Research Methodology Case Study

8/13/2019 Research Methodology Case Study

1/117

Youth in Adult Education October 2003

An Exploratory Case Study of 16-20 Year Old

Students in Adult Education Programs

October 2003

Bert Flugman, Ph.D., Director

Center for Advanced Study in Education

Graduate Center of the City University of New York

Dolores Perin, Ph.D., Associate Professor

Teachers College, Columbia University

Seymour Spiegel, M.Ed., Project Director

Center for Advanced Study in Education

Graduate Center of the City University of New York

Funded by

The Office of Vocational and Adult EducationUS Department of Education

Subcontract Number OVAE 99-11

MPR Associates IncorporatedContract Number ED-99-CO-0160

CENTER FOR ADVANCED STUDY IN EDUCATION

The Graduate Center of the City University of New York

365 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300, New York, NY 10016

212.817.1831


2/117


This study was undertaken in compliance with Contract Number ED-

99-CO-0160, Subcontract No. OVAE 99-11 executed by the Office ofVocational and Adult Education (OVAE) of the U.S. Department ofEducation with the Research Foundation of the City University of New

York, Center for Advanced Study in Education of the City University of

New York Graduate Center. Richard Smith served as the OVAE

contracting officers technical representative.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the

positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. No officialendorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product,

commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended

or should be inferred.

i


3/117


An Exploratory Case Study of 16-20 Year-Old Students

in Adult Education Programs

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education of the US

Department of Education through Subcontract Number OVAE 99-11 awarded to the Center forAdvanced Study in Education of the City University of New York Graduate Center. This

contract was administered by MPR Associates Inc., the prime contractor, under Contract Number

ED-99-CO-0160 with the US Department of Education.

We are deeply grateful to Ronald S. Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education

and Literacy, OVAE, of the US Department of Education, for his foresight and guidance inhelping to focus our research design and for his unfailing faith in our efforts. Our gratitude isalso extended to the three OVAE Project Managers, Rebecca Moak, Joan Givens, and Amie

Amiot, who, in turn, were always responsive to our needs and provided invaluable support from

the projects conceptualization through its completion. We also offer our profound thanks to theAdult Education directors, counselors, teachers, and students, without whose generous

contributions of time and effort this research project could not have been undertaken.

We thank the members of our Advisory Board for their enthusiasm, critiques, insights,

and encouragement through each phase of this project. Their participation helped to keep us on

target in defining and reaching our objectives. Their expertise, advice, and support bolstered our

confidence in the design and in the implementation of our research methodology.1

We also thank Lynn Settlow, who assisted in analyzing the qualitative data and in pre-

paring the literature review, Dorothy Bergman, who was responsible for scheduling interviews,text editing, and data entry, and John Spiro, who transcribed all of the interviews. We hereby

also express our gratitude to Dr. Sonya Shapiro for her contribution to the conceptualization of

this study and for her review and insightful critique of the final document. The authors aregrateful as well to many others who provided assistance in this undertaking.

However, as with all research projects, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations

contained in this report remain the sole responsibility of its authors.

1 Advisory Board members: Professor Alan Gross, City University of New York Graduate Center; Garland

Hankins, Deputy State Director, Adult Education, Arkansas; Robert Hassinger, Director, Adult Education,

Yonkers, NY; Lennox McClendon, Executive Director, NAEPDC, Washington, DC; Professor Carol Tittle, CityUniversity of New York Graduate Center; Mary Weaver, State Director, Adult Education, California.


4/117


Table of ContentsPage

Official USDOE Disclaimer ............................................................................................................. i

Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................ii

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................iii

Tables and Figures .......................................................................................................................... iv

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1

Exploratory Study........................................................................................................................ 13

Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 14

Purpose of Study .................................................................................................................. 15

Research Questions........................................................................................................ 15

Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 16

Study Sample................................................................................................................. 16

Generalizing Findings.................................................................................................... 17

Exploratory Nature of the Study.................................................................................... 17Instrumentation.............................................................................................................. 17

Quantitative Data Requested ......................................................................................... 17

Quantitative Data Received ........................................................................................... 18Qualitative Data............................................................................................................. 19

Checking Facts and Interpretation................................................................................. 20Presentation of Findings ................................................................................................ 20

Findings................................................................................................................................ 20

Research Question 1: Relevant Federal, State and Local Policies .............................. 20

Summary of Federal, State and Local Policies ....................................................... 24

Research Questions 2-4: Changes in AE Enrollment ................................................... 25

Summary of Cumulative and Cross-Site Enrollment Data ..................................... 35

Research Questions 5-7: Student Characteristics ......................................................... 37

Summary of Student Characteristics Quantitative ............................................. 42

Perceived Student Characteristics Interview Data.................................................... 43

Summary of Perceived Student Characteristics Qualitative............................... 49Research Question 8: Reasons for Increased 16-20 Year-Old Enrollment in AE ........ 51

Summary of Reasons for Increased Enrollment of Youth in AE............................ 55

Research Questions 9-11: Program Characteristics...................................................... 56

Summary of Program Characteristics ..................................................................... 58

Research Question 12: Program Effectiveness............................................................. 60

Summary of Effective Program Strategies.............................................................. 66

Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 67

Issues and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 69

Issue 1: Funding Levels and Policies for Use of Funds................................................ 69

Issue 2: Data Collection and Data Analysis.................................................................. 70

Issue 3: Programs and Interventions for 16-20 Year-Olds ........................................... 72

Issue 4: Reasons for 16-20 Year-Olds Enter AE Programs.......................................... 73

Appendices

Appendix A: Literature Review................................................................................................. 77

Appendix B: References ............................................................................................................ 86

Appendix C: Instruments for Data Collection ........................................................................... 89

Appendix D: Interview Protocol.............................................................................................. 104

Appendix E: List of QSR-N5 NUD*IST Codes, Initial and Secondary.................................. 108

iii


5/117


Tables and Figures Page

Executive Summary

Table A: Enrollment Distribution at All Sites by Age....................................................... 4

Figure A: Comparison of Enrollment Changes by Age Group

in All Programs among Sites from Time 1 to Time 2 ........................................ 5 Table B: Characteristics of 16-20 Year-old Students at

All Sites for the Latest Year Available............................................................... 6

Exploratory Study

Tables

Table 1: Site A Enrollment Changes 1997-98 to 2000-01.............................................. 27

Table 2: Site B Enrollment Changes 2000-01 to 2001-02.............................................. 28

Table 3: Site C Enrollment Changes 1994-95 to 2000-01.............................................. 30

Table 4: Site D Enrollment Changes 1994-95 to 2001-02.............................................. 33Table 5: Enrollment Distribution by Age Group ............................................................ 36

Table 6: Characteristics of Students at Site A by Age Group......................................... 38

Table 7: Characteristics of Students at Site B by Age Group ........................................ 40Table 8: Characteristics of Students at Site C by Age Group......................................... 41

Table 9: Characteristics of ABE/GED Students at Site D by Age Group ...................... 42Table 10: Characteristics of 16-20 Year-Old Students in the

Alternative High School Unit ........................................................................... 43

Table 11: Characteristics of 16-20 Year-Old Students at All Sites

For the Latest Year Available........................................................................... 44

Figures

Figure 1: Site A Enrollment Distribution

in 1997-98 and 2000-01 by Age Group............................................................ 25

Figure 2: Site A Percent Increase

in Enrollment 1997 to 2000 All Programs.................................................. 26

Figure 3: Site B Enrollment Distributionin 2000-01 and 2001-02 by Age Group............................................................ 29

Figure 4: Site B Percent Increase

in Enrollment 1997 to 2000 All Programs................................................... 29

Figure 5: Site C Enrollment Distribution


Figure 6: Site C Percent Increase


Figure 7: Site D Enrollment Distribution


Figure 8: Site D Percent Increase


Figure 9: Site E Enrollment Distributionin 1997-98 and 1999-00 by Age Group............................................................ 33

Figure 10: Site E Adult Education and Alternative Education

Enrollment in 1999-00 by Age Group.............................................................. 34

Figure 11: Comparison of Enrollment Changes by Age Group

in All Programs from Time 1 to Time 2........................................................... 37

iv


6/117

Youth in Adult Education October 2003 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The issue that motivates the current study is an apparent large increase during the past

several years in the participation of recent high school dropouts in Adult Education (AE) and the

effects of their presence in these programs. Knowledge of this trend comes from published

reports and from informal anecdotal information from directors of AE programs. The currentexploratory case study sought to document further these reported youth enrollment trends in AE

programs, characteristics of youth in comparison with those of older students and to investigate

additional issues and questions, such as characteristics of AE programs serving youth.

In the tradition of case study research, the nature of the sample prevents generalization of

the findings to other communities and states; however, the study seeks to point to issues that canserve as an alert to policy makers and practitioners and serve as a basis for systematic rigorous

research in the future.

METHODOLOGY

The sample for this study consisted of five AE programs operated by Local Education

Agencies (LEAs) in five large urban communities in one state. The study focuses only on AEprograms within LEA jurisdiction. Non-LEA venues for youth enrollment such as community-

based organizations, volunteer tutoring activities, and public library sponsored programs were

not included in the study.

Quantitative data were requested from each site regarding enrollment in Pre-GED (ABE),

GED, ESOL, and career and technical programs.2 Information descriptive of student character-

istics for age-cohorts 16-20, 21-24, and 25+ was also sought for two points in time: the 1996-

1997 and the 2000-2001 program years. Only one of the five sites was able to come close to pro-

viding the data as requested. Nonetheless, data were provided from all sites for two points intime; however, time periods and information varied from site to site.

Qualitative data were collected in open-ended interviews at the sites and by telephone

during the period February through December 2002 using a structured questionnaire. Interviewswere conducted with AE directors and other senior administrators, AE teachers and counselors,

and AE students. AE directors at each site selected the most experienced AE personnel for theinterviews. A total of 62 interviews were conducted. Interview questions were provided in

advance of the interview sessions to help interviewees develop thoughtful and complete re-

sponses to questions. Nevertheless, in keeping with the scope of this exploratory study, thereader is alerted to the fact that the sample of respondents is small; and information acquired

from these respondents was not corroborated with other independent data sources.

The quantitative data are presented for each site. To preserve confidentiality, absolute

numbers are not reported. Rather, all data are presented as percentages of enrollments within

sites. The qualitative data are presented in terms of substantive issues across sites, rather than foreach site. The sites are referred to as Sites A through E.

2 Common acronyms are used as follows: AE = Adult Education; GED = General Educational Development Test;ABE = Adult Basic Education; ESOL = English for Speakers of Other Languages; LEA = Local Education

Agency. Career and technical programs are supported by other than federal adult education funds.


7/117


THE SITES

Site A serves students who read at third grade level and above, and refers lower-func-

tioning applicants to a community-based organization. The majority of participants at Site A are

of Hispanic background. The majority of 16-20 year olds are enrolled in ABE, and many of

these individuals have very low reading scores. A waiting list for student enrollment is main-tained at Site A because of a large demand for services and a shortage of classroom space. Site

A assigns 16-17 year olds to separate classrooms, while students aged 18-20 are included in

classes with older adults. The program communicates with parents in the event of disruptivebehavior on the part of any 16-20 year old. The program is flexible in its attendance policy,

allowing students to return even after months-long absences.

Site B serves a largely Black population in its AE program. Computer-based instruction

is prominent at this site. Teachers and administrators reported that many of the 16-20 year old

participants are referred to the program as a condition of probation. Youth and adults areintegrated in classrooms. The program has rolling admissions and accepts new students daily.

Attendance policy is lenient, but a counselor spends a substantial proportion of time contacting16-18 year old absentees. The majority of youth participants are enrolled in GED classes. Many

students test low in reading. Among all ABE and GED students, 45% of the 16-20 year oldsread at grade level 4.9 or below.

Site C operates a large part of its AE services in satellite community college space in adowntown area. The student body is largely Black. Services are comprehensive and include

health care and counseling. Recently, the number of 16-20 year old students on probation or in

drug rehabilitation has increased. The 16-20 year old students attend segregated classes for ashort time and then move into classes with the adult students. The program has rolling, daily

admissions. The admission of 16-17 year-olds must be formally approved by the high school.Instruction is individualized using modules with an assessment component. The majority of 16-

20 year-olds are enrolled in ABE. Approximately one-third of all youth enrolled in the

ABE/GED track at the site read at or below the 4.9 grade level.

Site D serves a largely black, male, student body. Because of parking restrictions in the

immediate vicinity and inadequate public transportation, students from other neighborhoods have

difficulty reaching the adult education program site. Therefore, the enrollment at Site D consistslargely of students who live nearby. Most of the 16-20 year olds in AE are enrolled in ABE and

GED instruction. In accordance with district policy that mandates high school attendance until

the 17th

birthday, applicants aged 16 are referred back to their high schools, as are 17-year-oldapplicants who are still in high school and reading below the 8

th grade level. Otherwise, the

program accepts students daily, and requires of students an 85% attendance record to remain in

the program. About one-quarter of the youth enrollments are court or drug rehabilitation refer-rals. Forty-three percent of the under-21 students at this site read at or below the 4.9 grade level.

Site E primarily serves 16-20 year-old students in a citywide alternative high schoolprogram that prepares them for a regular high school diploma or GED, depending on students

academic history. Although the program emphasizes GED preparation, just under half of the

students are in ABE instruction. ABE students advance to GED status when their test scores

indicate an appropriate level of readiness. Of the ABE students, approximately one-third read ator below the 4.9 grade level. The program has a waiting list and cannot accommodate all

eligible applicants. Some classes are designated for students with limited English proficiency,


8/117


but ESOL instruction plays only a small role at the site. Students are admitted on a rolling, daily

basis. Attendance policy is flexible, in line with conventional AE practice. Most classrooms arelocated in non-school settings, and much of the instruction is individualized.

FINDINGS

Enrollment data are reported at each site for two points in time, by age grouping, and by

the type of program in which students are enrolled. Enrollment reports take two forms: 1) the

percent change from Time 1 to Time 2 for age cohorts 16-20, 21-24 and 25+ within eachparticular type of program

3[ABE, GED, ESOL], and 2) the distribution of enrollees at the sites

by age cohort for time 1 and time 2. Reporting both types of data is deemed necessary to obtain

an accurate picture of the extent to which 16-20 year-olds have impacted a site. For example, ifonly enrollment distribution data were provided that reported proportional increases in all age

categories from Time 1 to Time 2, enrollment gains of 16-20 year-olds could well be masked.

Alternately, reporting a large percentage gain in 16-20 year-old students could be less importantfor a site if these students constitute only a small proportion of the total site enrollment.

All sites reported that adolescents represented a sizable proportion of enrollments, and

four of the five sites reported that the proportion had grown in recent years as a result of largeenrollment increases of 16-20 year-olds. These findings are summarized below.

Cumulative and Cross-Site Summary of Enrollment Data

The total most current enrollment across five sites was estimated at 71,981 students.

This total was aggregated for the program years 1999-2000 from one site, 2000-2001 from twosites, and 2001-2002 from two sites. Although the enrollments were not distributed equally, the

distribution of these students by age across all sites is as follows:

16 to 20 year cohort 50%

21 to 24 year cohort 15%25 or older cohort 35%

Table A, page 4, details for each study site the distribution of all students for each age

group for the first and last year that data were provided by the site for this study. The table alsoincludes the change in the age distributions for 16 to 20 year-olds at the sites for their respective

time 1 and time 2 study dates. Actual elapsed study periods varied from 2 to 8 years with the

earliest beginning with the 1994-1995 program year and the latest ending in 2001-2002.

As shown in Table A, the current or time 2 proportion of 16 to 20 year-olds varies from

a high of 62% to a low of 18%. The latter low number of 18% still represents a considerablepresence in this sites entire adult education program. From site to site, increases from the earlier

or historic time to time 2, the most recent, in the proportion of 16 to 20 year-olds range from a

0% increase to an increase of 26%.

3 Since Career and Technical data represent duplicated enrollment counts, these numbers are not included in discus-sions about changes in enrollment levels; however, career and technical data are discussed in the section of the

full report on characteristics of students and types of programs in which they participate.


9/117


Table A: Enrollment Distribution at All Sites by Age

AGE Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E

16-20 12% 36% 24% 19% NA*

21-25 20% 13% 18% 18% NA

25+68% 51% 58% 63% NA

AGE Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E

16-20 18% 62% 35% 31% 53%

21-25 20% 11% 16% 20% 16%

25+ 62% 27% 49% 49% 31%

Time 1

Time 2

Change in Percentage (Proportion) of 16-20 Year-Olds at Each Site

Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E

16-20 +6% +26% +11% +12% 0% **

Years Elapsed 4 2 7 8 3

* NA = Data not made available.

** Estimated change. Estimate is drawn from different, but partially overlapping, three

year periods.

Figure A, page 5, illustrates the percentage change in overall enrollment for four sites for

each age cohort. Within durations extending from as few as two years to a high of eight years,changes ranged from 91% to 230%. Although Site E could not provide data in this form, exam-

ination of other data sets there led to the conclusion that no change in enrollments had occurred

over the time periods studied. The enrollment increases were all much greater for 16 to 20 year-olds than for other age groups.

In summary, the total current enrollment of 16 to 20 year-olds in the study sites was esti-mated at 35,656, just short of 50% of the total enrollment of 71,981. Sixteen to twenty year-olds

had a strong impact on the five study sites:

All 5 sites reported moderate to large percentages of 16-20 year-olds enrolled attheir sites;

At 4 sites, the percentages of 16-20 year-olds grew modestly from Time 1 to Time

2, along with increases in enrollment for other age groups; and

At 4 sites, the enrollment of 16-20 year-olds grew dramatically between time 1 and

time 2.


10/117


Comparison of Enrollment Changes by Age Group in All Programs

from Time 1 to Time 2

91%

138%

103%

230%

2

1%

1

8%

1

8%

123%

9%

-26%

14%

57%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

Elapsed Years between Time 1 and Time 2

PercentChange

16-20

21-24

25+

4 Years 2 Years 7 Years 8 Years

Site E: No enrollment changes were found in 16-20 year-olds.

Figure A

Site A Site B Site C Site D

Characteristics of 16 to 20 Year-Olds at All Sites

Table B, page 6, summarizes the characteristics of 16 to 20 year-olds for all sites fromwhich data were available. At all sites enrolled students were predominantly Black or Hispanic.

Designated disability and reported employment levels were low. The majority of students were

in ABE programs. Within the combined ABE/GED track, students reading below 8.0 were

assigned ABE status by the research team. On this basis, 54% to 64% of students across siteswere considered to be in the ABE category. Of these students, 30% to 52% were reading at a 4.9

grade level or lower. Except at site B where all students were enrolled in a 30 hour computer

literacy course, most sites provided low levels of career and technical training for 16-20 year-oldstudents.

Perceived Student Characteristics Information from Interviews

Interview data elaborate on the statistical profile of 16-20 year-olds that was presented

above. Interview data differentiate the 16-20 year-olds from other age groups more than do thestatistical data. As reported by AE professional personnel, the large majority of 16-20 year-olds

in AE dropped out voluntarily or were expelled from high school. Many are known to the crimi-

nal justice system or are welfare recipients. Some youth have been away from formal education

for 2-3 years.


11/117


These categories and the distribution of youth into one or more of these categories were,

as noted, not independently verified. Given the significance attached to these characteristics bythe interviewees, further descriptive studies of this population are certainly needed.

Table B: Characteristics of 16-20 Year-old Students at All Sites for the Latest Year Available

Gender Ethnicity

Male Female NatAmer Asian Black Hisp White Disability

Site A 55% 45% 0% 2% 10% 79% 9% 2%

Site B 47% 53%


12/117


Additional themes emerged from the interviews regarding the participation of 16-20 year-

olds in AE programs, including:

Admission policies and intake procedures

Program characteristics and program adaptations

Attendance, attrition, and retention strategies

Effects on older students Outcomes in terms of academic skills, GED attainment, and employment

Reasons for 16-20 year-old students enrollment in AE programs.

CONCLUSIONS

From examination of the quantitative and qualitative data collected in this study, severalconclusions can be drawn:

Enrollments of 16-20 year-olds in adult education have increased dramatically at four

sites. At the fifth site, which has had a high proportion of 16-20 year-olds through the

past several years, no increase in that proportion was reported; nor did that site reportan increase in the absolute number of 16-20 year-olds enrolled. Overall, however, all

five sites reported the 16-20 year-olds to be a significant proportion of those enrolled.

For this study, students reading below the 8th

grade level were categorized asmembers of the Adult Basic Education (ABE) group. The data reported by the sites

indicate that the majority of 16-20 year-olds in AE, excluding the ESOL population,are in the ABE category, with as many as 50% of those reading below 5

thgrade level

(See Tables 6-9). While a sustained effort is likely to enable ABE students reading

above the 5th

grade level to attain a GED credential, such aspirations for most of those

reading below 5th

grade level are unrealistic. Nevertheless, continued academic

efforts and specialized career and technical training can help these teenagers preparefor productive employment and an independent life.

Along with their academic difficulties, many of the 16-20 year-old students have

behavioral problems. These young adults are in need of, but not receiving, the ser-vices they need in AE programs, such as comprehensive, individualized literacy and

math interventions, intensive personal and career counseling, and peer support and/or

assistance programs and career/technical training.

The presence of high-risk youth in AE can be viewed as a significant source of fiscal

and programmatic difficulty in every community. If the number of 16-20 year-olds in

AE continues to grow at the same or higher rate, the burden and responsibility cur-rently shouldered primarily by AE will need to be shared more equitably with other

supporting state and local agencies.

Although the operational definition of dropout in adult education varied among thesites, teachers and AE program administrators at all sites spoke of generally high

youth dropout rates. Testimony was consistent regarding the frequent intermittent

attendance among young adults and the personal and societal pressures that interferewith AE school attendance. These pressures have influenced school administrators to

relax the number of absences that lead to immediate removal from the AE programs.


13/117


ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Issue 1: Funding Levels and Policies for Use of Funding

The cost for adult education in the United States is borne by federal, state, and local

governments. Of that total, nationally, the federal share estimated by the US Department of Edu-cation of AE funding through the years 1992-1996 averaged approximately 22%, with state and

local sources making up the remainder.7 Levels of state and local funding of AE vary, but fund-

ing to support 16-20 year-old students is short-changed. In the state studied in this report, thefederal share of funding at local sites is estimated to range from to 10 to 25%. Federal legisla-

tion authorizes adult education funding for programs that serve 16 to 20 year-olds; but state and

local legislation, guidelines, and polices differ in how AE funding is allocated, especially inregard to 16-20 year-olds.

Moreover, AE directors interviewed for this study uniformly described 16 to 20 year-oldsas requiring more costly services than other age cohorts and needing even more extensive and

more costly programming than is currently being provided. Within this context the following thefollowing recommendations are offered.

Issue 1: Recommendation

Undertake a national study of how states and local entities fund AE programs. This studywould specifically target policies and practices that have a direct impact on programming for

out-of-school 16 to 20 year-olds by identifying:

State and local funding levels in relation to federal funding levels,

Policies for the use of these funds,

Funding patterns/practices which provide the most comprehensive services for

students and/or produce the greatest gains in student achievement relative to effort

or cost expended,

Recommendations for legislative redress in federal, state, and local funding prac-

tices and policies, and

New and tried strategies that strengthen or forge new relationships among local

and state agencies in support of mutually advantageous AE services.

Issue 2: Data Collection and Data Analysis

Quantitative and interview data generated by the five sites in this study supported

findings of previous research and anecdotal reports from the field. In addition, interview data

elaborated upon characteristics of 16 to 20 year-olds that would not appear in standard AEreporting, such as the National Reporting System (NRS). Also, a wide discrepancy was apparent

between interviewees perceptions of the extent to which learning disabilities existed among 16-

20 year-olds and the extent to which disabilities were formally reported. However, data in thisstudy were drawn from a limited number of sites, and the study was confined to LEA run AE

7 On a national level for the years 1992-1996, the estimated contribution of federal funds as a part of all spending in

support of adult education was 21.5% (Source: U.S. Department of Education, My.ED.gov,Human Investment

Impact,1994-1998,Funding Table; www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/9499hinvest.html,)
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/9499hinvest.htmlhttp://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/9499hinvest.html


14/117


programs in urban settings in one state. Therefore, a further examination of enrollment levels,

student characteristics, and services provided to 16 to 20 year-olds needs to be undertaken andexpanded, using data generated by the NRS only as a starting point. Specific recommendations

for further data collection, data analysis, data use, and research appear below.

Issue 2: Recommendations

Use NRS data to document current enrollment distributions regarding 16 to 20 year-oldsand future enrollment trends. These analyses need to be disaggregated by service deliv-ery entities, e.g., LEAs, community-based organizations, community colleges, and quasi-

government agencies such as public libraries.

More accurate and precise student outcome data need to be collected to support outcomestudies.

Studies attempting to replicate the research reported on herein with a more representative

sample should be undertaken only if more complete and pertinent historical data can beprovided with more ease than was the case in the current study.

Further descriptive investigations of the characteristics of 16 to 20 year-olds need to beundertaken using the NRS data. Also, student data collection should be broadened to

provide service providers an in-depth description of the characteristics of the 16 to 20

year-olds they are seeking to serve. These descriptive data and studies are needed toimprove program planning and to undertake program intervention studies that can assess

program outcomes as a function of participant characteristics.

Given the discrepancy between the level of learning disabilities reported by interviewees

and the relatively low number of 16-20 year-olds classified as disabled based uponquantitative data, further investigation of this particular student characteristic is

warranted. AE professional staff frequently cited lack of resources and trained personnelas reasons for not examining prior school records or conducting expanded assessments at

intake to screen for learning disabilities. Whatever the true level of learning disabilities

exists within AE settings, a more comprehensive review needs to be undertaken: 1) todetermine the services to which these students are entitled, 2) to assess realistically the

ability of AE programs to provide these services within AE settings, and 3) to identify the

agencies to which these students can be referred.

NRS data collected by local sites should be used for local planning purposes and local

site-based program evaluation and research. Collection and coherent use of local NRSdata can be facilitated by training local professional personnel in the NRS protocols andby fostering proper employment of various data analytic tools. In this way, each local

education agency (LEA) could easily extract quantitative data from a database in

response to local site-based inquiries. Research studies can then also be undertaken

regarding the degree to which these tools can facilitate and improve the work of localprograms.

More complete follow-up data needs to be collected regarding post-AE transition out-

comes for 16-20 year-olds. For example, the current study suggested that close connec-


15/117


tions between GED preparation and community college education had positive effects on

student retention and performance. Traditionally, states and districts have establishedGED programs in various sites and configurations: 1) on community college campuses,

2) at sites apart from the high schools but wholly within LEA jurisdictions, 3) at Com-

munity Based Organizations (CBOs) that provide literacy services, and 4) at different

combinations of these settings. Because of these multiple approaches, further study toassess the transition outcomes for 16-20 year old GED students that result from these

varied service delivery strategies is recommended.

Issue 3: Programs and Interventions for 16 to 20 Year-Olds

This study reveals that a majority of 16 to 20 year-olds exhibit, with varying degrees ofseverity, academic, behavioral, and social problems. Several programmatic interventions to meet

these needs have been implemented, subject to funding availability. At these sites, positive

program features included:

Strict behavior rules specified and enforced Worksite-like environment

Case manager on site to address problem of absenteeism and coordinate services tostudents

Structured instruction with computers

Application of adult education learning theory and methodology rather than a continua-

tion of an orthodox high school teaching style

Program interaction with and physical proximity to a local community college

Transition strategies for GED students include locating GED programs on community

college campuses and providing interactions for students with college admissions officersand potential employers

Regular use of skills assessment instruments (both placement and periodic testing) Active partnerships with local private industry, e.g., classes held at the business site,

shared instruction and materials, and pre-employment counseling

Small class size

Full-time teachers with regular in-service training provided

Teachers experienced in working with special education and incarcerated youth

Individualized computer facilitated instruction with frequent teacher help

Computer literacy as pre-employment training

o Use of computers for instruction

o Educational software for work on site

o Web information gathering assignments

Personal and career counseling by on site youth counselor

Concurrent career and technical training

Health care services on site and referrals provided for students.

Not all sites could provide all of the above features. Some sites providing comprehensiveprogramming merged a variety of funding streams to do so. Sites all felt that more extensive

programming than they could provide was required for 16 to 20 year-olds. For example, better

intake procedures that included examination of high school records, including disability status,and more career technical and experiential programming. Most sites did not share lessons


16/117


learned about programs with other sites. At most sites, no research was being undertaken to

examine the impact of program interventions on outcomes.

Issue 3: Recommendations

A national study is recommended that would identify promising programs and programfeatures currently being used to provide more comprehensive adult education programming to 16

to 20 year-olds. For example, based upon quantitative data that corroborate the beneficial impact

on students, the Director of Adult Education in each state would nominate programs andpractices that are most effective in improving attendance, academic achievement, and employ-

ment, while reducing attrition among the 16-20 year-old cohort.

These promising programs and practices would be shared with the adult education com-

munity nationwide. A program of research studies could then be initiated to assess further the

impact of programs and program features using rigorous research designs that incorporatingselected student outcome variables. Included within this promising practices initiative would

be the identification of professional development programs that have proven their utility inpreparing AE personnel to serve youth.

Issue 4: Reasons Why 16 to 20 Year-olds Enter AE Programs

A current hot button issue is the relationship between the standards and high stakestesting movement and the degree to which these reforms adversely affect a segment of the K-12

student population. At its extreme are assertions that students who are failing regular course-

work, who have few educational options within regular school programming, and who areunlikely to accumulate sufficient credits toward graduation are advised to transfer some say

are pushed out.

Although some of these assertions were repeated in various forms in interviews with AE

personnel in this study, other reasons for the increasing enrollments of 16 to 20 year-olds in AEwere cited as well. Possible explanations for this increase were gleaned from the interviews,

from the literature, and from discussions with members of the educational community. Some

causes for increased enrollments in AE by 16 to 20 year-old students include the following:

Greater emphasis on serving out-of-school youth

Better data collection, so that enrollments are uniformly counted and reported, Increase in youth population Higher skills/education levels required for employment

Increased graduation requirements (credits/high stakes tests) Recruitment to maintain enrollment levels in adult education programs (low adult en-

rollment caused by welfare reform that requires recipients to be employed)

District policies for administering GED tests that encourage 16-18 year-olds to pre-

pare for and take the test rather than complete high school Welfare reform requiring younger mothers attend adult education programs

Adult education programs in some locations that are the only programs available for

out of school 16-20 year-old youth and/or a last resort for those who have not been

successful elsewhere Growing referrals made by the courts to earn a high school credential at a site

different from the students original school.


17/117


The intent of this study was not to establish a causal link between the above variables andthe enrollment and age distribution changes, but to suggest areas requiring further research

studies. Because of the multi-causal factors listed above effecting change in AE enrollment pat-

terns including social, economic, governmental, personal, and educational factors and the

difficulties in collecting reliable data, the research methods and the statistical analyses needed toascribe the relative impact of each of these variables to outcomes such as dropping-out of high

school or transferring into AE programs are complex.

Issue 4: Recommendation

A study group should be formed that would include representatives from several fields,i.e., government, economics, education, criminal courts, local police, and social services, to

recommend a rigorous program of research with specific studies designated to investigate and

assess the multiple causal links between enrollment changes in AE and the variables listedabove, all of which, to some degree, are likely to influence these changes simultaneously. This

study group could also, in more general terms, suggest a research agenda for investigating morefully the educational, social, health, and career needs of out-of-school 16-20 year old AE youth.


18/117


An Exploratory Case Study of

16-20 Year Old Students in

Adult Education Programs


19/117


INTRODUCTION

Adults whose literacy skills are poor and/or who lack a secondary school diploma are

eligible for services in state, local and federally funded adult education (AE) programs. AE

offerings generally include day and evening classes to provide: (1) instruction in basic reading,

writing, and mathematics (adult basic education, ABE), (2) preparation for the General

Educational Development (GED) Test, which provides alternate certification of high school

completion, (3) English instruction for adults with limited English language fluency (English for

Speakers of Other Languages, ESOL), and (4) career and technical programs.8

According to Title II of the Workforce Investment Act, WIA-PL 105-220, 1998, feder-

ally-funded AE programs are intended to help low income, educationally disadvantaged adults,

persons with disabilities, single parents, displaced homemakers, persons with limited Englishlanguage proficiency, those with criminal justice involvement, and homeless adults. Of the 50

states, twenty-eight require school attendance to the age of 16; seven require attendance to 17;

and fourteen require attendance to 18 years of age. Colorado has no compulsory attendance

law.9 Consequently, the number of young adults, 16 to 20, attending adult education classes

varies nationwide as does the age distribution among this population. Within this compulsory

education mix is the federal legislation (WIA) which provides adult education funding for out-

of-school youth ages 16 years or older.

The issue that motivates the current study is an apparent large increase during the past

several years in the participation of recent high school dropouts in AE. Knowledge of this trend

comes from a published report (Hayes, 2000) and from informal anecdotal information from

directors of AE programs. These reports indicate that, to meet the needs of younger students, AE

professionals have been forced to alter traditional AE instructional patterns. Counselors accus-

tomed to meeting the needs of adult students now find themselves helping adolescents cope with

the problems of growing up. Teachers who are used to working with mature, motivated students

are now faced with younger students, whose behavioral patterns require classroom teachers to

provide increased personal attention. Program administrators find that their job description has

expanded to include unaccustomed disciplinary responsibilities. In the interest of serving all

eligible AE students, irrespective of age, these experiences suggest a need to re-examine the cur-

8 Career and technical programs are not supported by federal AE funding.9 US Department of Education, OVAE,Digest of Education Statistics, 2001. Table 151: Ages for Compulsory

School Attendance.


20/117


ricular, funding, pedagogic, and behavioral assumptions that have long been the bases of AE

programs.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To date, little formal documentation of the magnitude of increase in youth participants in

AE or of the characteristics of these students exists. The current research is an exploratory case

study conducted in five urban communities in one state. The study seeks to determine: (1) the

extent of change in youth enrollment in AE programs, and (2) the characteristics of young

students in these programs in comparison with those of the older adult education population. In

everyday terms, the investigators asked: How many 16 to 20 year-olds are in AE programs,

what are they like, and how do they differ from traditional AE students? Although previous

research (Hayes, 2000) focused only on the 16-17 year-old AE population, the present study is

concerned with young adults through age 20. This age range was selected because, in the state in

which this study was conducted, funding for students until their 21stbirthday is included in the

states appropriation to the Local Education Agency (LEA) for secondary education. The pri-

mary state appropriation for adult education allocates funds on a per capita basis only for adults

21 years of age and older. Districts that conduct ABE and GED programs for 16-20 year-olds in

adult education and in alternative high school settings receive somewhat less than 50% of the per

capita funding that they receive for adults 21 and older.

The next sections of this report present specific study questions, methodology, findings,

conclusions, and recommendations. The findings point to a set of issues that can serve as an

alert for policymakers and as a basis for future systematic, rigorous research.

Research Questions

The study asked the questions listed below. Both quantitative and qualitative data were

collected. As described later in the Methods section, the quantitative data consisted of head-

counts provided by AE program personnel. The qualitative data were from interviews with

experienced AE program personnel and with AE students. The nature of the data is specified for

each question.

1. What are the State, district and site policies for accepting 16-20 year-olds in AE?

(qualitative)

2. What is the current magnitude of youth enrollment in LEA adult education programs?

(quantitative)


21/117


3. How does the magnitude of youth enrollment compare to that three or five years ago?

(quantitative)

4. What is the current magnitude and extent of change in youth enrollment in each compo-

nent of adult education (ABE, GED and ESOL)? (quantitative)

5. What are the characteristics of currently-enrolled youth in the following descriptive

categories, some of which are included in the National Reporting System (NRS): gender;

ethnicity; marriage status, single parenthood; formal education; labor force status;

disability status; student goals; and reading, writing and math levels, conduct, criminal

justice involvement, homelessness (quantitative and qualitative)

6. How do youth differ from adult students in the descriptive categories? (quantitative,

qualitative)

7. What personal risk factors have been identified by program personnel? How are

programs responding to these factors? (qualitative)

8. Why are 16-20 year-olds enrolling in AE programs? (qualitative)

9. What are the characteristics of the AE programs in which youth are enrolling? What

services are available for them beyond traditional classroom instruction? (qualitative)

10. What is the process for youth participation, from program entry to exit? (qualitative)

11. What program features have personnel found to be positive for youth? (qualitative)

12. What are program personnels perceptions of the effectiveness of AE programs for 16-20

year-olds as to retention, GED attainment, literacy improvement, re-entry to high school,

employment, and transition to postsecondary education? (qualitative)

METHODOLOGY

Study Sample

The sample for this study consisted of five AE programs operated by Local Education

Agencies (LEAs) in the five large urban communities in one state. The federal contribution to

the AE programming budgets at the sites studied ranges from approximately 10% to 25%.10

This group of sites constituted an information-rich purposeful sample (Patton, 1990, p.

169). The sites were selected based on their size, urbanicity, potential to contribute information,

and their hospitality to the inquiry (Stake, 1995). The AE directors of all five study sites agreed

10 On a national level for the years 1992-1996, the estimated contribution of federal funds as a part of all spendingin support of adult education was 21.5% (Source: U.S. Department of Education, My.ED.gov,Human

Investment Impact,1994-1998,Funding Table; www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/9499hinvest.html)
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/9499hinvest.htmlhttp://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/9499hinvest.html


22/117


to provide both quantitative and qualitative data with the understanding that no program or parti-

cipant would be identified in any written report or in any other discussion of the work. The City

University of New York Graduate Centers Institutional Review Board approved the study.

Generalizing Findings

The study focuses on only five sites and only on AE programs within LEA jurisdiction.

Non-LEA venues for youth enrollment such as community-based organizations, volunteer

tutoring activities, and public library sponsored programs were not included in the study. In the

tradition of case study research, the nature of the sample prevents generalization of the findings

to other communities or states. However, rather than generalization, the study affords particu-

larization (Stake, 1995) and specification (Patton, 1990), i.e., an in-depth examination of

issues concerning youth enrollment in AE in a specific setting. Further, the close examination of

youth in AE at the selected sites permits the development of instrumentation and concepts that

can be implemented with a representative sample in the future.

Exploratory Nature of the Study

The researchers consider this study to be exploratory for two reasons. First, in at-

tempting to determine the extent of change in youth enrollments in AE, the study utilizes histor-

ical data collected prior to the implementation of the National Reporting System (NRS).

Because pre-NRS data collection was not uniform or systematic, the data were not fully com-

parable across sites (further details provided below). Second, it was beyond the scope of the

study to evaluate the AE programs or to determine how successfully 16-20 year-old students

were being served by them. Rather, the study focused on the number and characteristics of youth

participants in AE. As an exploratory look at youth enrollments and characteristics in the partici-

pating sites, this study seeks to facilitate the design of future research and evaluation studies on a

more comprehensive scale.

Instrumentation

The instrumentation for data collection consisted of a quantitative data collection form

(Appendix C) and an interview protocol for qualitative data (Appendix D). Prior to the data col-

lection period, the researchers presented drafts of both instruments to the participating AE

directors and to the projects advisory committee. Revisions were then made based upon their

comments.

Quantitative Data Requested

Each of the five sites designated a primary study liaison who, in turn, enlisted the help of

additional local staff members responsible for maintaining student data at the site. These staff


23/117


members tried to provide, as available, the headcounts requested on the data charts (Appendix

B). All five sites responded to the request for both quantitative and qualitative data.

Time Periods. To permit a comparison over a five-year interval, the target time periods

selected for the study were the 19961997 and the 2000-2001 program years.

Age Cohorts. Data were requested for the following three age cohorts: 16-20, 21-24, and

25+. Data in this breakout could be extracted from age categories used in standard data collec-

tion forms prior to the changes made in the National Reporting System (NRS).11

The new NRS

system collects data by age bracketed as follows: 16-18, 19-24, 25-44, 45-59 and 60+. Thus,

data for the study were derived from reports prepared in conformance with two different age-

classification systems.

Program Enrollments. Enrollments were requested for each of the above age groups for

the Pre-GED (ABE), GED, ESOL, and career and technical programs respectively.12 In all but

the last, the enrollments represented unduplicated counts for each program year in question.

Quantitative Data Received

Despite a considerable amount of effort, four of the five sites had difficulty providing the

requested data. The fifth site, Site A, came closest to providing all the quantitative data for the

time periods and program categories requested In contrast, Sites B, C and D were unable to

provide information from 1996-1997; instead, the researchers accepted data for the year for

which most complete historical information was available. Data from two points in time were

included from all five sites as shown below, but time periods vary from site to site.

Site Historic Date Most Recent Date

A 1997-1998 2000-2001

B 2000-2001 2001-2002C 1994-1995 2000-2001

D 1994-1995 2001-2002

E 1997-1998 2001-2002

As mentioned above, the historical five year data requested were for a time prior to the

passage of legislation (WIA, 1998) requiring the reporting of AE data. Several non-mutually

exclusive reasons were given by the sites in question for their inability to comply with the

researchers request for quantitative information: (1) the information was never collected, (2)

historical student data were no longer available, and (3) personnel with knowledge of the specific

data bases sought were no longer employed at the site. As a result, at three sites the study team

11 The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, Title II, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act,establishes the guidelines for implementing the National Reporting System.

12 Career and technical programs are not supported by federal AE funds.


24/117


had to extract and summarize data from large student databases, and at one site the team had to

combine data from several different sources to acquire the summaries sought. The need to

undertake data analysis and to develop statistical summaries was an unanticipated and time-con-

suming activity for the researchers. However, given the lack of empirical information concern-

ing youth enrolments in AE, the exercise was useful in that clear trends in AE became apparent.

In addition, in some instances the data for each of the five sites were derived from dif-

ferent site-based information collection methods. At times, within a site, the program enrollment

data from Time 1 and Time 2 may have come from different sources. Because of this incon-

sistency, each site is presented as a unique case in this report. Where cumulative data across

sites are presented and comparisons among sites are made, explanations and qualifications are

provided in order to take into consideration site variability.

Qualitative Data

Qualitative data were collected in open-ended interviews at the sites and by telephone

during the period February through December 2002, using the instrument shown in Appendix C.

The following personnel were interviewed: AE directors and other senior administrators,

teachers, counselors, and students. Directors, administrators and teachers were available for

interviews at all five sites, counselors at four sites, and students at three sites. Local AE directors

selected non-student interviewees with at least five years experience; i.e., the most experienced

AE personnel were sought out for interviews.

In addition, to enhance the quality of the information provided, the interviewees were

given the interview questions in advance, so that they could consider the questions more fully

before offering a response. All interviewees provided consent prior to the interview. Never-

theless, in keeping with the scope of this exploratory study, the reader is alerted to the fact that

the sample of respondents is small; and information acquired from these respondents was not

corroborated with other independent data sources.

Forty-three interviews were conducted with 62 interviewees. Thirty-seven (86%) of the

interviews were conducted with individuals. Twenty-five persons were interviewed in 6 groups

ranging from 2 to 9 in size. The number interviewed per site was as follows:

Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E6 12 19 12 13

The interviews were conducted among the following professional AE staff and students:

14 (23%) AE directors and other senior administrators, 34 (55%) teachers, 5 (8%) counselors,

and 9 (15%) students. Of the 62 persons interviewed, 29 (47%) were interviewed in person and


25/117


33 (53%) by telephone. The interviewers were the authors of this study, who attended the

interviews as a team or conducted the interviews individually.

The duration of the interviews ranged from 30 to 90 minutes, depending on the availabil-

ity of the interviewee, with most interviews lasting approximately 60 minutes. Often it was not

feasible to ask all interviewees all the questions in the time allotted; as a result, the interviewers

deleted questions during an interview when other prior interviews at the site had already elicited

the information. Procedures for asking questions and interacting with interviewees were drawn

from guidelines for qualitative studies (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1990; Stake, 1995).

Each interview was audio-taped and transcribed. The transcripts were analyzed using

QSR-N5 NUD*IST software (Scolari Publishers, www.scolari.co.uk), which is designed to ana-

lyze non-numerical unstructured data using index searching and theorizing processes. The unit

of analysis was a single line of data. Each line was coded using an initial set of codes generated

deductively from the research questions. When the initial coding was complete, a secondary set

of codes was created that was used to merge and organize the data more efficiently. The initial

analysis involved 23 codes, and the secondary analysis was based on 17 codes (see Appendix E).

During the process of secondary coding, verbatim statements made by interviewees were stored

and organized; some of these appear in the findings section below to illustrate substantive points.

Checking Facts and Interpretation

Facts and interpretation of both quantitative and qualitative data were reviewed with the

five participating AE directors in continuing informal communication and in formal meetings

throughout the project period. The directors were also given an opportunity to review and cor-

rect the applicable portion of a summary of findings.

Presentation of Findings

The quantitative data are presented for each site. To preserve confidentiality, absolute

numbers are not reported. Rather, all data are presented as percentages of enrollments within

sites. The qualitative data are presented in terms of substantive issues across sites, rather than for

each site. The sites are referred to as Sites A through E.

FINDINGS

Research Question 1: Federal, State, and Local Policies

What federal, state, district, and site policies serve 16-20 year-old students in AE?

The state adheres to the federal law (WIA, 1998) in providing educational services to

high school dropouts, but leaves specific programming decisions to the LEAs. District and site
http://www.scolari.co.uk/http://www.scolari.co.uk/


26/117


policies range from serving 16-20 year-olds with their older counterparts in the same AE

classrooms to serving 16-20 year-olds only in separate alternative high school programs. Some

of the study sites require parental consent, and one requires youth applicants to present full-time

working papers and an official drop letter from the city. State law forbids 16-year-olds from

taking the GED test. Thus, AE programs can legally accept 16-year-olds for GED preparation

but cannot refer them for testing until they are 17 or until their high school grade cohort will

have graduated. Site-specific acceptance and referral policies are as follows.

Site A Acceptance of students into AE classes at Site A is granted on a rolling admis-

sions basis. The site serves 16-17 year-olds in age-segregated classes, and serves 18-20 year-

olds in classes with adult students. The site refers students who test below the 3rd

grade reading

level to a local Community Based Organization (CBO) volunteer agency; these students are

informed that they may return when their reading scores improve. Because morning classes are

oversubscribed, an admissions waiting list has been established. However, little demand exists

for afternoon classes. Parents are called to the school if behavioral difficulties develop, such as

creating a disturbance in class.

An AE administrator stated that adolescent applicants who could not be accepted because

of the shortage of space either had to return to their high schools or be out on the streets. The

site has received numerous requests for AE services from 15-year-olds, who are referred back to

their high schools. Attendance policy allows long absences. In some cases students are absent

as long as three months before returning.

Site B The AE program at Site B provides services to 16-20 year-old students but refers

16-year-old applicants who state that they wish to obtain a regular high school diploma rather

than GED to an alternative high school program. However, a teacher stated that the students

dislike the alternative high school program, which they perceive as being too similar to the high

school from which they recently departed.

Teachers and administrators reported that a substantial proportion of the 16-20 year-olds

are referred to the adult education program by probation authorities. Terms of probation require

25-30 hours per week of AE attendance; but because the program traditionally provides only 15

hours per week of GED instruction, computer training is provided to students on probation for

the remaining required hours. Youth and adults attend all AE classes together. Parental permis-

sion is not required, but applicants must present full working papers.


27/117


Site B permits rolling admissions, and re-entry policy is lenient so that students who drop

out of AE are permitted to re-enter at a later date. Sometimes the 16-20 year-olds have difficul-

ties settling down but try more successfully at a later time:

I can remember a student coming in, this happens frequently, they'll come

in, they'll start, they won't do well, and there's maybe some kind of person-ality thing going on between staff and them, and they get tossed out, or

they don't come back-they may get tossed out. They may not get to thatpoint. They just don't come. But then two, three months later they come

back again and they try again. And they'll keep going. Then, they stop

again, they'll come again. It's, I think it's that immaturity.

(Administrator, Site B)

Site C At Site C, 16-17 year-olds are required to present parental consent to be admitted

and must show evidence of having had an exit interview with an attendance counselor at the high

school. Admission is denied only when the applicant has been expelled for something so

heinous in high school they cannot come on our properties. In addition, the transfer of a 16-17

year-old student from high school to AE must be formally approved by a high school admini-

strator. One administrator stated that at times high school staff may pressure students to

remain in high school in the interest in maintaining enrollment numbers. Students must be at

least 18 years old to attend evening classes at the site. An interviewee stated that 15 year-olds

have requested AE services but are referred back to their high schools. Toward the end of the

school year, the AE program is closed to 17-year-old applicants because adult education admini-

strators have found that at this time:

(young students) tend to drop out of the high schools. And they're just

walking out there, coming over here, staying for two weeks, causing prob-

lems here, and then dropping out. (Administrator, Site C)

Site C tries to enforce an attendance policy that drops students from the rolls for exces-

sive absence. However, in practice, that policy is frequently eased because of family and societal

pressures on students that often prevent them from attending class regularly. In addition, preci-

pitate paring of enrollments would unrealistically reduce AE per capita funding that is needed to

provide staff and services to students when they do attend.

An administrator at Site C stated that, over time, the nature of the program was changing,

with younger, disruptive students replacing older, serious students. Increasingly, students are

referred by probation services or assigned to get a GED by a drug court.

Site D This site makes every effort to induce younger students to return to some form of

high school rather than to enroll in AE. For example, Site D requires students to remain in the


28/117


high school until the students seventeenth birthday; and 17-year-olds, reading below the 8th

grade level and still attending high school, are referred back to their own schools. However, 16

and 17 year olds who have dropped out of school and then choose to return later are accepted.

The program accepts all district residents aged 18 or older without regard to academic levels of

competence. The site accepts students on a daily rolling admissions basis. If a student is drop-

ped for non-attendance, he or she may be re-admitted at a later time but must take the entry tests

again.

According to one interviewee at Site D, 25% or more of the 16-20 year-olds are man-

dated to attend by courts or drug rehabilitation facilities. Very few of the youth are of limited

English proficiency; most of the ESOL students are (older) spouses of international staff at a

college nearby. According to a counselor, only a few of the 16-20 year-olds at Site D are learn-

ing disabled. If an applicant appears to be struggling with the application form, the counselor

will ask if the applicant has undergone an evaluation or has benefited from work in a resource

room in the past. Because of parking restrictions in the immediate vicinity and inadequate public

transportation, students from other neighborhoods have difficulty reaching the adult education

program site. Therefore, the enrollment at Site D consists largely of students who live nearby.

Site E The 16-20 year-old students in Site E are served primarily by a citywide alterna-

tive high school program that provides ABE, GED, and ESOL adult education programs. If

students have almost enough credits to graduate and have passed most of the state graduation

tests, they can complete their education in an alternative high school program and earn a regular

high school diploma. Students with fewer credits and/or who have not passed most of the state

exams are admitted to the AE program to prepare for the GED. Alternative high school admis-

sions officers require an applicants birth certificate, high school transcript, social security

number, immunization record, and proof of discharge or transfer from a high school into the

alternative program. According to one interviewee, if the students are on track for their age and

the number of credits they should have, they are referred back to the high school. The site

refers applicants who test below the third grade reading level to a Community Based Organiz-

ations (CBO) literacy center or to a pre-GED program administered by the LEA.13

Applicants

who are considered appropriate participants are accepted on a daily basis. Parental consent is

required. If the applicant is living at home, a parent, another close relative, or the legal guardian

13 Interviewees at sites would sometimes indicate reading level criteria that did not match the quantitative datacollected; i.e., despite these statements, students with lower reading scores were included in the quantitative

database.


29/117


is required to meet with an intake counselor prior to the students acceptance. The program has

designated certain classes only for bilingual and limited English proficient students. Overall, the

site does not have the capacity to accommodate all eligible applicants.

Summary of Federal, State, and Local Policies Research Question 1

Overall, some characteristics common to most of the AE programs are worthy of further

examination, study, and impact assessment:

The wide diversity of student ages in AE programs creates both beneficial and

destructive student interactions. All programs serve individuals aged 17 and above;

some served 16-year-olds; some referred those with extremely low reading levels to

adult literacy programs elsewhere.

Many of the youth participants are court and drug rehabilitation referrals.

Although the AE programs are nominally for adults and out-of-school youth often

enroll in AE programs because of the more mature instructional and social atmos-

phere differences, 16-20 year-old applicants are not necessarily treated as adults.

These students are often required to show parental consent to gain admission to the

program and parents may be contacted in the case of disruptive behavior.

Attendance policies and definitions regarding enrollment and retention are incon-

sistent among the districts. Policies that permit multiple re-entry of students and

maintain relaxed attendance requirements tend to obscure retention studies and maybe relaxed in the interest of maintaining enrollment figures.

Although rolling admissions, especially on a daily basis, is an added to burden for the

classroom teacher, districts continue the practice because of the accessibility to

education the policy affords its students.

Administrators at two sites indicated that entry into the AE program had to be delayed

for some eligible students because of insufficient classroom space. Other sites were

suggested to these students either as temporary or permanent alternatives, but

administrators reported that they lacked the personnel and budget necessary to

follow-up and track the students who were subject to delayed entry.

The demand for AE services among very young students seems to be growing: two

of the sites reported a considerable number of 15-year-olds applying in advance of

their 16th

birthday.


30/117


Research Questions 2-4: Change in AE Youth Enrollments

What is the current magnitude of youth enrollment in LEA adult education programs?

How does the magnitude of youth enrollment compare to that of three or five yearsago?

What is the current magnitude and extent of change in youth enrollment in eachcomponent of the adult education program?

All sites reported that adolescents represented a sizable proportion of enrollment, and

four of the five sites reported that the proportion had grown in recent years as a result of large

enrollment increases of 16-20 year-olds. (See summaries in Table 5, page 36, and Figure 11,

page 37.) The adult and alternative education enrollments at each site are described below by

site, cumulatively, and, where appropriate, in comparison with one another. Except for the cum-

ulative data for all five sites, all information is provided in the form of percentages rather than as

absolute numbers, so that anonymity of the sites can be preserved in keeping with the study

protocol.

Figure 1: Site A Enrollment Distribution in 1997-1998 and 2000-2001 by Age Group

Site A: 1997-1998 Enrollment

by Age Group

12%

20%

68%

16-20

21-24

25+

16-20

21-24

25+

16-20

21-24

25+

Site A: 2000-2001 Enrollment by

Age Group

18%

20%

62%

16-20

21-24

25+

16-20

25+21-24

Enrollment data are reported at each site for two points in time, by age grouping, and by

the type of program in which students are enrolled. Enrollment reports, as shown in the figures

that follow, take two forms: 1) the percent change from Time 1 to Time 2 for age cohorts 16-20,

21-24 and 25+ within each particular type of program (ABE, GED, ESOL) and 2) the distribu-


31/117


tion of enrollees at the sites by age cohort for time 1 and time 2.14

Reporting both types of data

is deemed necessary in order to obtain an accurate picture of the extent to which 16-20 year-olds

have impacted a site.

If the enrollment distribution was the only information that reported proportional in-

creases in all age categories from Time 1 to Time 2, enrollments gains of 16-20 year-olds could

well be masked. Alternately, only reporting a large percent gain in the number of 16-20 year-old

students could be less important for a site if these students constitute only a small proportion of

the total site enrollment.

Enrollment Levels at Site A Program participants were enrolled at this site in one of

three programs: ABE, GED, or ESOL. Figure 1, page 25,presents Site A enrollment distribu-

tions for adult education irrespective of program type by age at two points in time (the 1997

1998 program year and the 20002001 program year). As can be seen, the percentage of 16-20

year-olds in the entire adult education program showed a small increase during the four year

period, from 12% to 18%, a gain of 6%; nevertheless, 16 to 20 year-olds at 18% of the popula-

tion are a significant consideration.

Site A: Percent Increase in Enrollment

1997 to 2000 - All Programs

21%

9%

21%

91%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%100%

16-20 21-24 25+ Total All Age

GroupsAge Groups

PercentIncrease

Figure 2

14 Since Career and Technical data represent duplicated enrollment counts, these numbers are not included indiscussions about changes in enrollment levels; however, career and technical data are discussed in the section

of the report on characteristics of students and types of programs in which they participate.


32/117


Table 1, page 27,provides another view of enrollment changes at Site A. As can be seen

in the table, in all three program categories ABE, GED and ESOL the rate of enrollment

change relative to other age groups is dramatic

for 16 to 20 year-olds. Rank ordered for the 16-

20 year-olds, GED increased by 122%; ABE in-

creased by 84% and ESOL by 73%. Changes in

all other age groups for each program ranged

from a high of 58% to a low of 5%.

The percentage increase for enrollments

for all program types combined within age groups

appears inFigure 2, page 26. The enrollment in-

crease for 16 to 20 year-olds taking GED, ABE

and ESOL coursework was 91% in comparison to

21% for 21-24 year-olds and 9% for students 25

years and older.

In summary, at Site A, the distribution of

16 to 20 year-olds as a percent of all age groups

increased over a four year period by only 6%, i.e., from 12% to 18%, a moderate proportion of

the full enrollment. However, the enrollments of 16 to 20 year-olds increased by 91%, exten-

sively in comparison to increases shown for the other age groups.

Table 1: Site A Enrollment Changes

1997-1998 to 2000-2001

Program Type % Increase

ABE 16-20 84%

ABE 21-24 9%

ABE 25+ 5%

Total ABE All Age Groups 17%

GED 16-20 122%

GED 21-24 58%

GED 25+ 12%

Total GED All Age Groups 37%

ESOL 16-20 73%

ESOL 21-24 19%

ESOL 25+ 12%

Total ESOL All Age Groups 18%

Total Enrollment Change

All Age Groups, All Programs 21%

Enrollment Levels at Site B At this site, program participants were enrolled in ABE,

GED or ESOL programs. The only data that could be provided by this site were from two con-

tiguous time periods, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. This short time span would normally be

limiting in examining enrollment changes; however, large enrollment changes that did occur dur-

ing this two-year period were instructive. Figure 3, page 29, presents enrollment distributions

for the adult education program at this site. The percentage of 16 to 20 year-olds already high in

2000-2001 at 36%, yet increased dramatically to 62% in 2002.

Enrollment change by age and program type at Site B is detailed in Table 2, page 28. As

is evident, the enrollment increase in each type of program is much greater for 16 to 20 year-olds

than for other age groups. These changes are as follows: ABE 178%, GED 145%, and ESOL

10%. Changes in other age groups range from an increase of 38% to a decrease of 67%.

Figure 4, page 29,describes the enrollment change for each age group for all program

types at Site B combined. The enrollment increase for 16 to 20 year-olds in ABE, GED and


33/117


ESOL courses was 138% in comparison to 18% for 21 to 24 year-olds, and a 26% decrease for

students 25 years old or older.

In summary, at Site B, the percentage of 16 to 20 year-old students making up the total

adult education enrollment was already high at 36%; however, in the two-year period that was

examined (2000-2001 to 2001-2002), the 16-20 age group increased markedly to 62% of all

adult education students. During this period, the actual enrollment of 16 to 20 year-olds in-

creased by 138%, a far greater increase than the increases shown by the other age groups.

Enrollment Levels at Site C Figure 5, page 30, represents enrollment distributions at

site C for its adult education program irrespective of program type, by age group, at two points in

time, 1994-1995 to 2000-2001. Program participants were enrolled at Site C in ABE, GED or

ESOL programs.

At this site, the number of 16 to 20 year-olds enrolled in 1994-1995 as a percentage of all

adult education students was already signifi-

cant at 24%. Through the 2000-2001 pro-

gram year enrollments continued to grow

disproportionately for 16 to 20 year-olds,

culminating in a 35% share of the AE popu-

lation.

Tab

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ronald-cario-seguin
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Research Methodology Case Study

Documents