Education Support Services e news [Vol. 2, Issue 2 (Spring/Summer 2008)]

Office of Education Support and Improvement
Education Support Services

Spring/Summer 2008

eNews . . . The Conference Edition

Volume 2, Issue 2

Special Points of Interest:

Evaluation and Accountability

The 6th Annual Title I Conference June 9 12, 2008
at the Atlanta Airport Marriott Hotel Homeless Liaisons' Workshop June 9, 2008 New Directors' Workshop June 10, 2008 Title Programs Conference June 11-12, 2008
Inside This Issue:
Associate Superintendent's Corner . . 1 Ask the Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Parent Outreach Division News . . . . .4 Title Programs Division News. . . . . . .5 Spotlight on Employees . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Kathy Cox State Superintendent of Schools

Associate Superintendent's Corner
The focus of this edition of eNews is evaluation. These articles address some of the questions that should be considered when determining the effectiveness of educational programs. You may be wondering why we would dedicate an entire issue to evaluation. Evaluation is the answer to accountability. To know where we have been and where we need to go can be determined by asking the right questions, collecting the right data, believing the analyses and acting on the trends. In other words - program evaluation.
Education Support Services has implemented informal evaluation procedures.
We have analyzed our monitoring process to determine how to improve the process and relieve local educational agencies (LEAs) of burdensome paperwork. As a result of our own analysis, we have eliminated the requirement that districts provide, copy, etc., documents readily available at the Georgia Department of Education (Department). We will also begin surveying LEAs upon completion of the on-site monitoring visit.
We have examined our training for the budget approval process. We learned that our process, while consistent on some items, was inconsistent on others. We asked the right questions, collected the right data, believed the analysis, and now we will act on our trends by providing written policies and procedures for all team members responsible for approving budgets.
We hope our leading by example will inspire you to examine your own programs and make changes that will lead to increased student achievement. Evaluation can achieve this endeavor. You can set a strong precedent for using program evaluation as a means of accountability in the future.
Clara J. Keith
Associate Superintendent for Education Support Services

2 0 5 J e s s e H i l l J r. D r i v e 1 8 5 8 T w i n T o w e r s E a s t . A t l a n t a, G e o r g i a 3 0 3 3 4

ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT'S CORNER..........................................................1
ASK THE EXPERT ..................................................................................................... 3
QUANTIFYING FAMILY ENGAGEMENT: EFFECTS AND INTERVENTIONS..........4
EVALUATION RESULTS DETERMINE TITLE VI, PART B FUNDING PRIORITIES .........................................................................................5
YOUR DISTRICT'S HOMELESS SERVICE HOW DOES IT MEASURE UP? ........6
RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE FIELD...........................8
EVALUATING NEEDS AND DISCOVERING A PORTAL TO SUCCESS FOR MIGRANT YOUTH AND PARENTS..............................................................11
THE HIGH SCHOOL EQUIVALENCY PROGRAM: A PROVEN STEP TO SUCCESS FOR MIGRANT YOUTH................................12
EVALUATING PRESCHOOL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION FOR CHILDREN OF MIGRANT FARM WORKERS........................................................................13
NORTH GEORGIA DISTRICTS IMPLEMENTING EXEMPLARY PROGRAMS THAT ADDRESS MIGRANT STUDENT NEEDS ..........................16
MONITORING FOR PROGRESS IN GWINNETT COUNTY....................................17
ANNUAL REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF A TARGETED ASSISTANCE PROGRAM...................................................................................20
EVALUATION AND THE SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAM .............................................22
LESSONS LEARNED FROM DISTINGUISHED SCHOOLS....................................25
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION IN TITLE I PROGRAMS.....................................26
ARE SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (SES) HELPING TO CLOSE THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN TITLE I SCHOOLS? ...............................29
EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF TITLE I PROGRAMS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS ...........................................................32
STRESS! IMPACTING STUDENT ACADEMIC OUTCOMES.................................34
SPOTLIGHT ON EMPLOYEES ................................................................................36

Motivate!

Encourage!

Excite!

"Responding to the Needs of Georgia's Children through Change"

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 2

By Margo DeLaune

ask the
expert

In an effort to ensure that local educational agencies (LEAs) in Georgia continue to receive timely information related to federal programs implementation, we have decided to add a new feature to our Title Programs newsletter that entails answering some of the frequently asked questions we receive from LEAs on a continuous basis. It is hoped that this new aspect of the newsletter will serve as a valuable tool to assist each of you as you go about the business of program enhancement that will benefit all children in your district.
In consultation with private schools interested in participating in Title I, Part A equitable services for eligible Title I students attending a private school, does the LEA have to engage in third party contracts?
As part of the preliminary work in designing a program that meets the educational needs of the private school participants, both public and private school officials need to meet and discuss strategies for meeting those student needs. Both parties should be involved in developing a preliminary design for Title I services. HOWEVER, the LEA makes the final decision on the program design for Title I services, and is responsible for implementing those services, hiring staff and paying for services provided. IF the LEA makes the final decision to engage in a third party contract to provide these services, the LEA must follow their district's policies for entering into contracts and must also remember that Title I cannot pay for the administrative portion of the third party contract fees.
What is the responsibility of the LEA in providing updated parent information to Supplemental Educational Services (SES) providers?
Once a student has chosen a provider, the LEA may provide information from the student's educational record to an approved SES provider ONLY if the LEA has prior written consent from the student's parents. HOWEVER, it is not the responsibility of the LEA to fulfill numerous requests from the SES provider on parent contact information. Parent information can frequently change throughout the year and often updated contact information is not given to the SES provider. If the LEA is aware of any parent/student contact information AND has prior written consent from the parent to disclose personal information that has changed, it would be a courtesy if the LEA could make the SES provider aware of this information. REMEMBER, the LEA must have a signed and dated acknowledgement of that consent and the consent MUST specify the records that may be disclosed by the LEA to the SES provider, MUST specify the purpose of the disclosure and MUST identify to whom the disclosure was made.
Some SB618 residential facilities functioning as schools do not have teachers who meet the highly qualified standard. Would the local school district be responsible for hiring a highly qualified teacher to provide services to the targeted students? If so, would the local school district be responsible for formulating a targeted assistance plan for each school?
The relationship in regards to operating procedures between the residential facility and the local school district is determined at the local level. Therefore, hiring responsibilities and the responsible party for developing required plans must be determined between the two entities.
Regardless of who bears the responsibilities for hiring staff at residential facilities, Title I funds may not be used to pay the salary of non-highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals. In addition, all SB618 residential facilities functioning as schools are considered Title I targeted assistance programs if they receive Title I, Part A funds. Therefore, the residential facility is required to follow the targeted assistance program requirements which include having a plan for the school.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 3

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: C. Renee Shields
Quantifying Family Engagement: Effects and Interventions
Decades of developmental theory and research have documented that parental involvement is a major determining factor in predicting a child's well-being and attainment of positive long-term educational outcomes. Since schools are required by federal law to include a parent involvement component in their educational programs, more and more districts are searching for strategies to effectively implement and evaluate their programs.
Parent Involvement programs and activities vary from district to district and it is challenging to identify one universal method of evaluation. There is no one size fits all method for implementing or evaluating parent involvement programs because successful parent involvement programs include a host of variables.
How then do we evaluate whether we have been successful in fulfilling the requirements of the law while implementing our parent involvement programs and activities?
There are a number of methods that may be used to evaluate program success.
1. Determine what it is to be measured at the beginning of the school year. For example: Parent participation in school programs, GED, literacy, etc. Positive change in student attendance. Positive change in student behavior such as coming to school prepared. Positive change in student classroom performance.
2. Set targets for the desired change. For example: Parents will attend twice as many school/parent activities than they attended last year. Students will have 10 percent less days absent from school than they did last year. Students will show a 50 percent increase in classroom performance over last year.
3. Collect data by: Surveying parents regarding attendance at school sponsored parent activities. Reviewing student attendance records. Reviewing student achievement data.
4. Analyze data collected and: Record the trends. Note any significant antecedent data.
5. Revise programs to reflect: Trends and gaps.
Look at increased participation of parents, families, and community leaders, as measured by: attendance at parental involvement activities, parents in leadership roles, and on decision making councils, boards, etc. Compare data to determine what changed from the previous year and what did or did not work.
All data collected and analyzed should be used as a benchmark to put into practice improvement techniques.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 4

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Cathy Buescher
Evaluation Results Determine Title VI, Part B Funding Priorities

Title VI, Part B, Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) funds are designed to assist rural school districts in using the federal resources allocated to them for the purpose of improving instruction, reaching the common goal of increased student achievement, and ultimately the attainment of adequate yearly progress (AYP) for districts. The purpose of these funds is to address the unique needs of rural and low income school districts. REAP grant funds are designed to assist districts in making better use of the allocations they receive under other federal formula grants. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) ties accountability to the REAP funding. A district has greater flexibility with Title VI, Part B funds when it is making AYP and enjoys the flexibility allowed by the legislation in the use of their funding. Districts not making AYP after receiving three years of Title VI, Part B funding lose their flexibility and are required to use all of their Title VI, Part B funds to address the specific needs that led to the district's failure to make AYP as outlined in their district school improvement plan.
In Georgia, the disaggregated data from the state mandated assessments, CRCT and GHSGT, from which AYP status is determined must guide the evaluation of the Title VI, Part B program in your district. These state administered assessments are the basis for your Title VI, Part B program evaluation. As in all good program evaluations, all appropriate data must be examined to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the student population's academic performance, the quality of the teachers, the instructional resource needs, the facility needs, etc. After a thorough review of the results of all the data, the district should prioritize the needs for all areas, develop an improvement plan and establish a timeline for the implementation of the plan. The district should leverage all their funding to fulfill the identified needs.
So, how does one evaluate the Title VI, Part B program? Did the district make AYP? If so, how are the funds directed to sustain or enrich the learning of the students and teachers? If the district did not make AYP, how would the funding best address the needs of the subgroups not making AYP? What specific areas would result in the maximum improvement for this year? What is the long term implementation? How will you determine if the Title VI, Part B funding has made a difference?
When particular students are having difficulty in a particular subject area, teachers must use the resources available to them to provide interventions to address the specific needs of their students in order to help them achieve at a higher level. When funds are not sufficient to implement the interventions that your district has determined will best address the needs of these identified subgroups, Title VI, Part B dollars must be used for that purpose. In determining how to best allocate Title VI, Part B funds, careful examination is needed by administrators to ensure that these funds do not supplant any other federal, state, or local education funds.
Often districts have enjoyed the flexibility of these grant dollars when making AYP, and when the district's AYP status changes, it is difficult for them to readjust their spending priorities for this money. Let us examine a scenario of a district enjoying the flexibility of Title VI, Part B funds and then having to readjust its plans when evaluation results identify weaknesses in student achievement. Rural and low income school districts often face financial challenges in installing and maintaining updated technology within the district. In a 21st Century classroom, we all acknowledge the importance of having this technology available to students. One of the allowable expenses for Title VI, Part B dollars is for local activities authorized under Title II, Part D, which would allow districts to expand their technology resources. Many districts making AYP have enjoyed the use of these funds for expanding the technology in their districts which without Title VI, Part B funds would not have been possible. When the district finds itself no longer making AYP, it is sometimes difficult to readjust plans and spend the money for alternative activities which will make a greater impact on student achievement for the subgroups and in the content areas that have been identified as being in needs improvement.
One Georgia district, previously enjoying the flexibility of Title VI, Part B dollars, had make adjustments in spending priorities when the district failed to make AYP and evaluation results identified weak areas for particular subgroups in particular content areas. District administrators did exactly what should be done. They carefully analyzed the needs of the students whose performance had led to the district's failure to make AYP, and identified the specific mathematical skills at the root of the problem for this particular subgroup that was keeping the school and therefore the district from making AYP. A gain was realized in student achievement, the district made AYP and once again could enjoy flexibility in spending their Title VI, Part B funds! Keeping the intended purpose of Title VI, Part B dollars in mind will help district administrators discover new and innovative ways to give low achieving students the assistance they need. By addressing needs at the root of the problem, our students will achieve greater levels of academic success and rural and low income districts can enjoy flexibility with their Title VI, Part B dollars.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 5

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Belinda Jones
Your District's Homeless Service How Does It Measure Up?
Did you know that every Georgia local educational agency (LEA) receiving funding under Title I, Part A is required to have a plan that is coordinated with McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act on file with and approved by the Georgia Department of Education (Department)? Your district's plan is found in the Comprehensive LEA Improvement Plan (CLIP) of Georgia's Consolidated Application and must include a description of the services that will be provided to all homeless children and youth. Districts are required to serve homeless children and youth in Title I schools with Title I funds allocated to the school and homeless children and youth in non-Title I schools with funds from the reservation of funds setaside.
Each year, districts are required to evaluate all federal program services and to update the CLIP to reflect this evaluation. As you are evaluating your district services for homeless children and youth this spring, please consider the following standards and indicators of effective programs and practices associated with increased school enrollment, attendance, and achievement of children and youth as you are evaluating your overall program and adjusting services for the 2008-2009 school year. Effective educational programs for children and youth experiencing homelessness are essential to the closure of the achievement gap.
How do you know if you have a quality program in your school district?
Do you have an evaluation plan that compares your program to a set of standards and indicators characteristic of high quality programs for children and youth experiencing homelessness?

Standard 1: Immediate School Enrollment
Does your district meet this standard?
Research shows that gaps in attendance are linked to poor academic performance; children cannot learn if they are not in school.
Within one full day of an attempt to enroll in a school, children and youth experiencing homelessness are in attendance.

Standard 2:
School Stability
Does your district meet this standard?
School stability and continuity in school enrollment are associated with school success including achievement, promotion, and graduation.
Homeless Pre-K to 12 children and youth will have stability in school.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 6

Your District's Homeless Service How Does it Measure Up? (continued)
Standard 3:
Specialized Services When Eligible
Does your district meet this standard?
Ensuring children and youth receive special services for which they qualified comparable to services offered to other students in the school selected. These services include, but are not limited to the following: transportation services; educational services for which the child or youth meets the eligibility criteria, such as services provided under Title I of the ESEA or similar state or local programs, educational programs for children with disabilities, and educational programs for students with limited English proficiency; programs in vocational and technical education; programs for gifted and talented students; and school nutrition programs.
Children and Youth experiencing homelessness receive specialized services when eligible.

Standard 4:
Need for Parental Involvement
Does your district meet this standard?
Research shows that one of the most critical indicators of academic success is the involvement of parents in their children's education.
Parents or individuals acting as parents of homeless children and youth will participate meaningfully in their children's education.

Standard 5:
Homeless Children and Youth in Grades 3 to 12 will meet their State's
Academic Standards
Does your district meet this standard?
Homeless children and youth must be given the opportunity to achieve to the same high standards as all other children.
Grades 3 through 12 children and youth who are experiencing homelessness meet the state's academic standards.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 7

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Eric McGhee
Residential Facilities:
Observations from the Field
As a firm believer that real change in education does not occur behind a desk, I wanted to see for myself that the educational services written on paper were actually taking place and making a difference. Thus, as an informal part of the formal monitoring process last year, I asked the three Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 State Agencies which are the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Human Resources (DHR), and the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) to allow me to visit one of their residential facilities for neglected and delinquent children. Being able to physically experience the implementation of a grant that our office approved has enhanced my understanding of the children being served and has reinforced the charge of our department to lead the nation in improving student achievement. As part of the Title Programs monitoring process this year, I have continued to visit, not only State Agency residential facilities, but also residential facilities for neglected and delinquent children in local educational agencies (LEAs) across Georgia.
Many times, children are self-motivated to learn, but for others, it takes great teachers and a community of support to help children learn and grow into productive adults. Although a child's status as neglected or delinquent does not automatically correlate to a child's level of motivation, overall, we do know that neglected or delinquent children do have a greater risk of academic failure and do need greater levels of support. Visiting residential facilities for neglected and delinquent children across Georgia has reinforced the at-risk description; but the visit, in no way, provides any evidence that these children are less capable than the general school population. In fact, the visits have confirmed two premises neglected and delinquent children are at greater academic risk AND they are just as capable as any other group of children.
The children in residential facilities come from diverse background and the residential facilities are as diverse as the children they house. Based on these visits, I will first provide some observations that may be helpful for Title I directors to keep in mind and then to provide some suggestions that may help frame a valuable perspective when consulting with representatives from residential facilities for neglected and delinquent children. The following is just a sample of the wide range of differences found among residential facilities throughout the state:
Most children in residential facilities are referred by Department of Human Resources (DHR). DHR only has two residential facilities that it runs directly and both of those are Outdoor Therapeutic Centers (OTCs). Most of the children in these two facilities have behavior issues that need to be addressed. A unique feature of the OTCs is that they have mandatory parental involvement. Parents are required to attend parent education classes conducted by the center and every month children go home for an extended weekend where they can practice the life skills taught at the OTCs. Both OTCs are off the beaten path.
Other children under state custody with DHR reside in independently run residential facilities throughout the state. The vast majority of the children in these centers are considered neglected, meaning that they are children and youth who are in need of care due to abandonment, neglect, or death of their parents or guardians. These residential facilities can house just a few children in homes with the necessary beds and environment to be licensed by the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) or be large edifices with many children. Most of the children in these facilities attend the regular school in the school district; however, there are about 30 residential facilities that educate children on-site.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 8

Residential Facilities: Observations from the Field (continued)

On the other side of the state, Lighthouse Care Center in Richmond County educates many children with social dysfunctions that make attending district schools problematic. This level five facility is the last stop for many children before they are referred to DJJ. This newly renovated modern three story facility is a lock and key institution; meaning, every door automatically locks and requires a key to open at all times. Security is paramount; however, the classrooms are filled with high quality experienced teachers and engaged students.
DJJ has custody of children who have been adjudicated to be delinquent or in need of supervision. Because of their criminal behavior, these children are in greater need of a secure environment and must be educated on-site. Delinquent children that are awaiting final placement go to temporary residential facilities known as Regional Youth Detention Centers (RYDC). Educational needs are assessed upon entry and are used in conjunction with educational files transferred from the child's school of origin to properly place and schedule children into the appropriate classes.
If delinquent children are charged as adults, they may temporarily be with DJJ, but given the seriousness of the crime and the time of the sentence they will likely be transferred under the supervision of GDC or go directly to GDC. Although charged as adults, school-age individuals are still eligible to receive a free and equitable education. Lee State Prison is a lock and key facility that has a few school-age inmates that receive educational services. The classrooms in this facility mirror what one would find in a district school (i.e. chalkboards, desk, and books); however, security is tight and guards are omnipresent.
State Agencies (DHR, DJJ, and GDC) are required to evaluate their programs. An evaluation of the children in State Agency operated residential facilities may comprise data that includes criteria unique to neglected or delinquent children. Local school districts are required to consult with independently run operated residential facilities for neglected or delinquent children located in the district's school attendance area. As district Title I directors consult with representatives of these residential facilities, they should rely heavily on the residential facility's annual evaluation of its services.
Residential facilities annually evaluate their program, the diversity of the physical facilities, instructor qualifications, student needs, and other factors. The services provided by Title I should be an outgrowth of the residential facility's annual evaluation. The Department encourages Title I directors to push beyond compliance and scores and, in addition, reach for increased quality and meaningful change. With that in mind, here are some suggestions for framing one's perspective when consulting with representatives from locally operated residential facilities for neglected and delinquent children and evaluating the effectiveness of educational services:
It is imperative that we continue to ask ourselves where these children would be without education. Education is one of the few tools available to these children that can change their futures.
Most residential facilities have partnerships with other agencies to address the needs of children; however, if students are provided educational services at the residential facilities, the Title I director, although not required to do so, MAY want to determine if there are additional social services or partnerships available to the district that are not currently used by the residential facilities. If there are some services or partnerships currently not being used by the residential facility, the Title I director and the representative from the residential facility MAY want to explore:
If these services or partnerships would be beneficial for the children in the residential facility. If these services or partnerships are allowable to be extended to the residential facility.
These services or partnerships may help children transition back into a regular school setting.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 9

Residential Facilities: Observations from the Field (continued)
We must recognize our role in this important process. The Department has clearly outlined Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) that are the basis for instructional delivery. If students are provided educational services at the residential facilities, Title I directors must ensure that these standards are implemented to help support the goals of the child, family, and community.
If students are provided educational services at the residential facilities, districts MAY explore using multiple criteria when evaluating the effectiveness of educational services provided to neglected or delinquent children. Perhaps certain facilities can use a behavioral risk survey to determine if children with conduct and/or compliance issues are ready to transition back into the regular school setting.
Attend parental involvement activities. Sign parent compacts. Be invited to participate on the school's Parent Advisory Council (PAC).
The Office of Education Support and Improvement's Title Programs Division is a resource for assisting Title I directors in addressing the unique educational challenges presented by the varied facilities and needs of the children.
Ron Edmunds, educator and contributor to the concept of school improvement, asserts that We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. A question we should ask continually is are we doing all we can to give these children what they need? It is our goal that these observations help us all achieve the best outcomes for Georgia's neglected and delinquent children.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 10

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Craig M. Geers
Evaluating Needs and Discovering a Portal to Success for
Migrant Youth and Parents
The Mexican population in the United States is by far the largest among all migrant agricultural worker communities. Plaza Comunitaria programs offer the opportunity for migrant youth and migrant parents to take multi-level literacy courses and to start or continue their basic Mexican education while living and working in the United States.
Every student who completes his or her basic Mexican education under this program receives a certificate provided by the Mexican Ministry of Education and is prepared to successfully sit for the General Educational Development (GED) in Spanish or English, should language skills in English be fully developed. This is the main purpose of the Plaza Comunitaria, a program developed by the Mexican government to provide Mexicans living abroad the opportunity to begin or continue their education in their native language.
Given the number of out-of-school migrant youth and migrant parents lacking high levels of formal education, the Plaza Comunitaria can be a valuable resource for our state's local educational agencies (LEAs) hoping to raise the achievement levels of their migrant eligible students. How an LEA chooses to utilize its Plaza Comunitaria is open to a variety of options:
Migrant out-of-school youth and parents can enroll in the traditional course work and build the academic skills necessary to successfully sit for the GED.
Schools can use the rich native language content instruction in the course work to supplement content instruction in the regular middle and high school classroom for enrolled migrant students still developing and acquiring English language skills.
Older students and migrant parents with no formal literacy skills can begin basic native language literacy skills development at their own pace, eventually allowing them to transition to English language development. The possibilities are truly endless and the potential for success is genuine.
Opening a Plaza Comunitaria in your school is a relatively inexpensive and uncomplicated process. The Mexican government has established a process by which an organization signs an agreement to operate a local Plaza Comunitaria. Once the agreement is signed, the organization receives the necessary instructional materials from Mexico. The cost to the school or organization is determined by the need to supply the space and support staff to manage the Plaza site. Successful Plazas are normally open in the evenings and on weekends, and they are located in facilities that are easily accessible to the participants. There are currently more than 15 Plaza Comunitarias open in Georgia and the number continues to grow.
The Georgia Department of Education (Department) is one of a handful of organizations in the nation that has agreed to host an on-line portal to deliver the Plaza Comunitaria resources free of charge to the established Plaza sites in the state. This means that schools or organizations with computer labs can easily access the entire curriculum, including assessments and lessons, simply by logging on to the password protected site. A user agreement with the Department is required to participate in the on-line access of Plaza materials. Again, costs are associated with supplying the site and the staff, most of whom are paid an hourly rate.
As LEAs continue to evaluate and develop programs and projects to address the unmet needs of their migrant students and out-of-school youth, a Plaza Comunitaria may be identified as a promising resource. Nationally, there are states that have evaluated and can demonstrate the positive impact on migrant student achievement that a local Plaza Comunitaria produces. For more information on how to initiate the process with Mexico to open a Plaza, please contact Mr. Alberto Diaz, Coordinator, Office of the Institute for Mexicans Abroad at the Consulate General of Mexico in Atlanta. He can be reached by telephone at (404) 266-2233 Ext. 239 or by email at adiazg@sre.gob.mz . For more information on how a Plaza might be set up to serve the needs of your migrant students and families, please contact your local Migrant Education Agency office.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 11

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Norma Nunez-Cortes
The High School Equivalency Program:
A Proven Step to Success for Migrant Youth
Out-of-school migrant youth, also known as drop outs, are among the most disadvantaged young people in the state of Georgia. Largely hidden from public view, they remain vulnerable and isolated from the larger society, the schools, and the economy. Their educational attainment and socioeconomic status are unlikely to change due to their working conditions, their limited English skills, and their limited knowledge of, and inexperience with the school systems in the United States. Intervention programs, such as the Federal High School Equivalency Program (HEP) - sister program to the Department of Education's (Department) Title I, Part C Migrant Education Program - must be introduced and made available to these at-risk youth to prepare them to obtain their General Educational Development (GED), to increase their English language skills, and to become part of our society. The HEP provides a structure that caters to these students' needs, a curriculum aligned with state learning standards, and a list of additional services that make this program among the most unique and successful available.
A Three Model Structure
HEP projects in Georgia are structured into three different delivery models to accommodate the needs of the migrant students. The residential model serves students on the Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College campus in Tifton and is geared to students who are willing to live on campus. The commuter model is for students who are not able to live on campus but live within commuting distance from the college. The last model, the satellite model, has become more popular in recent years. Local partnerships between Title I, Part C Migrant Education Programs and the HEP make this model available, especially in more remote counties in the state. All three models are based on, and dependent upon, the demographics and needs of the target population being served.
Research Based Projects
The research-based materials in use in one successful satellite model project in Appling County include: the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) Level M in Spanish and Level D for English and the Steck-Vaughn HalfLength GED Practice Test Form PA. Both tests are used as academic diagnostic tools to identify student skill levels in the areas of reading, mathematics, mathematical computation, and language. Once the students have been accepted and an individual academic profile has been completed, the Steck-Vaughn, McGraw-Hill Contemporary, and American Guidance Service curriculum are used for instructional purposes. With results demonstrating over 80 percent success rate, the HEP project in Appling County speaks for itself.
Evaluating Needs
State reports compiled for Title I, Part C on recent survey data collected from out-of-school migrant youth suggest that this group has a defined interest in learning English and/or completing United States high school diploma or GED requirements. Currently, over 40 percent of the migrant eligible students in the state's Migrant Education Program (MEP) are out-of-school youth. This figure is increasing each year. Therefore, local MEP partnerships with the HEP are critically important to the continuous provision of high quality, outstanding services directed towards the academic success of this underserved population residing in our school districts.
As local districts continue to evaluate and plan for meeting the needs of their eligible migrant youth through Title I, Part C funded services, the HEP collaboration may be one of the best solutions. For additional information on the HEP in Georgia, visit: http://www.abac.edu/CAMP/.
For guidance on evaluating and planning for the needs of your district's migrant eligible out-of-school youth and drop out populations, contact your district's Migrant Education Agency (MEA) office or visit: http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ci_iap_migrant.aspx?PageReq=CIIAPMigRO for contact information. Each office is staffed with Adolescent Outreach and Resource Specialists who can assist in helping you to address the unmet needs of one of your most at-risk populations.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 12

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Bonnie Larson-Brogdon
Evaluating Preschool Program Participation for Children of Migrant Farm Workers
Challenges
Preschool education is an important option that helps prepare all children for entering formal education programs, but for the children of migrant farm workers it can be especially critical to ensuring success in education and academic achievement. Children of migrant families face unique educational challenges due to living a migrant lifestyle. What exactly does this mean, and how might it affect the education of preschool age migrant children? How can the needs and effectiveness of preschool programs for migrant children be evaluated?
The majority of migrant farm worker families share a common desire to improve their economic status and ensure a better future for their children. Many children of migrant farm workers suffer significant disruptions in their education due to living this migratory lifestyle. In this brief article, we summarize the challenges for preschool age children of migrant farm workers and suggest ways in which preschool enrollment and programs might be improved for this group.
Challenges of the migrant lifestyle that affect a child's education include, but are not limited to:
Frequent moves from one school system to the next, frequently across state lines. This may result in delayed education for preschoolers (e.g., not enrolled in Pre-K programs, or not enrolled until five years of age).
Primary language spoken at home may be Spanish, Creole (Haitian, English, or French), a Mayan language, or other non-English language. This can result in enrolled preschoolers facing difficulty in communicating with their peers and learning at a slower pace, initially, due to language acquisition challenges.
If a language other than English is spoken at home and the child has a learning disability, this disability might not be as quickly identified as it would if the child spoke English, or the evaluation process may be delayed due to frequent moves.
Disruption of health care services and insurance, which can result in children not receiving medicine and health care they need in order to stay healthy and active in a classroom setting.
In the United States, the majority of migrant farm workers are Hispanic or of Hispanic ethnic origin. According to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), people of Hispanic descent comprise the fastest growing and least well-educated segment of the population (Laosa, L. M. and P. Ainsworth, 2007). In addition, Hispanic families are least likely of any group to send children to public preschools due in part to parental education, language barriers, low socioeconomic status and lack of program access (Laosa, Luis M. and P. Ainsworth, 2007). Cultural aspects may also come into play.
In Georgia, approximately 51 percent to 55 percent of preschool eligible children have enrolled each year since 2002 in the public Pre-K program (Laosa, L. M. and P. Ainsworth, 2007). In the Migrant Education Program in Georgia, approximately 52 percent of eligible migrant children are enrolled in preschool programs (as of March 2008). These numbers indicate that migrant children are enrolled at approximately the same rate as non-migrant children in Georgia. This is good news, but given the special challenges that migrant children face during their school years, we can and should do more to prepare migrant children at an early age for school success.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 13

Evaluating Preschool Program Participation for Children of Migrant Farm Workers (continued)
How Can We Best Serve Preschool Age Migrant Children?
Improve Parental Outreach Efforts in Order to Increase Enrollment
Migrant parents should be targeted by school districts to make sure they receive information about local Head Start, Pre-K, and other preschool options in their communities (including programs managed by the Georgia East Coast Migrant Head Start Project). School districts must ensure that language appropriate materials are sent home to parents with preschool age children (in Spanish or other non-English language where appropriate). Follow-up by school personnel is an important aspect of outreach that is often overlooked. Personal contact with migrant parents new to a community may tip the balance in favor of enrolling a child into a preschool program.
Provide Transportation
Many migrant parents live at or below the poverty level, and may not have the resources available to transport their children to and from a Pre-K, Head Start or daycare center. In communities where Head Start, Pre-K and/or daycare centers do not provide transportation, this can be a determining factor for migrant children whether or not they attend a preschool program. Communities or school districts that have a high population of migrant children should consider using migrant funds to fill gaps and provide transportation or assist with the costs of public transportation so that all eligible children can attend preschool programs if parents so desire.
Migrant Preschool Summer Programs
Migrant preschool summer programs can provide additional and continued valuable learning experiences for migrant children, particularly for four year olds who will enter kindergarten in the upcoming fall. For migrant children who speak Spanish at home, preschool summer programs are important for maintaining English skills learned in a traditional fall to spring preschool program.
Provide Language Appropriate Educational Materials Whenever Possible
Preschool children are better served by approaches that incorporate their native language which, for most migrants, is Spanish (Ward, P.A. and M. E. Frnquiz, 2004). In some school districts, where there are large numbers of migrant farm worker families with children, preschool programs should consider using some bilingual (Spanish-English) educational materials. There is a large body of research on the best practices and positive effects of this approach. According to the NIEER Preschool Policy Brief, Is Public Pre-K Preparing Hispanic Children to Succeed in School? (Laosa, L. M. and P. Ainsworth, 2007), states should ensure that programs provide support for English Language Learner (ELL) children in their home language. Conceptual language is best developed in a child's home language (Olsen, L., 2006). Special programs could be developed to address school readiness skills with an emphasis on English language acquisition.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 14

Evaluating Preschool Program Participation for Children of Migrant Farm Workers (continued)
How Can We Evaluate the Progress of Migrant Preschoolers?
Assessing and evaluating the progress of migrant children in preschool programs is essential to ensuring the effectiveness of these programs in Georgia. We offer the following suggestions as to how school systems can evaluate the needs and effectiveness of their preschool programs for migrant children.
Review results of GKAP (or GKIDS for 2008-2009) evaluations that are given at the beginning of each kindergarten semester, particularly for English Language Learners (ELL) and migrant student sub-groups who have and have not attended preschool. Improve reporting systems to ensure that quality data are collected for children of migrant families, including three year olds. Develop assessment systems that follow and evaluate the long term academic progress of migrant students through high school, for those that have attended and not attended preschool. As Georgia continues to improve academic achievement for all students, a focus on improving enrollment and quality of education of the migrant preschool age group should help improve academic success for migrant students from kindergarten through high school.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 15

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Anne C. Christol, Kathy Jolly & Laura Herrington
North Georgia Districts Implementing Exemplary Programs That Address Migrant Student Needs

School districts in the North Georgia region of Piedmont Migrant Education Agency (PMEA) are working to assess student needs and use this data to implement effective programs. With guidance from the regional office of PMEA, and the results of their Comprehensive Needs Assessment surveys and data analysis, school districts have identified special educational needs of the migrant children in their districts and have determined specific services that will help their migrant children achieve the state and local measurable outcomes and performance targets for this unique and highly mobile population. This article will highlight some exemplary programs being conducted in the North Georgia area of Piedmont Migrant Education Agency. Programs featured are from Forsyth County and Gainesville City School Systems.
Forsyth County Schools
Forsyth County Schools developed implementation plans for migrant supplemental services after a review of recommendations from the FY07 Migrant Comprehensive Needs Assessment and district and school assessment profiles. In addition, consideration was given to the resources available through strategic internal and community collaboration and partnerships. Current implementation plans focus on school readiness, supplemental instructional support in the area of reading, and high school completion.
Services for preschool migrant children and their parents include school readiness toolkits that contain a variety of developmentally appropriate instructional materials to facilitate learning at home. All preschool parents are invited to the district's Title I sponsored The No Parent Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) training sessions covering timely early learning and educational topics. The school district offers additional learning support in the home per parent request through contract tutors. Building Language for Literacy from Great Source is used to develop increased language proficiency in the four language domains through interactive lessons incorporating concepts of oral language, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and concepts of print.
Forsyth County Migrant Education Program (MEP) students who are identified as Priority for Service are eligible for supplemental reading instruction through contract tutors. Tutors work in collaboration with classroom and special programs teachers to plan lessons that impact student learning and promote achievement in skill areas identified by staff and pertinent assessment data.
Summer intervention services support include a summer school program in the district and participation in the Steps to College Program at Gainesville State College for rising grades 9 through 12 students.
Gainesville City Schools
Gainesville City Schools is working to provide quality services to eligible MEP students in the areas of preschool, in-school, and out-of-school youth. For the out-of-school youth and drop out migrant population, Gainesville City is providing individual copies of Rosetta Stone (in CD format) to assist with English Language Development. MEP participants may either use the discs at home or at a public facility, such as the public library.
Gainesville City Schools have also implemented a process to assist migrant youth in the preparation for the General Educational Development (GED) assessment. Gainesville City MEP staff has found that most of the youth are unable to attend the district's GED program due to work schedule conflicts. Therefore the LEA is providing GED preparation materials to them. As participants complete one subject/text, the LEA provides the next in the series of study guides. Books and study materials provided in the GED program are English, mathematics, science, social studies, and grammar. When the participants are ready to take the GED exams, the migrant staff assists with registration at the local Adult Learning Center, which is an authorized GED test site. This program is proving to be quite successful.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 16

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Judy Alger, Jimmy Everson, Cindy Loe, Linda Anderson, Carol Grady & Lisa Stueve
Monitoring for Progress in Gwinnett County
Gwinnett County School District has taken full advantage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) accountability requirements by using them as a vehicle for improving instruction. At the end of the 2002-2003 school year 64 percent of the schools made adequate yearly progress (AYP) and by the end of the 2006-2007 school year 91 percent of the schools made AYP. This success is due in part to efforts by the district to focus on school accountability by implementing effective strategies for monitoring school and classroom progress toward reaching academic goals of excellence.
The district ensures implementation of the standards based, academic knowledge and skills curriculum by paying close attention to assessment results, classroom performance, and school performance. To this end, each principal prepares an accountability report at the end of the school year called the Accountability Report Results-Based Evaluation System (RBES). The RBES provides a concise systematic picture of annual school performance. The report includes specific information on key results toward meeting school goals for improvement, summary scores for pertinent student assessments, accomplishment highlights, staff and student data, and school safety perceptions. Also, beginning with this school year a set of rubrics called the Rubrics for Monitoring Progress is available for schools to keep close tabs on whether or not they are functioning effectively. The rubrics are used to evaluate four important processes for effective school operation: data analysis, planning for best practice, instruction, and assessment. Schools are identified as not meeting expectations, meeting expectations, or exceeding expectations using these rubrics.
Accountability Report Results Based Evaluation System (RBES)
Accountability reports provide consolidated information on a school's effectiveness based on multiple measures and student characteristics. Results are shared with the community so that members can better understand the progress of its schools in meeting local, state, and federal expectations.
Key Results from Local School Plans for Improvement
Local School Plans for Improvement outline each school's goals. These plans are developed locally by school administrators, teachers, and parent advisory groups. In the Key Results section, each school lists one or more goals such as increasing student achievement in reading, writing and mathematics, and gives results based on assessment data to show the positive impact on student achievement. When an identified strategy contributed to success in reaching the goal, a description of the strategy is included. The goals listed and corresponding progress toward meeting those goals gives the reader a snapshot of the school's overall effectiveness.
Student Assessment Results At the elementary and middle school levels, the student assessment section begins with an overview of requirements for promotion. Results are then reported for appropriate Gateway tests, CriterionReferenced Competency Tests (CRCT), and state promotion requirements at selected grade levels. Gwinnett County's Gateway tests are designed to show how well a student has learned the school system's curriculum, and are used to determine whether or not a student is ready to move on to the next grade level.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 17

Monitoring for Progress in Gwinnett County (continued)
Finally, the student's assessment section explains the criteria used for AYP as required in the NCLB. The narrative tells which grades in the school are subject to the NCLB requirements and the criteria for meeting each goal. A graph indicating the performance of each subgroup in the school is included as well as a narrative explaining the results and their implications.
School Highlights The school highlights section lists noted accomplishments for the school during the previous school year. Highlights describe student achievement successes, parent involvement participation, music and art awards, charity fund raising events, scholarship awards, athletic accomplishments and other notable facts. Schools use this section to paint a broad picture of the climate and successes that may not be reflected in other performance indicators.
Staff and Student Data Staff and student data are illustrated in graphic form showing the certification level and number of years of experience for staff members. Student data shows enrollment trends, attendance percentages, and subgroup populations in the school. This allows interested parties to compare the performance of the school to other schools with similar demographics.
School Safety Perceptions Safety perceptions of the school indicate the feelings of students and parents regarding the safety and security at the school. Students and parents are surveyed separately to determine if they feel the school is safe and secure. The results of the surveys are reported in this section.
Rubrics for Monitoring School Progress
The effectiveness of school operational processes is measured by rubrics developed by the Gwinnett County School District called the Rubrics for Monitoring Progress. Rubrics allow the school to be identified as does not meet expectations, meets expectations, or exceeds expectations for multiple items within four categories. Areas included in the rubric monitoring process are (1) Data Analysis, (2) Planning for Best Practices, (3) Instruction, and (4) Assessment.
Data Analysis Examples of what must be accomplished to exceed expectations in the Data Analysis category include: (1) A formal data team meets with teachers to create measurable goals driven by School Improvement Plans and reflective of District Benchmarks. Walk-through results and collaborative data show evidence of progress towards these individual teacher goals. (2) All students are included in test talks and complete a goals plan as a part of the process prior to February 1. Talks include a follow up analysis with teachers and the leadership team along with a follow up component with students. Second tier test talks are provided for targeted students and subgroups. (3) Benchmark assessments are used for enrolling students and throughout the year for formative assessment for 90 percent plus of the student population.
Planning for Best Practices Standards for exceeding expectations in the Planning for Best Practices category focus on the following: (1) The Gwinnett County Public Schools Lesson plan database, sequential lesson plans and instructional calendars are utilized by all teachers within the school, including special education and English Language Learners (ELL) teachers. Evidence of their use is observed and noted during classroom monitoring. (2) Collaborative planning meetings are held one to two times weekly and are held sacred by all groups. ELL, special education and special area/connections teachers participate in these sessions. The principal assures that central office staff is engaged with each team's planning session in a supportive and proactive manner. (3) Central office staff participate in a supportive and proactive way with school leadership planning session/meetings. Program specialists participate in monthly meetings with grade level and department teachers.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 18

Monitoring for Progress in Gwinnett County (continued)
Instruction Gwinnett County Schools is focused on data driven and research based instruction. The following standards are among those included to exceed expectations in the area of instruction: (1) Quality-Plus teaching strategies are used to deliver the academic knowledge and skills curriculum. Classroom content is aligned with the curriculum, and appropriate for all students. Students not only can articulate what is being taught but also they are actively and authentically engaged in the learning process. Appropriate strategies and content are evident during walkthroughs. Results from walk-throughs are compiled and shared with teachers, grade levels and departments as a way to determine that effective strategies are used, and also to determine areas for improvement. (2) Lessons for all teachers target the 20 percent weakest academic knowledge and skills curriculum standards for language arts and mathematics. These are included in direct, teacher led instruction, on grade level, and occur every day for every student. A data team is utilized to collaborate with and to lead this charge.
Assessment The district believes that common, frequent assessment should be used to drive instruction. (1) Benchmark pretests and nine week assessments are given for all students, including special education and Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students (ESOL). Data is analyzed by the leadership and instructional decisions are made in order to improve student achievement. Teachers understand the results of the benchmark data; discuss the analysis with colleagues during collaborative planning sessions, and effectively use information gained from their analysis to make instructional changes within their classrooms. Teachers make shifts in instruction or differentiate instruction based on analysis of this data. (2) Mini-assessments are given to all students, including Special Education and ESOL students, at least every three weeks on the 20 percent weakest academic areas. Teachers use data from the mini-assessments to improve instruction as they use the benchmark pretests and nine week assessments discussed above.
Gwinnett County Schools believes that accountability is a cornerstone of academic success for its students. Schools are accountable to students and their families, to themselves, to district administration, and to the State. The district has made monitoring school progress a focus of their improvement efforts. District personnel have worked to improve their monitoring process, and have made great strides since the implementation of NCLB in 2001. The district intends to combine, organize, illustrate clearly, and effectively distribute data on progress made toward academic success. The RBES process and the Rubrics for Monitoring Progress were created as vehicles for accomplishing this goal. Gwinnett County knows that monitoring for progress is a key element of academic success for students, and the district sees efforts in this area as a work in progress. The district will continue to improve and fine-tune processes for monitoring progress in the future.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 19

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Grace McElveen
Annual Review and Evaluation of a Targeted Assistance Program

Schools selected to receive funds that are ineligible for a schoolwide program, or that choose not to operate a schoolwide program may use Title I funds to provide services to eligible children identified as having the greatest need for special assistance. This program is considered to be a targeted assistance program.
A key component to the successfulness of any targeted assistance school improvement process is a review and evaluation of the program. Does the plan provide clear direction to the school as to what needs to be done and how do schools know they have achieved the desired results? Are the services and resources actually achieving the results expected? What is working and what can be improved?
Below are the components of a targeted assistance program and pertinent questions to evaluate and ensure that the plan in place is meeting the needs of all targeted students.
What is the process used to identify the students? Are the students in greatest need being served? In other words, are the right students being targeted?
What consideration is made for the economically disadvantaged, disabled, migrant, Limited English Proficient (LEP), and homeless children?
Does the multiple, educational related, objective criteria show actual assessment scores, student names, ranking and whether or not services are provided? Does the ranked list indicate how the targeted students are ranked among all students? (Remember that Pre-K to 2 grades may use parent survey and teacher recommendation and developmentally appropriate assessments. Grades 3 to 12 must use multiple educational related objective criteria.)

Scientifically Based Instructional Strategies

Are the instructional strategies a part of the whole school reform efforts?
After reviewing/analyzing the data, did the strategies target the specific needs of the students? What are the trends?
Did the strategies and practices minimize removing students from the regular classroom during the regular school day?

How has the school provided extended learning time?

Instruction by Highly Qualified Staff

Are all teachers and paraprofessionals highly qualified?
Are there plans in place to ensure that teachers and paraprofessionals remain highly qualified?
What efforts are implemented to retain highly qualified teachers? These efforts could include mentoring for new teachers.
What specific strategies are being used to recruit exemplary teachers?

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 20

Professional Development

Are all teachers participating in professional development activities?
Are the professional development opportunities provided directly impacting the identified needs of the targeted students?
What on-going and embedded support and follow up is provided to ensure implementation and effective use of the learned skills and strategies by the staff?

Parental Involvement

How are parents included in the development, updating and distribution of the school's parent involvement policy?
What methods are used to ensure that parents of targeted students are included in parental involvement activities? Are there strategies in place to improve student learning for families of targeted students?
How are parents of targeted students made aware of their child's academic needs?
How were the results of the annual parent survey used to evaluate the parental involvement strategies of the plan? How were these results shared with parents and staff?
Is the communication with parents, both orally and written, provided in language that is understandable?

Parental involvement strategies include opportunities for parents to participate in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school activities.

Coordination and Integration of Services and Programs

How are the programs supported under Title I, violence prevention programs, nutrition programs, housing programs, Head Start, adult education, vocational and technical education and job training coordinated and integrated into the total school program?
How does the district support the implementation of the targeted assistance plan?
What strategies and/or activities of the targeted assistance plan are coordinated with other district and school improvement efforts?

Monitoring

How are the needs of the students identified? What process is in place for analyzing data? Are teachers and administrators involved in the analysis of data?
How is the progress of students being monitored throughout the year? Are modifications being made in instruction based on this monitoring?
What criteria are used to exit or add students to the program?

Along with the evaluation of a current targeted assistance plan comes the revision for the next year's plan. This is an ongoing process of assessing results, developing a plan, and evaluating its strengths and weaknesses. The ultimate purpose of the targeted assistance program is to assist participating children in meeting the state's proficient and advanced levels of achievement. You can ensure that your school's targeted assistance plan has the best possible components each year through constant evaluation and revisions.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 21

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Sarah Towler
Evaluation and the Schoolwide Program

Developing a Title I, Part A compliant schoolwide plan includes conducting an evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan and revising your schoolwide plan annually to reflect the results of the evaluation requirement. The U.S. Department of Education (US ED) has cited many states for failure to monitor the evaluation component of schoolwide program planning. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires districts to annually evaluate the implementation of and results achieved by the schoolwide program using data from the State's annual assessments and other indicators of academic achievement. The statute also requires schools to revise the plan as necessary based on the results of evaluation to ensure continuous improvement of students in the schoolwide school. (Section 200.269(c) of the Title I regulations).
NCLB states that the ten required elements of a schoolwide plan must be evaluated and revised annually to reflect a school's current condition and that the plan be analyzed to ensure that all students are successful. Below are some suggested questions to help schools effectively examine each of the ten schoolwide plan components.

1.
Comprehensive Needs Assessment

For this component, the school must examine current data on the school's demographics, test scores, teacher qualifications, attendance rate, discipline referrals, and survey results. Some suggested questions to ask are:
How have the school's needs changed from the previous year as reflected in the data?
What needs have been met or unmet?
What contributed to meeting or not meeting these needs?

2.
Schoolwide Reform Strategies

This area requires close examination of scientifically based strategies that have been chosen to improve overall student achievement. Students achievement data is the core of this component:
How have the reform strategies chosen strengthened the core academic program?
Are the strategies addressing the quality and quantity of learning time?
How could the strategies be changed to further improve student success?
Does this program merit the money that is budgeted in the schoolwide plan?

3.
Instruction by Highly Qualified Teachers

The most crucial relationship within a school building is between the student and the teacher. The school's instructional staff constantly changes; therefore, a review of this section must provide for a plan to ensure that all teachers are highly qualified.
Are all the teachers highly qualified, and, if not, how will compliance be attained in the near future?
What can the school do to further improve the instructional quality?

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 22

Evaluation and the Schoolwide Program (continued)

4.
High Quality Ongoing Professional Development

Professional development in a schoolwide plan aligns with the needs assessment and provides additional tools for teachers to ensure success of all of their students.
What evidence does the school have that the professional development opportunities are making a difference with achievement of all students?
What professional development need is reflected by student achievement data?
What professional development is needed to improve teacher delivery?
What have teachers indicated as their professional development needs?

5.
Strategies to Attract Qualified Teachers to High Need Schools

When revising the schoolwide plan be sure to include internet tools available that help attract highly qualified teachers as well as strategies to retain highly qualified teachers. Some pertinent questions are:
What is the teacher retention rate?
What can be done to ensure the most qualified teachers remain at school?
Have we been able to fill our vacancies with highly qualified teachers? If not, should we offer an incentive or recruit in a different venue?
What are the results of the staff survey in regard to school climate?

6.
Strategies to Increase Parental Involvement

Reducing the barriers that prevent parents and guardians from participating in their child's education and providing opportunities is a responsibility of the school that must be addressed in a schoolwide plan. Many school plans lack what NCLB requires. Plans must include strategies to build the capacity of parents to assist in their child's education.
Is the school's parental involvement policy developed with the help of current parents and updated and distributed annually?
Is the Title I, Part A compact between parents, teachers, and students agreed upon by all stakeholders as determined by a survey?
In which ways are parents informed about the Title I, Part A program and availability of needed services?
Are parents informed about Title I, Part A services in their native language to the extent feasible?
Do parents help in planning the Title I, Part A program and evaluating the schoolwide plan?
Do survey results show a difference from one year to the next?
Are parents surveyed in the beginning of the year and at the end of the year to note any differences of perceived opinions and needs? How is this information used to increase parental involvement?
What activities are offered to parents to build capacity? How does the school measure the effectiveness of these activities?

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 23

Evaluation and the Schoolwide Program (continued)

7.
Plans for Assisting Preschool Students in a Successful Transition

Plans for assisting preschool students in the successful transition from early childhood programs to local elementary schoolwide programs. Attending school for the first time is a turning point in a young child's life. NCLB recognizes that this rite of passage deserves a well thought out plan to ease the stress of young children and their parents in order to set the tone of success for years to come. As the schoolwide plan is being revised, it is important to ask the following:
Are the present preschool transitional plans working successfully?
Are the preschool transitional plans inclusive of all demographics and backgrounds of incoming students?
What are survey results in regard to pre-school transition? How is this data collected? How is this data used to improve pre-school transition to elementary schools?

8.
Measures to Include Teachers in Decisions Regarding Use of Academic Assessments

Instructional planning by teachers must be based on the students' academic progress towards the goals measured through appropriately aligned assessment. For evaluation of this component ask:
Are teachers able to discuss their individual students' needs and strengths in regard to state standards as measured by both the state assessments and benchmark assessments?
Does additional training need to be provided to teachers or other professionals on how to interpret test data?
How do teachers collaborate with other teachers, coaches, parents, and other stakeholders to help plan instruction and intervention based on the data from assessment?

9.
Activities to Ensure Students Having Difficulty Attaining Proficiency Receive Effective/ Timely Additional Assistance
10.
Coordination and Integration of Federal and Local Services and Programs

This component requires the inspection of the school's Pyramid of Interventions and deciding what changes need to be made.
How is the success of students receiving intervention measured?
How are the students who need additional time and/or additional support receiving it?
If extended day or extended year is provided, are the students who are in most need of this service attending? If not, what can be done to help increase participation or what can be done within the school day to help these students?
Consolidation of federal funds is one of the advantages of schoolwide planning to ensure the whole school achieves.
Are the funds available for the schoolwide plan maximized to ensure that the whole school benefits from the funds?

Overall questions need to be asked in regard to the operational aspect of the schoolwide plan: Is the program being implemented as it was planned? Were sufficient resources devoted to implementing the plan?
The purpose of the annual evaluation and annual review of the schoolwide plan is not only to better meet the needs of students and close the gap on student achievement but also to increase stakeholder's awareness of the usefulness of activities the school has undertaken to increase student achievement. By evaluating each strategy and component of the program, the school leadership team can help promote interest in and support of programs and activities by illustrating instructional strategies, their outcomes in terms of improving student achievement, and increasing support for their use.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 24

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Ron Cox
Lessons Learned from Distinguished Schools
In the 2007-2008 school year, Georgia recognized 802 Title I Distinguished Schools, and four Distinguished Districts. For the first time in Georgia, two Schools received recognition as National Title I Distinguished Schools at the 2008 National Title I Conference in Nashville, Tennessee. Selected schools and districts may serve as models of best practices to other schools and districts.
An informal evaluation of reports submitted by many of the schools and districts identified as Title I Distinguished Schools, Districts, or a National Title I Distinguished School shared six common innovative approaches to instructional strategies and programs that increase student academic achievement.
Approach One: Strong and Targeted Approach to Curriculum
Many of the schools report using purposeful and rigorous approaches to core content areas. For example, many of the recognized Title I Distinguished Schools and Districts report that using strong reading programs such as Reading First or other reading initiatives to support high academic standards contributed to their school's success.
Mathematics Skill Builder programs and other programs designed to build mathematic skills and concepts needed to sustain academic achievement in this core content area were also reported.
Approach Two: Professional Development
On-going rigorous professional development for teachers aimed at strategically analyzing data (progress monitoring) to provide direction for future professional development was reported among various schools and districts that were successful at sustaining high levels of student academic success.
Approach Three: Partnerships
Strong parent and community partnerships exist at many schools and districts. Schools and districts also report professional development opportunities through professional organizations for school leadership teams as a strong element in their success.
Approach Four: Opportunities for Collaboration Among Teachers
A system of small Professional Learning Communities (PLC's) and interdisciplinary teaching teams that used common planning periods are reported to have impacted the success of Title I National Distinguished Schools.
Approach Five: Opportunities for All Students
Small group instruction and intensive intervention strategies, such as; Response to Intervention (RtI) programs and other programs have provided opportunities for all students to learn.
Approach Six: Investment & Integration of Fiscal Resources to Target High Need Students
Distinguished schools and districts report a high investment of monitoring resources to supplement opportunities for extended learning in before school, after school, and summer school programs.
Lessons from Distinguished Schools and Districts In summary, many of the schools and districts share common strategies and approaches to sustained student academic achievement. These approaches and many more can be used to develop a framework for improving student achievement.
For a more tailored approach to improving student academic achievement in your district, a more in-depth analysis will need to be conducted within your school or district to address specific needs.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 25

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Jennifer Davenport
Response to Intervention in Title I Programs
What is Response to Intervention (RtI)
Response to Intervention (RtI) is an instructional approach that addresses student needs through high quality instruction, frequent progress monitoring, increasingly intense levels of intervention, and data-based decision making. RtI brings together the various instructional activities of a typical school in order to provide more comprehensive and aligned services to individual students. A collaborative team of educators collects and analyzes data to identify struggling students, offer appropriate classroom-based and supplemental interventions, and monitors student response to these interventions. The collaborative team approach reinforces RtI's underlying philosophy: Increasing student achievement is everyone's responsibility!
The conceptual framework of RtI is most often presented as a pyramid with as few as three tiers of intervention. Georgia's Student Achievement Pyramid (see the diagram below) consists of four tiers of intervention that increase in intensity as students move upward through the tiers. Georgia's pyramid is built on the standards-based classroom (Tier 1) which serves as the foundation for teaching and learning. The Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) are the recognized curriculum standards for the effective instruction that should be taking place in all classrooms for all students at Tier 1. The critical attributes of each tier of Georgia's Student Achievement Pyramid include:
Universal screenings for both academics and behavior. Standards-based instructional practices implemented with fidelity. Use of data (progress monitoring) to identify appropriate interventions. Use of data (progress monitoring) to monitor student response to interventions.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 26

Response to Intervention in Title I Programs (continued)

The Student Selection Process
Before a district integrates Title I services into its RtI model, there must be a clear definition of the RtI model. The definition should include a detailed description of the core educational program (Tier 1). It should specify the services that will be provided and the criteria to be used for determining placement in intervention, as well as, the projected duration of the intervention.
The intent of both the student selection process required by Title I and the universal screening component in RtI is to identify students at-risk who should be targeted for additional instruction. Since the RtI process does not suggest that only the universal screening data be used to identify appropriate interventions, the additional data used in the RtI process for initial progress monitoring can and should be used in the Title I student selection process to further identify students most in need of Title I services.

Use of Title I Staff in RtI
The Title I program can be a part of the RtI process regardless of whether the school operates a targeted assistance or schoolwide program. Schoolwide programs that consolidate federal funds have more flexibility in terms of how funding and staff can be used in the RtI process. In a Title I schoolwide program that is consolidating federal funds, all of the school's resources, educational services, and personnel work together toward identified goals for raising student achievement.
In a targeted assistance program, staff paid with Title I funds are encouraged to collaborate with other staff whenever possible. However, when a school operates a targeted assistance program, Title I funded staff provide services ONLY to students identified through the Title I student selection process. Schools must also ensure that Title I students receive supplemental instruction from a teacher who meets the highly qualified requirement. The supplemental instruction provided to Title I students must be above and beyond the standards-based classroom provided in Tier I of Georgia's Student Achievement Pyramid.
Title I teachers can continue to be active in the RtI process as students move through Tiers II, III, and IV of Georgia's Student Achievement Pyramid. Although most Title I teachers work with small groups, they can work with individual students who have been identified as in need of intensive intervention. It is critical, however, to make certain that all Title I teachers students that work with the students, regardless of their academic progress, have been identified as Title I students through the required student selection process.

Title I, Part A Funds in Targeted Assistance Programs
When considering use of Title I, Part A funds to support RtI in a Title I targeted assistance program, schools and districts must examine each of RtI's component parts:
Needs Assessment
Title I teachers participate on the school's needs assessment team. Funding for the activities for needs assessment would come from a source other than Title I, Part A.
Professional Development
A school might consider utilizing Title I, Part A funds for professional development. When determining whether or not Title I funds can be used to fund a whole school professional development activity, schools should ask these questions:
Does the professional development focus on at-risk students? Is the cost of the training reasonable? Are the paraprofessional, teachers, and principals reflective of the grades being served by the Title I program? Are the professional development expenditures detailed in the district's consolidated application or budget revision(s) before they are implemented? When is cost sharing for professional development appropriate?
Universal Screening
Title I personnel should be involved in selection and administration of the screening assessment, as well as the compilation and review of the screening data. School districts must cover the costs of purchasing and administering student selection tools to identify students for Title I services.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 27

Response to Intervention in Title I Programs (continued)

Goal Setting and Intervention Identification
Title I teachers should be working with classroom teachers to administer and analyze progress monitoring data. Title I can use the school's identified screening and progress monitoring data as the additional data needed for student selection criteria. If caseload becomes an issue for Title I, schools can add additional criteria beyond the screening and progress monitoring selected by the school to assure that only the most at-risk students would receive individualized, intensified interventions through Title I. Title I teachers may not deliver identified interventions to non-Title I students. If a Title I student's progress on the RtI interventions indicate sufficient progress and educators agree that the current interventions can be maintained with fidelity in the regular classroom (Tier 1), the Title I teacher may consider removing a Title I student from Title I services. However, a decision of this nature requires input from parents and classroom teachers. The change should be documented and based on a thorough review of ongoing progress monitoring data. Students identified for Title I services may not be removed from Title I programming without specific written consent of the student's parent or legal guardian.
Implementation of Intervention
Tier I--The Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) are the recognized curriculum standards for the effective instruction that should be taking place in all classrooms for all students at Tier 1. Title I students must receive Tier I instruction. Tier II--Title I teachers can use either the in-class or pull-out model to provide Tier II instruction. Title I teachers MUST target only identified Title I students to receive supplemental instruction in addition to Tier I instruction. Tier III--Title I teachers can continue to be active participants in RtI as a student moves to Tier III. While Title I teachers primarily work with small groups of students, there is no restriction on their working with students individually.
Continued Progress Monitoring
Title I programs must, by law, report the progress of Title I students to parents on a regular basis. The Title I teacher is responsible for monitoring the progress of Title I students. In schools that are effectively implementing a collaborative RtI process, progress monitoring data could be used to report student progress in the Title I program.
Title I personnel should be included in any training on the tools used for progress monitoring as well as the universal screening assessment. If other federal programs (Reading First, Special Education, etc.) are sharing the cost of purchasing progress monitoring tools, then Title I funds could be used to pay a prorated share based on the number of students in the Title I program local or state funds are being used, Title I could not pay a portion since this would create a supplanting issue. Any expenditure that the district covers for nonTitle I students must be covered by the district for Title I students.
Evaluation
Both RtI and Title I evaluate the effectiveness of interventions focused on at-risk populations. The evaluation should consider these questions:
Is instruction, regular and supplementary, being delivered as intended by the intervention (i.e., with fidelity)? Does the universal screening process result in excessive erroneous findings? Are Title I or Tier II interventions successful? How do you know? How does the success of individual students in this school who receive intervention compare to the district? the state? the nation? What are the revisions that need to be made to the current process to ensure continued student progress?
RtI provides a systematic approach to meeting the needs of students who have traditionally been unsuccessful in the regular instructional program. It is a promise to all students that effective instruction will take place in all classrooms for all students everyday; that students will have access to appropriate, individualized instruction when necessary; and that ongoing progress monitoring will ensure that students are no longer prematurely and permanently labeled at-risk.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 28

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Diane Jackson-Chapman & Lou Ferretti
Are Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Helping to Close the Achievement Gap in Title I Schools?
A key provision of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was to offer options to parents if the local school did not to meet state standards. Parents are given two options. After the first year in which schools did not meet adequate yearly progress (AYP), parents have the option to transfer their child to a school that did make AYP. This option is referred to as Public School Choice. The other option is free tutoring to students in Title I schools if those schools did not make AYP for three consecutive years. This free tutoring is referred to as Supplemental Educational Services (SES). The primary purpose of SES is to help disadvantaged students in eligible Title I schools: to increase academic achievement on state assessments, and to attain proficiency in meeting state standards.
Participation and Costs and the Effectiveness of SES
According to Educational Industry Association (EIA), roughly 11 percent of the eligible two million students participate in SES across the United States. Two billion dollars are set-aside to fund SES out of the 13 billion dollars allocated for Title I schools. Georgia's participation rates were slightly higher at 12.6 percent with an enrollment of 10,564 students in 2006-2007. One of the biggest factors which can contribute to effectiveness is participation. There is limited empirical data presented by researchers to determine reasons for low participation in SES. A few of the reasons for low enrollment might be due to: participation in other afterschool programs; students lack of interest, especially among middle and high school students; lack of knowledge regarding SES programs by parents and students; no transportation to programs not offered at the school site; no transportation even if SES is offered at the local school; conflicts with other extra-curricular activities; conflicts with family obligations; or participation in other recreational programs . When school districts and State Agencies measure effectiveness they must take an in depth look at their SES participation rates and the cost per child.
Monitoring SES and its Impact of Effectiveness
To determine program effectiveness, monitoring is essential to determine if SES providers are delivering services as required by both state standards and federal guidelines. However, several states report that they only monitor minimally and three states reported that they do not monitor at all. Nineteen states reported they monitored somewhat and only ten states reported that they monitored to a great extent. This study was done by the Center on Educational Policy with 48 of the 50 states responding.
Obstacles to monitoring ranged from lack of staff and resources. Georgia has three full-time monitors and three additional SES staff who assist in monitoring. SES providers are only monitored once a year. This number only increases if SES providers have corrective action which requires subsequent visits. There are periodic unannounced monitoring visits and those occur if there are complaints by school districts or parents.
There are no federal standards set to require SES providers to monitor their own tutors because in many locally developed tutoring companies, the SES provider is also the tutor. The Georgia Department of Education (Department) is currently discussing ways to improve the internal controls SES providers can implement in order to create more consistency between their tutors and sites.
Some states use only desktop monitoring whereby SES providers send in yearly reports. If the paperwork is in order then the SES provider meets the monitoring standards set by the state.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 29

Are SES Helping to Close the Achievement Gap in Title I Schools? (continued)
Evaluation and Effectiveness
Reports from the US ED, independent evaluation agencies, State educational agencies (SEAs) and local school districts all vary in their approaches to evaluate the effectiveness of SES. NCLB requires not only coordinating the approval and monitoring process, but also withdrawing approval from providers who fail for two consecutive years to contribute to increasing the academic proficiency of students served. The Steven Ross Model widely used by many states, looks at three areas to help states evaluate SES:
Service Delivery Typically involves monitoring by state and sometimes local school districts. Customer Service Typically involves stakeholders completing a customer satisfaction survey (Title I directors, SES providers, parents, students, and sometimes teachers and principals). Effectiveness Typically involves assessing students' performance on statewide assessments and comparing their performance to a control group.
While there is no conclusive evidence to support that SES programs improve student achievement, states can put in place a process to ensure quality programs and evaluate their effectiveness by ensuring the following:
Develop application components to include strong instructional programs which align to state standards. Set in place yearly onsite monitoring of all providers. Collect evaluation data to assess student's performance on state standardized tests.
Georgia has implemented all three of these processes into its SES evaluation. All areas are constantly evaluated and updated to ensure that the SES program in Georgia helps all eligible children across the state meet and exceed their academic goals. The evaluation of SES in Georgia was conducted by the University of Georgia (UGA).
Results from Georgia's Evaluation in 2006-2007 and Some Comparison Data from 2005-2006
Student Participation
The following statements of finding are based on information received from local educational agencies (LEAs) about individual SES student participation.
Key Findings for Student Participation
The number of schools required to offer SES decreased from 154 in 2005-2006 to 138 in 2006-2007. The number of eligible SES students decreased from 93,308 in 2005-2006 to 83,923 in 2006-2007. The percentage of parents requesting SES increased from 14 percent (13,091 students) in 2005-2006 to 16.7 percent (14,009 students) in 2006-2007. The percentage of students receiving SES increased from 10.4 percent (9,670 students) in 2005-2006 to 12.6 percent (10,564 students) in 2006-2007. Most students received tutoring in reading and mathematics. 72.5 percent (6,355) of all SES students in 2006-2007 came from middle schools. 17.2 percent (1,505) of all SES students in 2006-2007 came from elementary schools. 10.3 percent (906) of all SES students in 2006-2007 came from high schools.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 30

Are SES Helping to Close the Achievement Gap in Title I Schools? (continued)
SES Effectiveness
The following statements of finding are based on information received from the University of Georgia regarding increased academic achievement for participating SES students.
Key Findings for SES Effectiveness
60.5 percent of all SES students increased their CRCT Reading Scaled scores from 2006 to 2007. 60.2 percent of all SES students increased their CRCT English / Language Arts Scaled scores from 2006 to 2007. 74.1 percent of all SES students increased their CRCT Math Scaled scores from 2006 to 2007.
Service Delivery
The following statements of finding are based on SES monitoring reports from 90 site visits conducted during the 2006-2007 school year.
Key Findings from State SES Monitoring Visits
All 90 monitored SES sites received at least the minimum Meets Standards rating for 2006-2007. 66 monitored SES sites (73 percent) did not receive any findings for non-compliance on monitoring standards. 24 monitored SES sites (27 percent) received findings for non-compliance on monitoring standards.
Customer Service
The following statements of finding are based on stakeholders completing a customer satisfaction survey (Title I directors, SES providers, parents, and students).
Key Findings from Customer Service Stakeholder Surveys
Compliance
The majority of directors, parents, and students agreed that providers had a plan for students' learning and gave regular progress reports to the students and parents that were easy to understand. While most providers were in compliance with the law, some providers were lax in beginning student services in a timely manner.
Satisfaction
Title I Directors were satisfied with the quality of services offered to students by most of the SES providers and they would recommend most providers remain on the approved Georgia provider list for the 2007-2008 school year. Overall parents and students were satisfied with the services and reported it was a good experience. Most indicated they would work with the same provider again if given the opportunity.
Impact on Student Learning and Achievement
At least two-thirds of parents responded that students' reading and math skills improved after working with a provider. Three-fourths of the students report that they feel more confident about school work after receiving SES.
To view the entire SES evaluation report, please visit the SES Web site at: http://www.gadoe.org/tss_title_parent.aspx?PageReq=TSSTitleSES

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 31

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Lonnie Edwards
Evaluating the Impact of Title I Programs on Student Achievement in Private Schools

Title I guidelines require participating local education agencies (LEAs) to provide eligible children attending private schools, their teachers, and parents with services that are equitable to those provided to eligible public school children, teachers, and parents. Consultation between the LEA and the private school is required and is a vital component for determining and providing quality services as well as providing direction for program evaluation.
One of the required consultation topics for LEAs and eligible private schools to discuss is how the LEA will academically assess the Title I services provided to the private school and how the results from this assessment will be used to improve future services. After the LEA and private school have agreed on the method of assessment, the LEA should develop an annual evaluation plan that lists by private school or groups of private schools, the standards and assessments agreed upon that will be used to measure the effectiveness of programs and the achievement of the participants. The LEA may use the state's assessment system or other assessment measures that more adequately reflect the curriculum of the private school. The LEA has the authority to make the final decision on how the effectiveness of the Title I program in the private school will be evaluated.
The following questions should be considered when conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of Title I programs on the achievement of identified Title I students in private schools.

1.
Comprehensive Needs Assessment

How did the LEA and private school officials conduct a comprehensive needs assessment of the population served by the Title I program at the private school? What assessments (Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), etc. were utilized to determine student performance levels prior to and after participation in the Title I program? What specific information about student performance did the data from these pre/post assessments reveal? What data other than student achievement data were analyzed (i.e., attendance data, discipline data, demographic data)? What did this data reveal? How will the LEA and private school use the results of the data to inform instructional practice?

2.
Annual Measurable Goals

What annual measurable achievement goals were established for students participating in the Title I program at the private school? Were the goals met? What barriers prohibited accomplishment of the annual measurable achievement goals? What facilitated attainment of the annual measurable achievement goals? How can barriers be eliminated and/or how can successful practices be continued in next year's Title I program? What plans are in place for continued progress monitoring? What annual measurable achievement goals will be addressed in next year's Title I program?

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 32

Evaluating the Impact of Title I Programs on Student Achievement in Private Schools (continued)

3.
Professional Learning
Opportunities

How did the LEA and private school officials conduct a comprehensive needs assessment of the professional learning needs for the private school teachers of identified Title I students? What professional learning opportunities were offered to these teachers? How did these professional learning opportunities impact the instruction of the private school teachers and the achievement of identified Title I students?

4.
Parent Participation

How were parents of identified private school Title I students represented in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the Title I program? What barriers to parent participation were present? How can these be eliminated? What facilitated parent participation? How can these be continued and/or improved?

5.
Reporting Results to Parents

How and when will the results of student achievement and program evaluation be shared with parents of identified Title I students? What plans are in place for next year's Title I program?

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 33

EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES
By: Sandra Moore
Cutting Edge Research
Stress! Impacting Student Academic Outcomes
Ask any student in today's society to recount their day and they are bound to respond with a multitude of items on their personal agenda. It is not uncommon to discover on their to-do list things such as homework, band practice, studying for tests, soccer game, baseball practice, work at a part-time job, helping to take care of a younger sibling, choir practice, and even more homework! Now, consider for a moment the child in school who may have just become homeless. Think about the child who lives in poverty. Mull over the child who has just lost a loved one. What about the child who may be facing a serious or terminal illness? Add in test taking anxieties, and adults soon come to realize why our children learn the word stress at a much earlier age.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, there are three types of stress often exhibited by children. These types of stress are:
Positive (a child attending a new school) Tolerable (short-lived such as separation or divorce) Toxic (child maltreatment such as neglect and abuse)
When any of these stressors occur, an alarm in the brain is set-off immediately. In each instance, the brain responds by preparing the body for defensive action. The nervous system is aroused and hormones are released. Muscles become tense. Senses are sharpened. The pulse quickens. Our respiration deepens. Stress hormones race through our bloodstream. We move into action. This response is preprogrammed biologically within each of us.
Much of today's research clearly indicates that our body can handle short-lived episodes of stress and that short-term stress can actually be good for us. According to the Centers for Disease Control, stress is an inevitable part of life ... it helps children develop the skills they need to cope with and adapt to new and potentially threatening situations throughout life. However, long-term stress can lead to lifelong issues with health and development. Constant long-term stress allows stress hormones to continuously wash through our system in high levels. These stress hormones never leave the blood and tissues and eventually can be the cause of serious physical and mental problems.
Can stress impact student achievement outcomes? The answer is an astounding YES. Recent research suggests that long-term stress can not only disrupt early brain development in children, it can lead to major health problems later in life such as alcoholism, depression, eating problems, heart disease and cancer, and other chronic diseases. The long-term exposure to stress hormones can impact the connection of brain circuits, thus resulting in the development of a smaller brain in children. Continuous high levels of the stress hormone, cortisol, can damage the hippocampus, the portion of the brain which is responsible for learning and memory (Centers for Disease Control). It is clearly evident that students living with toxic, or long-term stress, definitely are impacted in their cognitive development.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 34

Stress! Impacting Student Academic Outcomes (continued)
In order to make sure that the student stress levels are of the positive type when approaching statewide testing situations, administrators may consider the following strategies suggested by experts:
Offer test taking strategies for all children. Develop schoolwide practice tests. Teach children relaxation techniques. Help children understand the importance of preparing for the exam ahead of time. Allow school counselors to identify students who may suffer from testing anxiety and work with these students prior to testing situations so that the issues may be addressed up front (ericdigests.org). Visit the Public Broadcasting Station's Web site at: pbskids.org/itsmylife/school/teststress for ten terrific test taking tips.
Students and Parents also need to consider the following to ensure that the stress is minizimed. Some ideas are:
Exercise - this will help stress by releasing endorphins.
Laugh out loud each day.
Get Involved in an activity of service that will benefit others.
Prior to testing, children should get a good night's sleep and eat a well-balanced meal.
(Body and Mind, Centers of Disease Control)
In today's educational arena of accountability, evaluating student achievement outcomes is critical. It is absolutely true that our students have a plethora of activities that they must address each day. As you prepare to enhance your students' outcomes, consider the negative and long-term impact that stress can have on our children. Reflect also on the systems you can put in place in your district that will help ease stress for all of our students striving to gather the tools needed to become world class citizens.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 35

Education Support Services
On January 7, Eric McGhee, Grants Program Consultant - Programs for Neglected or Delinquent Children, was recognized as the ESI Division's Employee of the Week. He received a certificate as well as had lunch with Superintendent Kathy Cox.
Eric McGhee

On May 16, 2008, the LEA Monitoring and Technical Assistance Unit welcomed Phyllis Conn as the Title I Education Program Specialist for Area 1.

Phyllis Conn

By: Sharon Christ

On May 16, 2008, Ken Kitch, Ph.D. was promoted to Program Manager of Supplemental Educational Services.

Ken Kitch

Each month Superintendent Kathy Cox picks a Team within the agency that

exemplifies teamwork in order to help us achieve our vision: "We will lead

the nation in improving student achievement." The February's Terrific Team

was Title Programs Supplemental Educational Services Team:

Lou Ferretti

Ken Kitch Mike Mize

Jim Milliman

Yvonne Hodge Diane

Jackson-Chapman

SES Terrific Team

Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, or disability, in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. Employees, students and the general public are hereby notified that the Georgia Department of Education does not discriminate in any educational programs or activities or in employment policies. Inquiries regarding the application of these practices may be addressed to the Georgia Department of Education, Twin Towers East, Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (404) 656-2800.

eNews

The Conference Edition

Page 36