PROGRAM EVALUATION

Program Evaluation

Table of Contents

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION3

Introduction3

Purpose of Study3

Background of Study3

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW2

Homeschooling5

Charter Schools6

Magnet Schools6

Chapter III: Methodology2

Design2

Sampling2

Measures2

Data Collection3

References4

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Redistricting is never an easy or painless process, but it is something most urban school districts must periodically undertake to effectively manage educational resources and ensure continued student academic achievement. APS is certainly due for a district-wide redistricting initiative, because the last time the system underwent this process was back in 2006. Today, the district has critically overcrowded schools in some areas and severely under-enrolled schools in other sections. This situation wastes resources and adversely impacts efficient operations and potentially student academic achievement.

Purpose of Study

Purpose of the study is to evaluate program for the state and city of Atlanta, Georgia looking at 5 schools in the district programs.

Background of Study

The study will take 5 low schools and implement a program called PBIF, (www.pbis.org) centre for positive behavior or intervention and supports. For this purpose the study intends to firstly evaluate behavior and secondly, discipline procedures. Furthermore the study will analyze the PBIF management program and what it offers for intervention (positive behavior support). Compares top vs. lower Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), veteran teachers vs. new teachers, certified teachers vs. non certified teachers and find out if the district is using the PBIF program.

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Alternative schools are where youth who have become problematic in a variety of ways within the conventional school setting are sent. Raywid (2009) reported during the 70s and 80s they were “. . . the prospective solution to a variety of the nation's ills” (p. 192). In a United States Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics analysis report, Kleiner, Porch, and Farris (2002) maintained that students are referred to alternative schools and programs if they are at risk of educational failure, non-attendance, disruptive behavior, or any other factors dealing with the withdrawal from school.

The suggestion of alternative school attendance evokes negative images and parents balk when it is suggested as an option for their child's education. One could argue that alternative schools, designed to employ strategies that address the myriad of social issues affecting the children who are sent to them, will encourage the “right” child to excel academically and improve their attendance and graduation rates. These schools stress learning by participation and observation and have fewer rules and less regulation of conduct. This encourages students to exert more individual and collective decision-making than in other schools (Raywid). Jenkins and Keefe (2002) found that students reported working harder and learning more at the alternative school.

They also reported that in many district schools, students' achievement test scores were higher than the average. Raywid also found that alternative school teachers reported increased job satisfaction and the students actually “like” attending school. Additionally, alternative schools are structured to meet the needs of the youth who attend them (Knutson, 1995/1996). Alternative schools nowadays are a “. . . innovation; small-scale, informal ambiance; and departure from bureaucratic rules and procedures” (Raywid, 1994, ...