miss school if I just don’t feel like going. 20. My teachers would probably say I am a good student. 21. I don’t know how to fill out a college admissions application. 22. I only do what is required in my classes—never more. 23. If I went to college, I think I would feel accepted there. 24. I don’t seem to succeed in school no matter what I do. 25. I’ve really benefited from school programs that help me get ready for college. 26. I am very disciplined and push myself to do well in school. 27. I’m not going to worry about choosing a career until I’m out of school. 28. I know the kinds of classes I need to take to be ready for college. 29. I know what kind of work would fit my personality and abilities. 30. Getting a college degree is a good thing for me to do. 31. I usually feel tired and bored at school. 32. My family would be disappointed in me if I didn’t go to college. 33. A college education is necessary for success in today’s world. 34. I can think of several useful things the school guidance counselors have done to help me prepare for college. 35. I can name several kinds of financial assistance that I could apply for to go to college. 36. I’m more likely to get the kind of job I want with a college education. 37. When I’m at school, time seems to fly by. 38. I don’t know what classes I should take in school to prepare for careers that interest me. 39. I’m almost sure/certain that I will go to college. 40. The school guidance counselors treat me like they think I could make it in college.

Appendix B: Student Survey Instrument

Open-ended questions: 1. Name one career you are interested in right now. 2. What do you need to do in middle school and high school to get ready for this career? 3. What education will you need after high school for this career?

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

YEAR 6 INDICATOR 1: Students completed and earned good grades in challenging courses. Indicator 1a-1:

Percentage of students who completed Pre-Algebra by the end of 8th grade.

GROUP AMS All 8th Grade FARM 8th Target 8th Target Plus 8th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Comparison MS All 8th Grade % N Total N FARM 8th % N Total N

’98 - ‘99

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

38.0 62 163 31.3 25 80

46.3 76 164 46.9 38 81

68.7 101 147 47.1 24 51 63.0 17 27

28.4 46 162 5.6 4 71 17.9 5 28

12.9 26 201 4.3 4 93 10.7 3 28 7.5 7 93

76.5 137 179 77.5 62 80 90.0 18 20 90.4 47 52

80.7 151 187 79.3 65 82 88.9 16 18 92.5 37 40

19.6 41 209 4.8 3 63

15.3 31 202 3.0 2 66

56.9 136 239 57.1 52 91

62.7 131 209 67.0 73 109

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1a-2: Percentage of students who earned a grade of B or better in PreAlgebra by the end of 8th grade. GROUP ’98 - ‘99 AMS All 8th Grade FARM 8th Target 8th Target Plus 8th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Comparison MS All 8th Grade % N Total N FARM 8th % N Total N

19.0 31 163 12.5 10 80

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

14.6 24 164 4.9 4 81

36.7 54 147 7.8 4 51 25.9 7 27

22.8 37 162 2.8 2 71 17.9 5 28

10.9 22 201 3.2 3 93 7.1 2 28 4.3 4 93

31.8 57 179 25.8 8 31 30.0 6 20 28.8 15 52

21.9 41 187 13.4 11 82 16.7 3 18 17.5 7 40

15.8 33 209 3.2 2 63

13.9 28 202 1.5 1 66

17.7 42 237 16.7 16 96

29.3 70 239 25.3 23 91

27.8 58 209 24.8 27 109

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1b-1: Percentage of students who completed Algebra I by the end of 8th grade. GROUP

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

17.8 29 163 1.3 1 80

17.7 29 164 2.5 2 81

27.2 40 147 3.9 2 51 18.5 5 27

25.3 41 162 5.6 4 71 17.9 5 28

16.9 34 201 2.2 2 93 3.6 1 28 11.8 11 93

23.5 42 179 6.3 5 80 10.0 2 20 11.5 6 52

21.9 41 187 6.1 5 82 11.1 2 18 15.0 6 40

26.0 51 196 3.4 2 59

26.0 50 190 2.9 2 69

29.7 62 209 4.8 3 63

23.8 48 202 4.5 3 66

17.3 41 237 2.1 2 96

27.1 65 239 7.7 7 91

26.3 55 209 9.2 10 109

’98 - ‘99 AMS All 8th Grade FARM 8th Target 8th Target Plus 8th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Comparison MS All 8th Grade % N Total N FARM 8th % N Total N

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1b-2: Percentage of students who earned a grade of B or better in Algebra I by the end of 8th grade. GROUP

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

12.3 20 163 1.3 1 80

10.4 17 164

12.9 19 147 2.0 1 51 3.7 1 27

18.4 36 196 0 0 59

15.1 29 192 0 0 71

14.8 31 209 1.6 1 63

’98 - ‘99 AMS All 8th Grade FARM 8th Target 8th Target Plus 8th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Comparison MS All 8th Grade % N Total N FARM 8th % N Total N

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

7.4 12 162 1.4 1 71

9.5 19 201 1.1 1 93 3.6 1 28 9.7 9 93

15.1 27 179 2.5 2 80 5.0 1 20 5.8 3 52

9.1 17 187 2.4 2 82 5.6 1 18 2.5 1 40

9.9 20 202 1.5 1 66

10.1 24 237 1.0 1 96

16.7 40 239 5.5 5 91

18.7 39 209 6.4 7 109

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1c-1: Percentage of students who completed Spanish OR French by the end of 8th grade. GROUP AMS All 8th Grade FARM 8th Target 8th Target Plus 8th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Comparison MS All 8th Grade % N Total N FARM 8th % N Total N

’98 - ‘99

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

24.5 40 163 10.0 8 80

39.6 65 164 14.8 12 81

40 79 196 17 10 59

40.1 77 192 15.9 11 69

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

38.8 57 147 13.7 7 51 48.1 13 27

38.9 63 162 22.5 16 71 39.3 11 28

45.8 92 201 23.7 22 93 53.4 15 28 49.5 46 93

43.6 78 179 28.8 23 80 50.0 10 20 38.5 20 52

50.3 94 187 32.9 27 82 50.0 9 18 50.0 20 40

35.4 74 209 11.1 7 63

22.2 55 202 13.6 9 66

40.1 95 237 18.8 18 96

54.0 129 239 33.0 30 91

46.9 98 209 34.9 38 109

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1c-2: Percentage of students who earned a grade of B or better in Spanish OR French by the end of 8th grade. GROUP

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

14.1 23 163 2.5 2 80

18.3 30 164 1.2 1 81

20.4 30 147 5.9 3 51 22.2 6 27

19.1 31 162 9.9 7 71 7.1 2 28

23.9 48 201 9.7 9 93 17.9 5 28 21.5 20 93

29.1 52 179 8.8 7 80 20.0 4 20 21.2 11 52

39.0 73 187 20.7 17 82 44.4 8 18 40.0 16 40

23 46 196 3 2 59

23.4 45 192 4.3 3 69

20.6 43 209 1.6 1 63

8.9 18 202 3.0 2 66

19.8 47 237 3.1 3 96

31.0 74 239 15.4 14 91

42.6 89 209 30.3 33 109

’98 - ‘99 AMS All 8th Grade FARM 8th Target 8th Target Plus 8th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Comparison MS All 8th Grade % N Total N FARM 8th % N Total N

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1d-1: Percentage of students in each MS grade who completed at least one Phase 3-4 course. GROUP ’98 - ‘99 AMS All 6th Grade FARM 6th Target 6th Target Plus 6th All 7th Grade FARM 7th Target 7th Target Plus 7th All 8th Grade FARM 8th Target 8th Target Plus 8th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

51.5 87 169 30.5 29 95 65.2 15 23

52.9 99 187 27.7 23 83 55.9 19 34

53 96 181 29.3 27 92 54 14 26

54.3 82 151 30.5 18 59 62.1 18 29

58.2 92 158 35.6 26 73 61.5 16 26

56 99 177 41 31 76 73.3 22 30

50.9 81 159 27.8 22 79

55.6 80 144 28.6 14 49 63.0 17 27

65.4 106 162 45 32 71 71.4 20 28

45.0 91 202 20.8 21 101 31.2 10 32 24.6 16 65 56.6 107 189 36.7 33 90 66.7 14 21 58.8 60 102 69.2 139 201 52.7 49 93 82.1 23 28 72.0 67 93

46.7 93 199 25.7 26 101 43.3 13 30 47.9 23 48 52.4 98 187 24.1 21 87 42.3 11 26 54.8 23 42 70.4 126 179 52.5 42 80 80.0 16 20 84.6 44 52

40.6 69 170 26.9 25 93 51.6 16 31 45.0 18 40 49.5 96 194 26.1 23 88 48.1 13 27 41.2 21 51 53.5 100 187 24.4 20 82 33.3 6 18 50.0 20 40

NOTE: The comparison MS does not use the phase designation system.

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1d-2: Percentage of students in each MS grade who earned a grade of B or better in at least one phase 3-4 course. GROUP

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N %

47.3 80 169 24.2 23 95 60.9 14 23

32.1 60 187 12.0 10 83 35.3 12 34

44.2 80 181 20.6 19 92 42.3 11 26

43.7 66 151 18.6 11 59 51.7

21.5 34 158 8.2 6 73 11.5

53.1 94 177 38.2 29 76 73.3

33.7 68 202 9.9 10 101 9.4 3 32 10.8 7 65 41.3 78 189 18.9 17 90 47.6

42.7 85 199 23.8 24 101 40.0 12 30 43.8 21 48 29.9 56 187 5.7 5 87 7.7

30.0 51 170 17.2 16 93 41.9 13 31 35.0 14 40 36.6 71 194 17.0 15 88 37.0

N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

15 29

3 26

22 30

42.8 68 159 13.9 11 79

34.7 50 144 6.1 3 49 33.3 9 27

59.3 96 162 39.4 28 71 68 19 28

10 21 41.2 42 102 50.0 101 202 32.3 30 93 57.1 16 28 53.8 50 93

2 26 19.0 8 42 40.2 72 179 18.8 15 80 25.0 5 20 32.7 17 52

10 27 29.4 15 51 37.4 70 187 14.6 12 82 27.8 5 18 35.0 14 40

’98 - ‘99 AMS All 6th Grade FARM 6th Target 6th Target Plus 6th

All 7th Grade FARM 7th Target 7th

Target Plus 7th All 8th Grade FARM 8th Target 8th Target Plus 8th

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1e: Percentage of students who completed Geometry by the end of 10th grade. GROUP All 10th Grade

AMS Feeder 10th Comparison MS Feeder 10th FARM 10th

Target 10th

Target Plus 10th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 28.0 92 328 29.4 48 163 28.6 36 126 17.5 7 40

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 46.0 186 404 48.8 83 170 49.4 84 170 19.6 11 56

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 48.4 187 386 50.8 64 126 47.7 84 176 25.6 10 39

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 51.1 201 393 43.5 57 131 55.7 88 158 23.3 10

43

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 40.0 205 513 32.0 49 153 43.0 74 172 10.2 5 49 34.8 8 23 40.0 10 25

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 38.0 158 416 45.5 50 110 37.7 57 151 7.1 6 84 31.6 6 19 28.0 7 25

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 47.2 225 447 48.4 74 153 53.1 86 162 30.4 34 112 37.9 11 29 45.5 20 44

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1f: Percentage of students who completed Algebra II by the end of 10th grade. GROUP All 10th Grade

AMS Feeder 10th Comparison MS Feeder 10th FARM 10th Target 10th

Target Plus 10th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 24.4 80 328 19.0 31 163 34.1 43 126 5.0 2 40

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 19.3 78 404 22.9 39 170 18.8 32 170 3.6 2 56

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 22.8 88 386 18.3 23 126 27.8 49 176 2.6 1 39

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 23.9 94 393 17.6 23 131 27.2 43 158 4.7 2 43

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 22.2 114 513 15.0 23 153 28.5 49 172 2.0 1 49 13.0 3 23 16.0 4 25

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 16.6 69 416 18.2 20 110 18.5 28 151 0.0 0 84 15.8 3 19 12.0 3 25

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 22.0 105 447 15.7 24 153 21.0 34 162 2.7 3 112 0.0 0 29 4.5 2 44

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1g: Percentage of students who completed Chemistry by the end of 10th grade. GROUP All 10th Grade

AMS Feeder 10th Comparison MS Feeder 10th FARM 10th

Target 10th

Target Plus 10th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 50.0 164 328 46.0 75 163 62.7 79 126 22.5 9 40

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 45.5 184 404 49.4 84 170 46.5 79 170 17.9 10 56

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 45.6 176 386 48.4 61 126 47.7 84 176 17.9 7 39

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 45.0 177 393 44.3 58 131 46.8 74 158 16.3 7 43

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 35.9 184 513 28.8 44 153 40.1 69 172 4.1 2 49 30.4 7 23 36.0 9 25

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 34.6 144 416 40.0 44 110 36.4 55 151 1.2 1 84 31.6 6 19 24.0 6 25

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 34.4 164 447 29.4 45 153 36.4 59 162 11.6 13 112 20.7 6 29 25.0 11 44

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1h: Percentage of students who completed Physics by the end of 11th grade. GROUP All 11th Grade

AMS Feeder 11th Comparison MS Feeder 11th FARM 11th

Target 11th

Target Plus 11th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 21.1 68 323 21.9 32 146 23.1 33 143 3.8 1 26

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 21.4 70 327 17.9 28 156 30.8 37 120 8.1 3 37

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 19.3 60 311 22.2 26 117 19.4 26 134 4.8 1 21

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 22.9 78 341 26.5 27 102 24.5 35 143 9.7 3 31

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 15.3 58 379 21.5 23 107 16.4 24 146 0.0 0 21

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 15.5 68 439 19.6 20 102 17.6 23 131 3.0 2 67 28.6 6 21 24.2 8 33

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 20.7 70 338 21.7 20 92 22.3 27 121 3.6 2 56 30.8 4 13 23.8 5 21

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1i: Percentage of students who completed an AP course by the end of 12th grade. GROUP All 12th Grade

AMS Feeder 12th Comparison MS Feeder 12th FARM 12th

Target 12th

Target Plus 12th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 29.7 73 246 26.7 28 105 35.8 43 124 9.5 2 21

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 25.6 91 355 20.3 31 153 34.2 52 152 3.2 1 31

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 33.5 114 340 26.4 43 163 45.3 58 128

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 35.0 107 306 32.4 35 108 37.8 48 127 5.3 1 19

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 33.3 118 354 34.8 31 89 43.2 57 132 16.7 2 12

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 40.1 143 357

14.3 6 42

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 45.1 173 384 39.5 34 86 47.5 57 120 5.6 2 36 35.0 7 20 33.3 7 21

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1j: Percentage of students in each HS grade who completed at least one honors course. GROUP All 9th Grade

AMS Feeder 9th Comparison MS Feeder 9th FARM 9th

Target 9th Target Plus 9th All 10th Grade

AMS Feeder 10th Comparison MS Feeder 10th FARM 10th Target 10th

Target Plus 10th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 29.9 138 461 29.0 60 207 36.4 75 206 7.9 6 76

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 24.9 120 461 21.9 37 169 27.6 59 214 3.4 5 148

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 31.7 147 463 24.8 35 141 39.2 69 176 6.8 5 74

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 32.5 166 511 25 42 166 30 57 193 2 1 51 20.0 5 25

42.4

36.4

39.4

36

139 328 36.8 60 163 52.4 66 126 15.0 6 40

147 404 36.7 62 169 40.0 68 170 16.1 9 56

152 386 36.0 45 125 40.0 70 175 12.8 5 39

140 393 27 35 131 42.4 67 158 11.6 5 43

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 25.4 123 485 24.8 39 157 21.7 38 175 2.0 2 102 14.3 4 28 9.7 6 62 30.4

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 24.9 146 586 18.8 35 186 24.4 51 209 4.1 8 193 6.3 2 32 7.5 4 53 29.6

156 513 19.6 30 153 33.7 58 172 2.0 1 49 13.0 3 23 12.0 50 93

123 416 30.9 34 110 27.2 41 151 1.2 1 84 21.1 4 19 16.0 17 52

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 30.0 170 566 26.8 45 168 29.7 63 212 2.7 5 184 9.1 2 22 17.4 8 46 39.8 190 477 32.7 50 153 44.4 72 162 14.3 16 112 17.2 5 29 25.0 11 44

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 1j: Percentage of students in each HS grade who completed at least one honors course (CONTINUED). GROUP All 11th Grade

AMS Feeder 11th Comparison MS Feeder 11th FARM 11th

Target 11th

Target Plus 11th All 12th Grade

AMS Feeder 12th Comparison MS Feeder 12th FARM 12th Target 12th

Target Plus 12th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 39.9 129 323 37.7 55 146 45.5 65 143 3.8 1 26

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 48.3 158 327 40.4 63 156 62.5 75 120 13.5 5 37

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 47.9 149 311 39.1 45 115 54.9 73 133 14.7 3 21

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 47.2 161 341 42.1 43 102 46.8 67 143 9.6 3 31

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 36.9 140 379 29.0 31 107 40.4 59 146 0.0 0 21

22.8

27.3

22.1

46.4

16.1

56 246 18.1 19 105 29.2 35 120 0.0 0 21

97 355 26.1 40 153 28.3 43 152 16.1 5 31

75 340 19.1 31 162 74.2 31 128 0.0 0 7

142 306 40.7 44 108 55.1 70 127 15.8 3 19

57 354 11.2 10 89 19.7 26 132 0.0 0 12

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 42.4 186 439 37.3 38 102 48.1 63 131 16.4 11 67 28.6 6 21 33.3 11 33 23.2

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 42.6 144 388 45.7 42 92 40.5 49 121 8.9 5 56 38.5 5 13 33.3 7 21 23.4

83 357

90 384 24.4 21 86 25.8 31 120 11.1 4 36 35.0 7 20 33.3 7 21

9.5 4 42

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

INDICATOR 2: Students take the SAT. Indicator 2a: Percentage of students who took the SAT by the end of 12th grade. GROUP All 12th Grade

AMS Feeder 12th Comparison MS Feeder 12th FARM 12th

Target 12th

Target Plus 12th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 46.3 114 246 39.0 41 105 56.7 68 120 33.3 7 21

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 44.5 158 355 41.2 63 153 51.3 78 152 16.1 5 31

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 52.1 177 340 46.9 76 162 61.7 79 128 0.0 0 7

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 52.6 161 306 47.2 51 108 44.1 56 127 10.5 2 19

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 54.0 191 354 60.7 54 89 62.1 82 132 33.3 4 12

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 48.5 173 357

26.2 11 42

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 37.5 144 384 39.5 34 186 41.7 50 120 13.9 5 36 40.0 8 20 38.1 8 21

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

INDICATOR 3: Students attend school regularly. Indicator 3a: Percentage of students in each MS grade who met the MSPAP level for satisfactory attendance (94%). GROUP

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

43.6 79 181 25.0 23 92

46.9 84 179 37.0 37 100 72.0 18 25

51.0 103 202 40.4 36 89 62.9 22 35

50.8 92 181 35.9 33 92 46.2 12 26

50.9 87 171 41.8 41 98

48.7 77 158 29.0 18 62 65.5 19 29

49.4 89 180 45.7 37 81 74.1 20 27

49.7 88 177 36.8 28 76 53.3 16 30

46.0 80 174 37.5 33 88

50.0 86 172 40.2 35 87

50.3 79 157 30.9 17 55 55.2 16 29

59.9 97 162 54.9 39 71 75.0 21 28

56.9 115 202 35.6 36 101 50.0 16 32 49.2 32 65 59.3 112 189 42.2 38 90 52.4 11 21 60.8 62 102 57.2 115 201 48.4 45 93 57.1 16 28 60.2 56 93

51.3 102 199 40.6 41 101 56.7 17 30 64.6 31 48 54.5 102 187 44.8 39 87 50.0 13 26 54.8 23 42 53.1 95 179 36.3 29 80 65.0 13 20 61.5 32 52

55.3 94 170 47.3 44 93 54.8 17 31 57.5 23 40 44.8 87 194 38.6 34 88 55.6 15 27 51.0 26 51 52.9 99 187 48.8 40 82 61.1 11 18 70.0 28 40

’98 - ‘99 AMS All 6th Grade FARM 6th Target 6th Target Plus 6th All 7th Grade FARM 7th Target 7th Target Plus 7th All 8th Grade FARM 8th Target 8th Target Plus 8th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 3a: Percentage of students in each MS grade who met the MSPAP level for satisfactory attendance (94%) (CONTINUED). GROUP Comparison MS All 6th Grade % N Total N FARM 6th % N Total N All 7th Grade % N Total N FARM 7th % N Total N All 8th Grade % N Total N FARM 8th % N Total N

’98 - ‘99

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

58.8 140 238 44.4 48 108 58.9 132 224 51.5 52 101 53.9 118 219 37.5 27 72

62.4 151 242 53.8 71 132 60.2 133 221 44.2 38 86 60.5 130 215 48.8 40 82

62.4 141 226 51.9 54 104 60.9 137 225 51.8 44 85 56.5 130 230 45.1 32 71

61.8 131 212 16.7 1 6 62.2 130 209 53.0 44 83 53.5 108 202 42.4 28 66

65.4 153 234 53.8 63 117 61.3 141 230 45.7 48 105 54.0 128 237 39.6 38 96

47.6 110 231 34.2 40 117 63.8 136 213 56.5 48 85 52.7 126 239 45.1 41 91

49.36 112 227 39.3 46 117 48.6 103 212 36.6 37 101 51.7 108 209 45.9 50 109

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 3b: Percentage of students in each HS grade who met the MSPAP level for satisfactory attendance (94%). GROUP All 9th Grade

AMS Feeder 9th Comparison MS Feeder 9th FARM 9th

Target 9th Target Plus 9th All 10th Grade

AMS Feeder 10th Comparison MS Feeder 10th FARM 10th Target 10th

Target Plus 10th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 40.5 231 570 39.5 96 243 45.3 110 243 31.6 30 95

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 53.0 272 513 54.2 96 177 58.0 130 224 43.8 71 162

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 52.9 268 507 56.8 83 146 59.2 106 179 37.2 29 78

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 53.6 274 511 46.7 72 165 56.0 108 193 45.1 23 51 60.0 15 25

52.2

48.1

55.2

53.4

210 402 51.8 103 199 59.3 89 150 33.3 16 48

212 441 42.5 76 179 54.9 100 182 37.9 22 58

235 426 59.7 83 139 60.8 113 186 42.5 17 40

210 393 49.6 65 131 53.2 84 158 48.8 21 43

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 52.8 256 485 53.5 84 157 50.3 88 175 32.4 33 102 57.1 16 28 59.7 37 62 52.0

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 48.6 285 586 50.5 94 186 53.1 111 209 31.1 60 193 56.3 18 32 60.4 32 53 49.8

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 51.9 294 566 56.0 94 168 50.5 107 212 33.2 61 184 59.1 13 22 69.0 28 46 55.6

267 513 47.1 72 153 51.7 89 172 28.6 14 49 69.6 16 23 72.0 18 25

207 416 58.2 64 110 50.3 76 151 26.2 22 84 63.2 12 19 64.0 16 25

265 477 52.9 81 158 58.6 95 162 46.4 52 112 51.7 15 29 59.1 26 44

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 3b: Percentage of students in each HS grade who met the MSPAP level for satisfactory attendance (94%) (CONTINUED). GROUP All 11th Grade

AMS Feeder 11th Comparison MS Feeder 11th FARM 11th

Target 11th

Target Plus 11th All 12th Grade

AMS Feeder 12th Comparison MS Feeder 12th FARM 12th Target 12th

Target Plus 12th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 43.2 171 396 42.4 73 172 48.0 83 173 43.8 14 32

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 49.7 174 350 48.8 79 162 57.9 73 126 38.5 15 39

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 55.7 192 345 50.0 63 126 66.0 93 141 38.1 8 21

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 55.7 190 341 58.4 59 101 60.1 86 143 26.7 8 30

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 54.6 207 379 57.0 61 107 51.4 75 146 42.9 9 21

53.3 196 368 52.9 82 155 61.3 100 163 37.9 11 29

47.9 179 374 46.3 76 164 53.9 83 154 45.2 14 31

65.9 240 364 67.7 113 167 71.0 98 138 57.1 4 7

57.2 175 306 56.5 61 108 59.8 76 127 57.9 11 19

60.2 213 354 58.4 52 89 65.9 87 132 58.3 7 12

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 54.7 240 439 61.8 63 102 60.3 79 131 28.4 19 67 61.9 13 21 55.7 199 357

45.2 19 42

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 46.7 158 338 55.4 51 92 47.9 58 121 32.1 18 56 84.6 11 13 85.7 18 21 48.4 186 384 58.1 50 86 50.8 61 120 47.2 17 36 65.0 13 20 66.7 14 21

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

INDICATOR 4: Students stay in High School and graduate. Indicator 4a: Dropout rate for each High School grade GROUP All 9th Grade

AMS Feeder 9th Comparison MS Feeder 9th FARM 9th

Target 9th Target Plus 9th All 10th Grade

AMS Feeder 10th Comparison MS Feeder 10th FARM 10th Target 10th

Target Plus 10th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 6.7 38 570 6.6 16 243 4.1 10 243 6.3 6 95

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 3.7 19 513 3.4 6 177 4.0 9 224 3.7 6 162

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 5.5 28 507 2.1 3 146 3.9 7 179 7.7 6 78

8.5 34 402 10.6

5.0 22 441 4.5

4.9 21 426 5.0

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 2.3 12 511 1.8 3 166 2.1 4 193 3.9 2 51 8 2 25 4.8 19 393 6.1

21 199 5.3 8 150 12.5 6 48

8 179 4.9 9 182 1.7 1 58

7 139 3.8 7 186 5.0 2 40

8 131 3.8 6 158 7.0 3 43

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 1.1 6 566 1.2 2 168 0.5 1 212 1.1 2 184 0.0 0 22 0.0 0 46 1.5 7 477 1.3 2 153 0.6 1 162 1.8 2 112 0.0 0 29 0.0 0 44

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 4a: Dropout rate for each High School grade (CONTINUED) GROUP All 11th Grade

AMS Feeder 11th Comparison MS Feeder 11th FARM 11th

Target 11th

Target Plus 11th All 12th Grade

AMS Feeder 12th Comparison MS Feeder 12th FARM 12th Target 12th

Target Plus 12th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 7.1 28 395 4.1 7 172 7.5 13 160 6.5 2 31

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 5.1 18 350 5.6 9 162 3.2 4 126 12.8 5 39

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 4.1 14 331 4.0 5 126 2.8 4 141 0.0 0 21

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 5.9 20 341 3.9 4 102 5.6 8 143 3.2 1 31

2.8 10 362 2.0 3 152 1.8 3 163 3.4 1 29

4.0 15 374 6.1 10 164 1.3 2 154 3.2 1 31

2.7 10 364 0.6 1 167 2.9 4 138 0.0 0 7

0.7 2 306

0.8 1 127

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 0.3 1 338 0.0 0 92 0.0 0 121 0.0 0 56 0.0 0 13 0.0 0 21 1.8 7 384 1.2 1 86 1.7 2 120 2.8 1 36 0.0 0 20 0.0 0 21

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

INDICATOR 5: Students are not suspended or the recipients of disciplinary actions. Indicator 5a: Percentage of students in each MS grade who received at least one suspension. GROUP

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

32.0 58 181 47.8 44 92

34.1 61 179 49.0 49 100 25.0 7 28

12.9 26 202 18.0 16 89 11.4 4 35

20.9 38 181 32.6 30 92 26.9 7 26

29.2 50 171 36.7 36 98

30.4 48 158 51.6 32 62 20.7 6 29

15.0 27 180 23.5 19 81 14.8 4 27

19.2 34 177 30.3 23 76 23.3 7 30

22.4 39 174 30.7 27 88

33.7 58 172 46.0 40 87

11.5 18 157 23.6 13 55 3.4 1 29

17.3 28 162 22.5 16 71 10.7 3 28

24.8 50 202 42.6 43 101 37.5 12 32 31.7 20 63 19.0 36 189 33.3 30 90 9.5 2 21 17.5 17 97 21.4 43 201 33.3 31 93 25.0 7 28 14.4 13 90

27.1 54 199 40.6 41 101 30.0 9 30 22.9 11 48 28.3 53 187 35.6 31 87 30.8 8 26 31.0 13 42 26.3 47 179 41.3 33 80 20.0 4 20 17.3 9 52

25.3 43 170 33.3 31 93 19.4 6 31 17.5 17 40 27.8 54 194 47.7 42 88 37.0 10 27 39.2 20 51 25.1 47 187 34.1 28 82 33.3 6 18 25.0 10 40

’98 - ‘99 AMS All 6th Grade FARM 6th Target 6th Target Plus 6th All 7th Grade FARM 7th Target 7th Target Plus 7th All 8th Grade FARM 8th Target 8th Target Plus 8th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 5a: Percentage of students in each MS grade who received at least one suspension (CONTINUED). GROUP Comparison MS All 6th Grade % N Total N FARM 6th % N Total N All 7th Grade % N Total N FARM 7th % N Total N All 8th Grade % N Total N FARM 8th % N Total N

’98 - ‘99

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

27.7 66 238 41.7 45 108 20.1 45 224 33.7 34 101 23.3 51 219 34.7 25 72

20.2 49 242 32.6 43 132 22.2 49 221 44.2 38 86 17.2 37 215 26.8 22 60

22.1 50 226 37.5 39 104 25.3 57 225 35.3 30 85 26.5 61 230 39.4 28 71

25.0 53 212 33.3 2 6 22.5 47 209 38.5 32 83 21.8 44 202 34.8 23 66

25.2 59 234 36.8 43 117 29.1 67 230 43.8 46 105 24.9 59 37 38.5 37 96

34.6 80 231 44.4 52 117 23.0 49 213 27.1 23 85 25.1 60 239 35.2 32 91

30.0 68 227 40.2 47 117 27.8 54 194 47.7 42 88 24.9 52 209 33.0 36 109

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 5b: Percentage of students in each HS grade who received at least one suspension grade. GROUP All 9th Grade

AMS Feeder 9th Comparison MS Feeder 9th FARM 9th

Target 9th Target Plus 9th All 10th Grade

AMS Feeder 10th Comparison MS Feeder 10th FARM 10th Target 10th

Target Plus 10th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 20.0 114 570 22.2 54 243 14.4 35 243 23.2 22 95

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 20.9 107 513 22.0 39 177 20.5 46 224 34.6 56 162

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 23.5 119 507 21.2 31 146 23.5 42 179 39.7 31 78

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 18.8 96 511 18.7 31 166 20.2 39 193 25.5 13 51 16 4 25

10.0 40 402 10.1 20 199 6.0 9 150 18.8 9 48

19.0 84 441 20.7 37 179 15.4 28 182 25.9 15 58

15.0 64 426 15.1 21 139 13.4 25 186 12.5 5 40

13.2 52 393 21.4 28 131 11.4 18 158 7 3 43

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 19.2 93 485 21.0 33 157 18.9 33 175 30.4 31 102 32.1 9 28 21.8 12 55 19.1 98 513 20.9 32 153 23.3 40 172 38.8 19 49 13.0 3 23 9.5 2 21

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 30.0 176 586 35.5 66 186 26.8 56 209 43.0 83 193 50.0 16 32 39.6 21 53 21.4 89 416 23.6 26 110 23.8 36 151 35.7 30 84 31.6 6 19 36.0 9 25

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 20.0 113 566 24.4 44 168 18.4 39 212 32.6 60 184 31.8 7 22 32.6 15 46 13.2 63 477 17.0 26 153 12.3 20 162 21.4 24 112 24.1 7 29 27.3 12 44

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 5b: Percentage of students in each HS grade who received at least one suspension grade. (CONTINUED) GROUP All 11th Grade

AMS Feeder 11th Comparison MS Feeder 11th FARM 11th

Target 11th

Target Plus 11th All 12th Grade

AMS Feeder 12th Comparison MS Feeder 12th FARM 12th

Target 12th

Target Plus 12th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 6.6 26 396 7.6 13 172 4.6 8 173 15.6 5 32

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 10.6 37 350 12.3 20 162 5.6 7 126 17.9 7 39

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 14.8 51 345 17.5 22 126 12.8 18 141 33.3 7 21

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 10.9 37 341 13.7 14 102 14.0 20 143 9.6 3 31

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 11.1 42 379 15.0 16 107 9.6 14 146 9.5 2 21

6.8 25 368 6.5 10 155 4.3 7 163 10.3

9.6 36 374 8.5 14 164 10.4 16 154 16.1

4.7 17 364 4.8 8 167 4.3 6 138 14.3

7.5 23 306 9.3 10 108 4.7 6 127 42.9

4.5 16 354 1.1 1 89 4.5 6 132 8.3

3 29

5 31

1 7

3 7

1 12

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 21.9 96 439 21.6 22 102 24.4 32 131 38.8 26 67 28.6 6 21 30.3 10 33 10.1 36 357

16.7 7 42

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 14.5 49 338 15.2 14 92 14.9 18 121 17.9 10 56 15.4 2 13 14.3 3 21 9.6 37 384 7.0 6 86 13.3 16 120 25.0 9 36 0.0 0 20 0.0 0 21

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 5c: Percentage of students in each MS grade who received at least one disciplinary action. GROUP

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

60.2 109 181 82.6 76 92

55.3 99 179 76.0 76 100 56.0 14 25

29.7 60 202 46.1 41 89 42.9 15 35

45.9 83 181 61.9 57 93 46.1 12 26

55.6 95 171 68.4 67 98

58.2 92 158 82.3 51 62 65.5 19 29

40.0 72 108 55.6 45 81 40.7 11 27

43.5 77 177 65.8 50 76 66.7 20 30

36.8 64 174 47.7 42 88

63.4 109 172 75.9 66 87

43.9 69 157 65.5 36 55 51.7 15 29

42.6 69 162 59.2 42 71 60.7 17 28

54.0 109 202 70.3 71 101 65.6 21 32 60.3 38 63 51.9 98 189 66.7 60 90 52.4 11 21 54.6 53 97 43.8 88 201 62.4 58 93 64.3 18 28 48.9 44 90

52.3 104 199 76.2 77 101 76.7 23 30 60.4 29 48 57.2 107 187 69.0 60 87 69.2 18 26 73.8 31 42 52.5 94 179 66.3 53 80 45.0 9 20 50.0 26 52

42.9 73 170 52.7 49 93 41.9 13 31 45.0 18 40 51.0 99 194 72.7 64 88 66.7 18 27 66.7 34 51 52.9 99 187 59.8 49 82 72.2 13 18 67.5 27 40

’98 - ‘99 AMS All 6th Grade FARM 6th Target 6th Target Plus 6th All 7th Grade FARM 7th Target 7th Target Plus 7th All 8th Grade FARM 8th Target 8th Target Plus 8th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 5c: Percentage of students in each MS grade who received at least one disciplinary action. (CONTINUED). GROUP Comparison MS All 6th Grade % N Total N FARM 6th % N Total N All 7th Grade % N Total N FARM 7th % N Total N All 8th Grade % N Total N FARM 8th % N Total N

’98 - ‘99

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

48.7 116 238 66.7 72 108 43.3 97 224 61.4 62 101 43.8 96 219 65.3 47 72

46.3 112 242 65.2 86 132 51.6 114 221 68.6 59 86 48.4 104 215 63.4 52 82

46.0 104 226 67.3 70 104 55.6 125 225 71.8 61 85 53.5 123 230 67.6 48 71

43.9 93 212 50 3 6 45.5 95 209 63.8 53 83 51.0 103 202 68.1 45 66

32.5 76 234 45.3 53 117 46.5 107 230 61.9 65 105 43.9 104 237 60.4 58 96

49.4 114 231 65.0 76 117 37.1 79 213 55.3 47 85 38.1 91 239 49.5 45 91

44.1 100 227 58.1 68 117 52.4 111 212 64.4 65 101 38.8 81 209 48.6 53 109

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 5d: Percentage of students in each HS grade who received at least one disciplinary action. GROUP All 9th Grade

AMS Feeder 9th Comparison MS Feeder 9th FARM 9th

Target 9th Target Plus 9th All 10th Grade

AMS Feeder 10th Comparison MS Feeder 10th FARM 10th Target 10th

Target Plus 10th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 48.9 279 570 50.2 122 243 43.2 105 243 63.2 60 95

35.1 141 402 34.2 68 199 28.7 43 150 39.6 19 48

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 45.0 231 513 51.4 91 177 42.4 95 224 62.3 101 162

36.5 161 441 42.5 76 179 28.0 51 182 51.7 30 58

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 46.0 233 507 49.3 72 146 43.6 78 179 56.4 44 78

34.3 146 426 36.7 51 139 29.6 55 186 42.5 17 40

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 30.5 156 511 36.7 61 166 32.1 62 193 35.2 18 51 28 7 25 7 25 24.7 97 393 35.9 47 131 22.2 35 158 37.2 16 43

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 42.9 208 485 48.4 76 157 41.1 72 175 64.7 66 102 50.0 14 28 41.8 23 55 36.5 187 513 50.3 77 153 40.0 67 172 49.0 24 49 43.5 10 23 42.9 9 21

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 47.4 278 586 53.8 100 186 46.4 97 209 62.7 121 193 68.8 22 32 69.8 37 53 41.1 171 416 34.5 38 110 51.7 78 151 53.6 45 84 42.1 8 19 44.0 11 25

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 53.4 308 566 62.5 105 168 60.8 129 212 71.7 132 184 68.2 15 22 73.9 34 46 45.5 217 477 50.3 77 153 49.4 80 162 64.3 72 112 72.4 21 29 79.5 35 44

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 5d: Percentage of students in each HS grade who received at least one disciplinary action. (CONTINUED) GROUP All 11th Grade

AMS Feeder 11th Comparison MS Feeder 11th FARM 11th

Target 11th

Target Plus 11th All 12th Grade

AMS Feeder 12th Comparison MS Feeder 12th FARM 12th

Target 12th

Target Plus 12th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

’98 - ‘99 31.6 125 396 29.1 50 172 30.6 53 173 40.6 13 32

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 32.9 115 330 38.9 63 162 24.6 31 126 35.9 14 39

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 33.3 115 345 33.3 42 126 33.3 47 141 52.4 11 21

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 21.4 73 341 21.6 22 102 23.8 34 143 22.5 7 31

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 35.6 135 379 40.2 43 107 34.2 50 146 38.1 8 21

23.9 88 368 25.2 39 155 19.6 32 163 34.5

30.7 115 374 31.7 52 164 30.5 47 154 51.6

31.6 115 364 35.3 59 167 27.5 38 138 71.4

15.4 47 306 20.4 22 108 9.4 12 127 31.5

221.8 77 354 14.6 13 89 21.2 28 132 16.7

10 29

16 31

5 7

6 19

2 12

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 36.2 159 439 41.2 42 102 39.7 52 131 62.7 42 67 52.4 11 21 51.5 17 33 24.6 88 357

31.0 13 42

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 44.1 149 338 46.7 43 92 49.6 60 121 71.4 40 56 69.2 9 13 66.7 14 21 34.6 133 384 38.4 33 86 38.3 46 120 61.1 22 36 45.0 9 20 42.9 9 21

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables INDICATOR 6:

Students and parents have knowledge about/plans for attending college.3

Survey Student Survey Parent Survey INDICATOR 7:

All 2000 3.24 3.97

2001 3.50 3.64

2002 3.44 3.48

INDICATOR 8:

INDICATOR 9:

2001 3.37 3.50

2002 3.45 3.48

INDICATOR 10:

INDICATOR 11:

2001 3.99 3.44

3

2003 3.34 3.39

2002 3.92 4.09

Target 2002 2003 3.49 3.31 3.26 2.89

2005 3.35

2003 3.32 3.73

Target-Plus 2004 2005 3.53 3.33 3.32

2004 3.56 3.68

2005 3.49

2003 3.46 3.21

Target-Plus 2004 2005 3.56 3.67 3.65

2004 3.47 3.31

2004 3.35 3.56

2005 3.33

2000 3.80 3.36

2001 3.20 3.18

Target 2002 2003 3.56 3.51 3.58 3.53

2003 3.49 4.70

2004 4.03 4.58

2005 4.03

2000 3.93 3.34

2001 3.96 3.44

Target 2002 2003 4.01 3.53 4.22 4.57

2004 4.06 4.67

2005 3.48

2003 3.52 4.73

Target-Plus 2004 2005 4.06 3.75 4.66

2000 3.60

2001 3.38

Target 2002 2003 3.51 3.37

2004 3.39

2005 3.13

2003 3.33

Target-Plus 2004 2005 3.45 3.25

Students have positive attitudes toward school. All 2000 3.54

2001 3.49

2002 3.36

2003 3.20

2004 3.21

2005 3.12

Students have positive attitudes regarding their own academic abilities, efficacy, and effort. All 2000 3.53

2001 3.43

2002 3.53

2003 3.52

2004 3.61

2005 3.58

2000 3.55

2001 3.38

Target 2002 2003 3.56 3.58

2004 3.57

2005 3.20

2003 3.59

Target-Plus 2004 2005 3.61 3.48

2000 3.91

2001 3.86

Target 2002 2003 3.97 3.96

2004 4.04

2005

2003 4.31

Target-Plus 2004 2005 4.09

Parents are involved in their child’s education.

Survey Parent Survey

2001 3.42 3.63

All 2000 3.84 4.71

Survey Student Survey

2000 3.29 3.88

Students and parents have positive attitudes about the child attending college.

Survey Student Survey

2005 3.47

All 2000 3.61 3.49

Survey Student Survey Parent Survey

2004 3.49 3.49

Students and parents perceive that the school has helped prepare the student for college.

Survey Student Survey Parent Survey

2003 3.27 3.46

All 2000 3.69

2001 3.94

2002 4.02

2003 4.24

2004 3.96

2005

All student and parent survey indicators are on a 1 to 5 scale and higher scores are more favorable.

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

INDICATOR 12: Students in High School maintain a high grade point average. Indicator 12a: Average GPA for each High School grade. GROUP

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 1.86 465

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 1.89 454

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 2.32 511

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 1.62 485

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 1.92 586

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 2.02 566

All 9th Grade

Mean N

’98 - ‘99 1.63 458

AMS Feeder 9th

Mean N

1.55 204

1.70 168

1.84 139

2.13 166

1.60 157

1.80 186

1.91 168

Comparison MS Feeder 9th

Mean N

1.80 206

2.07 207

2.09 170

2.60 193

1.84 175

1.99 209

2.05 212

FARM 9th

Mean N

1.31 74

1.52 143

1.44 69

1.92 51

1.00 102

1.37 193

1.55 184

Target 9th

Mean N

2.30 25

1.31 28

1.57 32

1.70 22

Target Plus 9th

Mean N

1.45 62

1.72 53

1.84 46

All 10th Grade

Mean N

2.12 327

1.82 397

2.02 382

2.17 393

1.83 513

2.02 416

2.27 477

AMS Feeder 10th

Mean N

2.01 162

1.70 167

1.91 124

1.92 131

1.53 153

2.04 110

2.07 153

Comparison MS Feeder 10th

Mean N

2.34 126

1.98 168

2.15 173

2.24 158

1.94 172

2.04 151

2.32 162

FARM 10th

Mean N

1.68 39

1.39 54

1.73 37

1.88 43

1.21 49

1.48 84

1.78 112

Target 10th

Mean N

2.01 23

1.74 19

1.65 29

Target Plus 10th

Mean N

2.03 25

1.75 25

1.78 44

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 12a: Average GPA for each High School grade. (CONTINUED) GROUP

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00 2.26 320

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01 2.19 308

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02 2.31 341

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03 2.14 379

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04 2.32 439

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 2.26 338

All 11th Grade

Mean N

’98 - ‘99 2.15 316

AMS Feeder 11th

Mean N

2.01 146

2.15 153

2.11 115

2.15 102

1.89 107

2.19 102

2.26 92

Comparison MS Feeder 11th

Mean N

2.34 139

2.48 119

2.19 132

2.41 143

2.28 146

2.48 131

2.20 121

FARM 11th

Mean N

1.88 21

1.55 35

1.60 20

1.89 31

1.23 21

1.78 67

1.65 56

Target 11th

Mean N

2.04 21

2.06 13

Target Plus 11th

Mean N

2.13 33

2.11 21

All 12th Grade

Mean N

2.52 245

2.40 350

2.70 336

2.32 306

2.45 654

2.48 357

2.58 384

AMS Feeder 12th

Mean N

2.43 105

2.41 152

2.64 161

2.30 108

2.55 89

2.48 86

Comparison MS Feeder 12th

Mean N

2.65 119

2.48 150

2.83 125

2.33 127

2.75 132

2.71 120

FARM 12th

Mean N

2.21 21

1.88 29

2.47 6

1.75 19

1.80 12

Target 12th

Mean N

2.21 20

Target Plus 12th

Mean N

2.18 21

2.08 42

1.98 36

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

INDICATOR 13: Students enroll in post-secondary education. Indicator 13a: Percentage of 12th graders who report on the district senior survey that they plan to enroll in a four-year college or university. GROUP ’98 - ‘99 All 12th Grade

AMS Feeder 12th Comparison MS Feeder 12th FARM 12th

Target 12th

Target Plus 12th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 51.2 131 256

Note: The senior survey is administered by the state and it does not record the Anne Arundel County Public Schools student identification number. Therefore, student responses could not be linked to participation in GEARUP activities.

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 13b: Percentage of 12th graders who report on the district senior survey that they plan to enroll in a community college or trade school. GROUP ’98 - ‘99 All 12th Grade

AMS Feeder 12th Comparison MS Feeder 12th FARM 12th

Target 12th

Target Plus 12th

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05 15.2 39 256

Note: The senior survey is administered by the state and it does not record the Anne Arundel County Public Schools student identification number. Therefore, student responses could not be linked to participation in GEAR-UP activities.

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 13c: District follow-up to the senior survey indicates that students enrolled in a four year college or university. GROUP ’98 - ‘99 All 12th Grade

AMS Feeder 12th Comparison MS Feeder 12th FARM 12th

Target 12th

Target Plus 12th

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Note: The project ended before follow-up of seniors could occur.

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05

Appendix C: Data Summary Tables

Indicator 13d: District follow-up to the senior survey indicates that students enrolled in a community college or trade school. GROUP ’98 - ‘99 All 12th Grade

AMS Feeder 12th Comparison MS Feeder 12th FARM 12th

Target 12th

Target Plus 12th

Year 1 ’99 - ‘00

Year 2 ’00 - ‘01

% N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N % N Total N

Note: The project ended before follow-up of seniors could occur.

Year 3 ’01 - ‘02

Year 4 ’02 - ‘03

Year 5 ’03 - ‘04

Year 6 ’04 – ‘05