children’s scholarship fund literature review jessica vanvuren, msw student assisted by emily...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Parental Involvement
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.
Satisfaction (cont.)
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.
Satisfaction (cont.)
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.
Satisfaction (cont.)
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.
Parental Involvement
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.