Writing research paper service
These criteria were based on the National Evaluation of School-to-Work Implementation Local Partnership Survey and are listed in Appendix A.
Such oversampling ensured sufficient representation of high schools with robust STC activities, and at the same time, allowed for generalization of findings across a given LP.
One of the primary objectives of the CORE analyses was to provide comparable data across LPs about student participation in STC. Consequently, LP evaluators were required to use instruments and data analysis techniques that were standardized across CORE LPs. Each LP conducted extensive interviews with appropriate postsecondary representatives. Each LP conducted an extensive interview with the LP director.
Surveys were given to principals of all public K-12 schools. Separate surveys were developed for the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Once classified, students were selected using a two-stage, stratified probability sample design with schools as the first-stage units and students within schools as the second-stage units (see Appendix A for more information about sample selection).
The Senior Survey yielded responses from 14,412 seniors in 123 high schools.
Respondents who completed the first Senior Survey were asked to complete a Follow-Up Survey, which focused on what students were doing, in terms of schooling and writing research paper service employment 5 to 6 months after graduation. A total of 9,823 students completed the Follow-Up Survey. PLUS Case Studies Unlike the CORE research, which relied upon common survey instruments and reporting formats designed by WestEd and MPR Associates, the PLUS analyses were under the direction of the local evaluators in the 5 LPs awarded PLUS ftmding. The PLUS analyses were designed to answer the research question: How has STC participation affected student preparation for postsecondary education and career entry?
In order to assist the State in reviewing what would otherwise be five idiosyncratic reports, WestEd and MPR Associates obtained the data files fi-om each of the PLUS sites and attempted to compare the results of similar models where possible. In 3 of the 5 PLUS analyses, evaluators were able to link responses to the CORE Senior Survey and Follow-Up Survey to individual outcome measures (e. CAN THE CORE OR PLUS Results Be Combined to Reflect STC Throughout California? Participation in the CORE, and PLUS analyses was based on a decision by LPs to apply for funding for the research and the State then determined the award of funding based on a technical review of proposals submitted in response to the RFA. While the data fi-om the CORE and PLUS analyses cannot be generalized to California as a whole, similar themes and findings fi-om the individual LPs are likely to be suggestive of the experience of many of the existing LPs.
The LPs selected for participation represent partnerships in different parts of California, bqth north and south. The 1 3 CORE LPs also reflect the diverse settings of STC partnerships in California: urban and rural, high or low minority student participation, and various socioeconomic backgrounds of students. The information provided by the LPs related to these topics is summarized in this chapter, and serves as an introduction to the LPs and their overall approaches to implementing STC. Introduction to Case Study LPs As mentioned in the introduction, the primary focus of this final report is on writing research paper service the 13 case study LPs selected for the statewide evaluation. Case study LPs are located in 8 of the 12 geographic regions in the state. North Coast STC Consortium, Sierra Regional STC Partnership) or large urban areas (e. The four largest case study LPs (in writing research paper service terms of K-12 enrollment) include between 1 and 36 school districts and between 293 and 580 K-12 schools.
The smaller LPs include between 1 and 33 school districts and between 29 and 186 K-12 schools. Case study LPs have relationships with a greater number of community colleges than 4-year colleges and universities. Specifically, 6 of the 13 case study LPs were established prior to 1996, when California received the National School-to-Work Implementation Grant. A few grew out of partnerships between high schools and commxmity colleges involved in creating articulation agreements writing research paper service and coordinating Tech Prep and ROP activities. Data from phone interviews with non-case study LP directors suggest that LPs created prior to the availability of STC fionding consider themselves at an advantage over those LPs established with STC funds. Because these LPs have been in existence for awhile, they have had more time than newer LPs to plan and implement various collaborative efforts and to learn from their experiences. Also, STC funding has allowed them to expand and refine their efforts as opposed to starting from scratch.
Finally, many of these LPs received financial support from a variety of partners and funding sources prior to receiving formal STC funding.
Therefore, LPs that began their efforts prior to receiving STC funding report being confident that they can revert back to these sources if needed, and in fact, some have already started to do so. In California, LPs are required to involve several key partners, including employers, labor organizations, LEA representatives (elementary, middle, secondary), postsecondary representatives, local educators, students, and parent representatives. Inclusion of these partners is important for several reasons.
For the most part, the composition of case study and non-case study LPs appears to be consistent with STWOA recommendations and California requirements.
A majority of , the LPs report representation from county offices of education, K-12 school districts and schools, postsecondary institutions, and employers on advisory and governing boards. In addition to these primary partners, some LPs report involvement in an advisory capacity from labor organizations, workforce investment agencies, local Chambers of Commerce, and other CBOs. Several non- case study LPs also report active participation by parents and members of local political offices. While the specific roles that these key partners play in STC implementation vary from LP to LP, some generalizations can be made about the different ways in which they participate. District offices often monitor mini-grant implementation and sometimes designate STC coordinators at the district or school levels to facilitate STC efforts. Administrators at the county, district and school levels, teachers, employers, and representatives from, postsecondary institutions, CBOs, and labor organizations often participate in LP governing and advisory bodies. In addition, employers provide WBL opportunities for students and teachers, speak in classrooms and at career fairs, and on occasion, help develop standards and curriculum. For example, local chambers of commerce are helping several LPs recruit business partners and link them to schools. Postsecondary institutions are active in creating dual enrollment and articulation agreements with secondary schools, and in some LPs, provide campus tours and career counseling services for students. Generally speaking, the larger the LP, the more complex their organizational structure.
While organizational structure varies somewhat from LP to LP, there are many structural similarities across LPs.