Program evaluation, nonvocational laboratories, Department of Education

Table of Contents
Executivesw a r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Purpose of NonvocationalLaboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Comparison with Other States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A: FTE Students in NVLs as a Percentage of Total Nonvocational FTE
Students as of March 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Appendix B: Total Nonvocational Classes Taught as Nonvocational Laboratories
asofMarch1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix C: Potential Additional QBE Funding for Nonvocational Laboratories Based upon Possible Future Growth in the 9 Subject Areas
Comprising 99% of All NVL Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7
Appendix D: FTE Students in NVLs as a Percentage of Total Nonvocational FTE Students by Department of Education Local School System
SocioeconomicGroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28