Download ppt - Children’s Scholarship Fund Literature Review

Children’s Scholarship FundLiterature Review

Jessica VanVuren, MSW Student

Assisted by Emily Nguyen, MSW, MPA Jieru Bai, PhD

Jeanette Harder, PhD

InternalExternal

• Parents’ Satisfaction• Parents’ Involvement• Parents’ Choice of

School• Rural Education• Civic Engagement

• Measurement Outcomes:• Grades & Test

Scores• Attendance and

Parental Involvement

• Parental Satisfaction

• Alumni Tracking

External

Civic Engagement

Rural Education

Parents’ Involvement

Parents’ Satisfaction

Parents’ Choice of School

Back: Ex/In

Internal

Alumni Tracking

Parental Satisfaction


Test Scores and Grades

Back: Ex/In

Parents’ Satisfaction

Parent Preferences and Parent Choices: The Public-Private Decision about School Choice

Methodology: comparing parents considering private education through surveys-satisfaction, involvement, priorities in choosing

Findings:

↑ income, ↑ education, consider private schools

parents considering private schools, more likely to give homework assistance

parents perceive involvement and communication more appreciated in private schools

Relevance: parental involvement questions, parental priorities in schools

BackReference: Goldring, E. B., & Phillips, K. J. R. (2008). Parent preferences and parent choices: The public-private decision about school choice. Journal of Education Policy, 23(3), 209-230.

Satisfaction (cont.)

Methodology: parent survey-involvement, satisfaction, reason for choice

Findings:

chose for academic reasons: ↑ satisfaction

chose for values: perceive more influence in school decisions, ↑ involvement

↑ parent education, ↑ seeking other schools

lower socioeconomic status felt less appreciated

Relevance: parents want satisfaction, involvement, influence in schools; target lower socioeconomic families

Back

Parent Involvement, Influence, and Satisfaction in Magnet Schools: Do Reasons for Choice Matter?

Reference: Hausman, C., & Goldring, E. (2000). Parent involvement, influence, and satisfaction in magnet schools: Do reasons for choice matter? Urban Review, 32(2), 105.


Methodology: 4th, 5th, 10th graders, teachers, parents surveys-participation, satisfaction, educational expectations, priorities in choice, parental self-efficacy

Findings:

↑ socioeconomic status, ↑ parental participation

choose for academics, ↑ parental participation

↑ parental participation, ↑ satisfaction

Relevance: specific questions for participation and satisfaction

Back

The Effects of School Choice on Parental School Participation and School Satisfaction in Korea

Reference: Kim, J., & Hwang, Y. (2014). The effects of school choice on parental school participation and school satisfaction in Korea. Social Indicators Research, 115(1), 363-385.

Parents’ Involvement

Methodology: qualitative interviews with parents, students, teachers investigating student performance and parental involvement

Findings:

parents who emphasize learning in the home had the most impact on child’s learning outcomes

parental engagement directly benefited student behavior

Relevance: parental engagement value, focus group interviews

Back

Do Parents Know They Matter? Engaging All Parents in Learning

Reference: Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research, 50(3), 277-289.

Involvement (cont.)

Methodology: literature review of 50 articles examining why parents become involved in homework

Findings:

parents become involved out of duty, positive impact, pressure

involvement associated with students’ attitude, competence, behaviors

Relevance: measuring parental involvement and its impact

Back

Parental Involvement in Homework

Reference: Hoover-Dempsey, K., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., & Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 195-209.

Parents’ Choice of School

Methodology: five school choice programs, parent survey

Findings:

↑ income, ↑ education; ↑ educational expectations

top reasons: educational quality and learning climate followed by discipline and safety.

Relevance: target low-income, what parents are looking for

Back

Who Chooses and Why: A Look at Five School Choice Plans

Reference: Martinez, V. & Thomas, K. (1994). Who chooses and why: A look at five school choice plans. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(9), 678.

Choice (cont.)

Methodology: parent survey-satisfaction and attitude towards choice

Findings:

↑ parent education, ↑ educational expectations but ↓ satisfaction

↑ occupational status,↑ incomes but ↓ satisfaction

these parents interested in school vouchers

Relevance: what type of parents are not initially interested in school choice programs

Back

Evaluations by Parents of Education Reforms: Evidence from a Parent Survey in Japan

Reference: Oshio, T., Sano, S., Ueno, Y., & Mino, K. (2010). Evaluations by parents of education reforms: Evidence from a parent survey in Japan. Education Economics, 18(2), 229-246.

Choice (cont.)

Methodology: parent survey-involvement & consideration of school choice

Findings:

academically educated parents more than vocationally educated interested in school choice programs

urban areas more interested than densely populated or rural

teaching emphases as main reason

Relevance: gather demographics about parent education

Back

Parents' Participation in their Child's Schooling

Reference: Räty, H., Kasanen, K., & Laine, N. (2009). Parents' participation in their child's schooling. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 277-293.

Choice (cont.)

Methodology: standardized test scores and attendance was gathered from public and private schools in Denmark

Findings: private school students with ↑ SES performed better; worse for ↓ SES

Relevance: comparing students matched on SES status

Back

Private Schools and the Parents that Choose Them: Empirical Evidence from the Danish School Voucher System

Reference: Andersen, S. C. (2008). Private schools and the parents that choose them: Empirical evidence from the Danish school voucher system. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31(1), 44-68.

Rural Education

Methodology: low and high poverty rural schools; academic achievement, educational aspirations, academic self-concept, school valuing & belonging

Findings:

high-poverty, more remote locations had ↑ academic achievement

academic self-concept had positive relationship with achievement & aspirations

Relevance: unique needs of rural poverty families

Back

Relationship of School Context to Rural Youth’s Educational Achievement and Aspirations

Reference: Irvin, M. J., Meece, J. L., Byun, S., Farmer, T. W., & Hutchins, B. C. (2010). Relationship of school context to rural youth’s educational achievement and aspirations. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 40(9), 1225-1242.

Rural (cont.)

Methodology: compared urban and rural high school classes over 4 years; postsecondary aspirations; focus groups & surveys

Findings:

aspirations ↑ for all students

rural students less satisfactory relationship with parents

rural schools spent more time on homework

rural schools less likely to aspire college

Relevance: differences in rural & urban; long-term outcomes

Back

Planning for the Future in Rural and Urban High Schools

Reference: Gandara, P., Gutierrez, D., & O'Hara, S. (2001). Planning for the future in rural and urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6(1), 73-93.

Rural (cont.)

Methodology: survey for teachers involved in IEP process in urban, suburban, & rural schools; student & parent participation

Findings: ↑ student and parent participation from rural schools

Relevance: rural parents may be more involved; compare to our own findings

Back

Student and Parent IEP Collaboration: A Comparison Across School Settings

Reference: Williams-Diehm, K., Brandes, J. A., Chesnut, P. W., & Haring, K. A. (2014). Student and parent IEP collaboration: A comparison across school settings. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33(1), 3-11.

Rural (cont.)

Methodology: elementary rural students; Childhood Development Scale (needs in career development)

Findings: top needs were curiosity, information, key figures, planning

Relevance: unique needs of rural elementary students

Back

The Career Development Needs of Rural Elementary School Students

Reference: Wood, C., & Kaszubowski, Y. (2008). The career development needs of rural elementary school students. Elementary School Journal, 108(5), 431-444.

Civic Engagement

Methodology: summary of research on youth civic engagement

Findings:

civic engagement develops problem-solving skills; give back to community; social capital

disconnected & dangerous communities struggle

schools—excellent source of development; private schools more emphasis

Relevance: positive effects of civic engagement (outcome); private schools value

Back

Youth Civic Engagement in the United States: Understanding and Addressing the Impact of Social Impediments on Positive Youth and Community Development

Reference: Balsano, A. B. (2005). Youth civic engagement in the United States: Understanding and addressing the impact of social impediments on positive youth and community development. Applied Developmental Science, 9(4), 188-201.

Civic Engagement (cont.)

Methodology: reviewed research on civic engagement among youth & young adults

Findings:

declining since 1970’s

young adults that tend to become engaged come from faith-based areas

↑ educated and ↑ income, more civic values

Relevance: faith-based schools; low-income families

Back

Civic Engagement and the Transition to Adulthood

Reference: Flanagan, C., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. Future of Children, 20(1), 159-179.

Civic Engagement (cont.)

Methodology: National Study of Youth and Religion longitudinal survey on religion, education, engagement; ages 13-23 over course of 6 years

Findings:

Catholic schools most likely to volunteer in adolescence

Protestant schools highest increase in volunteering and most likely to continue volunteering

Relevance: support private religious education

Back

Religion, Volunteering, and Educational Setting: The Effect of Youth Schooling Type on Civic Engagement

Reference: Hill, J. P., & den Dulk, K. R. (2013). Religion, volunteering, and educational setting: The effect of youth schooling type on civic engagement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52(1), 179-197.

Test Scores and Grades

Methodology: CSF 2-year program evaluation in Dayton, NYC, Washington; Iowa Test of Basic Skills

Findings: African American students switching from public to private experienced statistically significant increase in test scores

Relevance: positive impact of program; test scores

Back

Test-score Effects on School Vouchers in Dayton, Ohio, New York City, and Washington, D. C.

Reference: Howell, W. G., Wolf, P. J., Peterson, P. E., & Campbell, D. E. (2000). Test-score effects on school vouchers in Dayton, Ohio, New York City, and Washington, D. C.: Evidence from randomized field trials. Executive Summary. The Program on Education Policy and Government. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/dnw00x.pdf.

Test Scores and Grades (cont.)

Methodology: kindergarten and 1st grade students in CSF program; several academic achievement tests; compared to school and national

Findings:

CSF students scored comparably with national averages, several scoring above

only 3 students completed Terra Nova

Relevance: Terra Nova; other academic achievement measurements

Back

Analysis of MOST Student Achievement 2006-2007

Reference: Zoblotsky, T., McDonald, A., & Layton, E. S. (2008). Analysis of MOST student achievement 2006-2007. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/CREP-MOST%20Achievement%20Report%2006-07.pdf.

Test Scores and Grades (cont.)

Methodology: parents in program surveyed; grades of 3rd-8th students in program

Findings: majority of students received C or better in all subjects

Relevance: option of using grades as outcome measurement; issue of differing grading scales

Back

Children’s Scholarship Fund Baltimore Academic Performance of Scholarship Recipients in the 2005-2006 School Year

Reference: Carey, C. (2007). Children’s Scholarship Fund Baltimore academic performance of scholarship recipients in the 2005-2006 school year. Baltimore, MD. Children’s Scholarship Fund Baltimore. Retrieved from: http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/2005-06BaltimoreStudy.pdf.

Parental Satisfaction

Methodology: comparison of families receiving scholarships, not receiving scholarships, and declining scholarships; parent and student telephone surveys; focus groups; parental satisfaction, reason for choice, experience with school

Findings:

scholarship parents chose based on academics and religion

private school parents more satisfied than public school-discipline problems, respect from teachers

accepted scholarship parents more likely to be more educated, attend religious services, higher income

Relevance: comparison groups; focus groups

Back

An Evaluation of the Children’s Scholarship Fund

Reference: Peterson, P. E. & Campbell, D. E. (2001). An evaluation of the Children’s Scholarship Fund. Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/EvaluationofCSF.pdf.


Methodology: elementary students receiving, not receiving, and declining scholarships; Iowa Test of Basic Skills; parents & students satisfaction

Findings:

students with scholarship will perform better after one year’s time

parents and students receiving scholarships reported higher satisfaction

Relevance: comparison group; incentives for participating; satisfied parents and students

Back

The Effect of School Choice: An Evaluation of the Charlotte Children’s Scholarship Fund Program

Reference: Greene, J. P. (2004). The effect of school choice: An evaluation of the Charlotte Children’s Scholarship Fund program. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/050211CharlotteStudy.pdf.


Methodology: parent surveys; mandatory student standardized academic exams compared to public school data; parent focus groups

Findings:

parents perceive improvement in child’s academic performance, attitude, and behaviors;

parents chose school based on academics, religion, morals, safety

students outscored city but not county

Relevance: how to administer surveys, tests, focus groups; comparison data

Back

Memphis Opportunity Scholarship Trust

Reference: Nicks, S., Nelson, E., Hargett, J., & Faith, E. (2004). Memphis Opportunity Scholarship Trust: A descriptive and comparative study of the 2002-2003 school year. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/050211MemphisTestScoreStudy.pdf.


Methodology: CSF Philadelphia; interviewed key school staff; student focus groups

Findings:

schools rated CSF students equal or better attendance, academics, parent involvement; equal or less on income and disciplinary incidents

students reported similar grades from previous schools, interested in homework, felt safe, easily make friends

Relevance: student survey or focus groups; data from school personnel

Back

Final evaluation report: The Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia program

Reference: Schuh, A. D. & Simon, E. (2003). Final evaluation report: The Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia program. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/050211PhiladelphiaStudy.pdf.

Alumni Tracking

Methodology: school, parent, alumni parent surveys; student focus groups; current CSF student academics; CSF alumni (HS attended, graduation rates)

Findings:

CSF students performed near or above national averages

majority used Terra Nova

majority of alumni graduated high school (96%) and remained in non-public schools (81%)

Relevance: incorporating alumni statistics

Back

Phase II Annual Evaluation Report: The Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia

Reference: Schuh, A. D. (2008). Phase II annual evaluation report: The Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia program year four. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/CSFP%20Evaluation%20Phase%20II%20Year%20Four%20Annual%20Report%20Dec%202008.pdf.

Alumni (cont.)

Methodology: BASIC Fund program evaluation; Iowa Test of Basic Skills; HS graduation rates; parent surveys

Findings:

continual improvement in standardized tests

majority of students on track to graduate (based on failed courses, misbehaviors, family stress, number of schools attended)

Relevance: ways to gather alumni information and graduation prediction; parent survey ideas

Back

BASIC Fund Evaluation

Reference: Saphir, M., & Moore Kubo, M. (2007). BASIC Fund evaluation: Final report. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/BASICFund07112007%20BF%20Final%20Report.pdf.