Chris and i met last week to discuss the newsletter and to discuss how the evaluation process by the SW 683 class went and how thankful we were for what a good job students did.  We agreed to read the reports in preparation for the meeting with Sue Ann & Dr. Gant.  Oh side bar, Chris and i downloaded Skype on my computer however the computer needs a sound card..at least that is what pops up as why sound does not work.  I told her i could download on my Netbook which i did this week--but there was a glitch and now i have to have my tech guy look at it. 

So far i have read 10 of the reports and each demonstrates the similarities, challengers and unique attributes of each program.  A couple of observations College Days, Summer Camps and Tutorial-Mentoring seemed to be the most successful programs.  The latter program service Tutoring -Mentoring is administered in a variety of formats from Sat academies to summer camp relationship building.  Everyone is challenged by parent involvement and data access and collection.

Chris and i also agreed that as a result of the meeting and its outcomes we would have a better handle on what to communicate in the newsletters.  Well that pretty much summarizes the past two weeks.

This has been quite a year.  For the past couple of weeks we have been working with Prof Sue Ann and evaluation class to finalize this part of the process regarding collection of data and writing the data up in reporting forms and templates.  I was reminded of my graduate school days.  What i like about this part of the process in particular was it gave students a real world, real time experience with community based programs and services.  Under Prof. Sue Ann's guidance, students were able to engage service providers and their participants in collecting information to create a student level database.  As a result of the process, they were privy to the challenges in administering community based programs such as lack of adequate resources;  they also saw the successes and creativity of coordinators and service providers who often leveraged their "other hats" and collegial relationships to facilitate program implementation.

We also have an opportunity to talk about best practices. Each student group de-briefed regarding their site visits.  As a result we are getting more idea of best practices and other insights and strategies.  For example, LSSU has a best practice model of mentoring via skype--what a creative use of technology. Prof. Sue Ann also shared the value of students presenting themselves in a professional manner as you never know what might lead to a job!

Next, Prof. Sue Ann briefly shared the rough drafts of ten reports;  students still have more work to do.  Second, while in class completing an evaluation plan seemed redundant and at times intrusive and awkward--too many gray areas so it was scrapped.  However what was critical was that the class and the eval team were able to arrive at this conclusion as a result of the process and at this juncture of assessment.

My next comments are on a wonderful parent workshop hosted by U-M AA team!  Chris, Kelli and i attended.  What a turn out.  That type of turn out is rare.  I shared with the team and Chris that this Southfield group would be a great group for a longitudinal study but we shall see.

And finally also, we have a working draft for the newsletter and upcoming meetings with Prof. Sue Ann, de-briefing and next steps and with the UM AA group in January to discuss next steps as well.

UP site visits were very informative.  Also the journey proved to be equally challenging.  Prior to our visit, we did meet with UP team on Oct. 25th to review final details of visit.  Arrived safely and were up and ready for our first site visit at Northern Michigan University. We were greeted warmly by Shirley and Chris began by asking her to share her background with us and how she came to gear up.  One of the first things i noted from her response was the number of hats she wears and how her academic background--english, business and creative writing, support her current role as director;  she is an office of one plus a student.  She leverages her other roles as coordinator or 4s and future faculty to support services to gear up. We then went on to ask questions using our interview script.  A few observations: (1) challenging relationships with both feeder schools, challenges providing services to students and parent involvement.

For the past weeks Chris and i have been continuing to organize the site visits between UM evaluation class and the University partners. The week ending Oct. 19th we spent in conversation with partners regarding details of the visits and assurance of the overall goal of the visits and the value of student level data.  Chris and I also attended to details for our site visits.  This has been challenging trying to get all of the logistics and facilitating cooperation, looking for opportunities where schedules permitted communication and completing the logic models, U evaluation plan, interviews and visits to feeder schools. Ferris and CMU were the last U partners to finalize details. To further support this process Chris and I visited the UM class and met with students with the latest updates.  Also important Sue Ann reviewed the interview script with myself to ensure that it accurately reflected the key data required for the development of the student level database.  She and i also discussed the creation of an observation form and interview protocol for former gear up students;  all of which is important to the triangulation process. We  hope that students will have an opportunity to do 2 out of 3 of the evaluation aspects of the visit.

Now Chris and I began to work on finalizing details for our UP visit;  we obtained an itinerary from Cody, MTU and Shelley--LSSU.  Shirley NMU was out of the office so we just agreed to go with a tentative plan. Additional calls were made to UP student team regarding availability and their roles; also we discussed skype, conference call plan b details as UP cell reception could be a problem.

We then reviewed the newsletter.  Dr.gant had indicated four areas that the newsletter could cover:  evaluation update, parent involvement, community resources-best practices and community events.

Chris and i have been working to contact the remaining partners regarding the site visits.  For me mail confirmations have been sent out to all of the sites with a few exceptions.  The time is almost here for the visits.  This has been a journey.  For me i am a bit more comfortable with the workings of the program and the people.  The team is fantastic;  everyone is on point and working with a cooperative spirit.  We are also all set with plans for our UP visit.  Tomorrow we visit our student group to review logistics, questions,concerns regarding the site visits.  I know i said a little but spent time waiting nevertheless that's the nature of research and programming.

I am playing around with the newsletter and have a draft.  I plan to have something for team to look at by next week.

On Monday Chris and I met to discuss deliverables shared in team meeting by Dr.Gant.  We are working on newsletter that will provide basic information about evaluation and gear up programming and a form of communication that further supports the development of a good working relationship.  I have been working on a draft for discussion via email and Thursday session.  We also outlined next steps for the site visits which are to contact/confirm site visits, answer questions and make sure student team leader connects with gear up coordinator.  We divided the list up;  i have U-M sites AA, Dearborn & Flint, Wayne State, Western and Ferris State.  So far i have confirmed with Wayne State & U-M Flint.

Today we did call backs and emails for grantees that have not yet responded.  We hope to have confirmations by the top of next week so that we can share with SW class.

Yesterday, Chris and i met with the SW 683 class to review logistics, answer questions and more getting acquainted with students and our UP team.  Prof. Sue Ann had students to put together a logistics of their group including grantee site, date/time availability, members names with email addresses and leader of the group.  It was a good information session and we can move forward on developing a spreadsheet with this information;  we will also contact grantees to get their availability dates.

Today the team me; Chris and i de-briefed regarding the session with the students.  We also again attempted to contact UP partners to confirm site visits.  We next discussed the parent advocacy project and agreed that this will take some time to develop.  We have more immediate core work to consider--site visits being ne.  Second, dr gant discussed the need for a website for the evaluation team.  WIX and Google were recommended as templates. Chris suggested the need for a MI Gear Up site and dr gant stated good and something further down the road and which also may not be in the role of the evaluation team.  We did talk about however a possible collaboration with EduGuide, parents, students, eval team etc to develop an information website.

Next steps, outline what we want on the website.

Oh my God, i have been forgetting to blog.  Everything is moving so fat.  Ok, we went to AA campus and had a session with SW 683 students.  We conducted a presentation based on the questions that Prof. Sue Ann forwarded.  Students has an opportunity to meet us and afterwards get a little acquainted.  We agreed that we should visit every 2-3 weeks as a part of the process.  Meeting with the class helps to build the relationship with the evaluation team, all of which facilitates a positive experience for students.  Chris and i met immediately after this session to de-brief and discuss next steps.  Next steps were to continue to work on grantee memo and accompanying  questions.  After a series of revisions and reviews, this was sent out Oct. 1st.

We next worked on a tentative outline for the site visits.  Our primary site visit we focused on in this first round was the UP--greatest logistic challenge.  After several phone calls and emails to UP grantees we have as of Oct. 2nd, put together a tentative schedule based on grantee availability and logistical arrangements.  Hopefully some time this week we should firm this up.

Another very important and really critical part of our work is the whole issue and development of student level data. Chris and Kia Hunter (Ferris State U).  Team members have been in a series of conversations and meetings with key parties--MDE, ARL, Lansing leadership team, grantees, CEPE etc. about accessing student level data.  Seems to be a challenging terrain of FERPA, different perspectives, turf issues and what's in it  for me?  All of which represent the usual configuration when trying to get disparate parties to see the common good.goal.

To that end....I was part of a MDE conference call with most of the aforementioned last week Monday (Sept. 24th).  We concluded at the end that we are still working on making access a reality.  I came up with the idea of getting parents involved in a way that might move the disparate parties closer together via some sort of advocacy campaign.  Dr. Gant thought this an idea to explore.  The Lansing team gave it a thumbs up so we will begin to see what that might look like.

Chris and i met Monday to further discuss the UP site visits, check in on the next steps for the team and brainstorm about the parent involvement piece.  We talked about the UP logistics Tuesday Oct. 2 and now we are awaiting response from all of the UP partners.

Oh my goodness what a week.  Things are starting to pick up.  Chris and i drafted/revised questions for the questionnaire that accompanies the letter to grantee.  We also have discussed both documents with Dr. Gant and Prof Sue Ann along with the Lansing team.. I think this is like a Ken Burns documentary--the art of aligning different perspectives as well as vocabulary.  Chris and i also had a conference call with Prof Sue Ann to discuss our coming to class and just getting on the sane page regarding the big picture. 

We drafted a note to Cody Kangas in UP  to followup on request from Tracy introducing us. We have been discussing for a while now going to the UP sites because of the challenge of proximity; also discussed air travel vs. vehicle so still working on this.  Chris finally heard back from him and received some information but we still need more specifics so we will keep plugging away.  We may contact Shelly as she and Chris have a good rapport.

In some ways this is kind of like the excitement of a roller coaster ride--uncertain, then at tone fast and furious.  We had a team meeting on Friday with all of the team present so that was very good.  This also included a portion of time allotted to finalizing some details and answering questions regarding what the students would be doing for the evaluation project.  First just to be all in the same space and coming together to discuss next steps.  Sue Ann did some refashioning of the letter after having a discussion with students.  It was good to be reminded of how it feels as a student trying to make sense of the adventure of research--and the anxiety of unknown territory.  I am confident that everyone is committed to cultivating the confidence of students and providing them with tools that facilitate the learning experience. Footnote:  I have been added to Sue Ann's class on Ctools

Sue Ann discussed what she reviewed with students in the past couple of weeks.  Students are researching GEAR UP and creating logic models for each grantee site.  They also have questions so we agreed that Chris, Kelli and I would attend class this coming Thursday @3p.  We also agreed to a classroom check in time of maybe every three weeks to facilitate learning, consistency, check in, help anxiety... Finally, Sue Ann gave us a list of questions that students had so we agreed that we would bring handout and support docs to answer those questions.

Next steps are creating a source document file for students on Ctools and creating a confidentiality statement for students.  I worked on the confidentiality statement and emailed it today to Chris.  She and i are meeting Monday to follow up on preparing handout and supporting source documents file for SW  grad research students, completing the questionnaire and letter to grantee and any other remaining details.

Its been a little while;  my bad so much good programming going on.  We met to prepare for our Lansing session and the supporting documents that need to be developed for the meeting.  Chris and i revised the agenda based on a session that she, Dr Gant and Prof. S had around planning for the student evaluation team.  Dr Gant forwarded a overview draft of what the students would be doing and Chris and i sort of reviewed that process looking at time lines.  She and I are scheduled to meet the professor (Chris took her class) and student in the upcoming weeks so that's exciting. On aonther note i continue to read Stack's dissertation and now i am reading MSU;s APR.  The more i engage with staff and different discussions around the program the better the connections are.

Yesterday we met with the Lansing team and this was another good cognitive and social connection to GEAR UP for me.  I feel more confident in that i can make better connections with how GEAR UP works as an overall program.  I thought the meeting went well and everyone is clearly invested in building this evaluation model that will better reflect program impact.  We meet tomorrow to de-brief so until then...

Met with Chris to discuss next steps for the evaluation project.  The email that dr gant forwarded was a good summary of our previous talk about what we needed.  Chris followed up on that topic today indicating that this is pretty much the plan with a couple of changes.  We will be meeting with  Professor S and her class in a few weeks.  Our lansing meeting is wed @ 9am and our team meeting is meeting is Thursday @2;30. 

Chris and i discussed Kia's, Ferris State U database and program information from the workshop and how this was a good set of raw data and perhaps something that should be added to Ctools for the evaluation class to check out along with NCCEP's 2006 evaluation plan.  We then put together a list of questions that we want to ask Kia's that would give us more insight into her data and possible connections to what we are planning. We contacted her and left a message.  Chris/I will follow up and set up a time for a possible phone meeting with her--sent email as well with this request.  Finally Chris gave me an orientation of howto use Ctools and so i went into the site just to play.  On a serious note, i did create a folder for the Reviewof the literature on mixed methods.

I had an opportunity to read LSSU APR and thought i would first comment on the highlights. As a footnote, at least mentally, my mind is making connections/drawing parallels with some of the other programs i have looked at.  LSSU is interesting because of the location--the UP and servicing Native American community and students.  A notable observation is the the program is housed at the LSSU Native American center and programming workshops take place at this site vs the schools?  The report identified strengths:  relationship between GU staff and the high school students and the use of LSSU college students as NEAR PEER mentors.

The report summarizes its greatest challenges as rural communities, massive transportation distances and cultural realities.  Of special interest was the observation by the program director "many aspiring first generation students and their families, reported tension from family, peers and friends as they participated in GU.  OK additional highlights:
      
1.  the greatest program hours were spent in mentoring
2.  teacher engagement increased over the two years but was affected by school access
3.  access to schools and problems w implementing the MI Merit Curriculum
4. by year five 2/3 of 11th graders enrolled in advanced math****
5.  high levels of absenteeism
6.  parental perceptions (1.e. moving away to college)
7.  social conditions & historical experiences--some parents not aware of student involvement in GU, breaking away from historic tendencies
8.  of those that did respond to survey 75% expect their child to attend college--question posed regarding how to tap into this expectation.
9.  tuition waiver & fees , result of treaty agreement for those with at least 1/4 Native American blood
10.  difficult time generation school and family support

Interesting reading about the Ferris State University GEAR UP APR .  I am starting to get more of a sense of how challenging running a GU program is for staff.  In reading these, i ask what can the evaluation team do to support their work and i also am eager to SEE the programs as they are up and running.  Well so far the external factors of education--reform, economic contraction, teacher lay offs etc continue to be a challenge everywhere.  Some key highlights from this program are collaborations with other programs within the high school; free ACT preparation services; collaboration with FSU faculty who interact within the  program; free on site application and submission; diversity of students; and collaboration among GU grantees.

Very much in alignment with what others have expressed, the data collection/evaluation process is problematic with for example issues around report due dates and program time lines and process for collecting data that ensures higher percentage of return.  Some key challenges include: absenteeism in high school period; parent involvement; decreased enrollment in advanced classes and parental availability to receive correct information that can influence perceptions of college affordability.  I also noted a program impact issue--two grantees in same school???  Well that's all for today. 

Just confirmed with Kia Hunter @ Ferris State that we can meet asap and we just need to send her some dates.  I am also a little excited about having found an old gear up evaluation framework that may be of use to us. APR  Key variables or indicators were student and parent expectations of attending college and student and parental knowledge/expectations of financing/affordability of college.  There were other indicators such as perceptions of college experience, etc.  Interesting looking at these indicators while considering what i read in the APR from U_M Dearborn.  I found that the use of student leaders as mentors (although they did not use this term) , face 2 face contact when collecting surveys and the role of counselors as interesting factors/indicators for future exploration.  Very similar to what i have read with other universities, parent involvement is a hard nut to crack.  Oh yes and what i found interesting was that the survey results indicated that parents talked to their kids about college but did not attend any workshops where they could receive critical information on how to support their child.

Chris and i met yesterday;  she shared highlights from the conference call with the Lansing team and we worked on the Lansing letter--making revisions based on the conference call.  We had some discussion about the spreadsheet aka database she is developing which will serve as the framework for the MI GEAR UP database;  current title is the School/Community Context database.  Together we perused the spreadsheet and commented on interesting correlations like schools with high free lunch % tend to be in the lower ranking on the MDE school ranking.  We talked about the value/impact of context on the ranking; for example Bates Academy has always had an high ranking, ie before GEAR UP so how do we account for this if we were looking at what is  the impact on academic achievement?  There were also other interesting factors like schools with other similar academic oriented focused afterschool programs such as Upward Bound?   Is there any relationship, are we duplicating services, can there be a partnership, is this a factor in supporting GEAR UP outcomes?????

Chris also provided an overview of C tools and we both had some discussion on the dropbox which so far seems pretty cool.  We figured for example we can use the calendar to help  us with logistics.  Kelli was unable to meet with us because of her work schedule but we will email her highlights of the weeks discussion after the meeting tomorrow.  Well that's all folks.  I am now getting back to reading the Stack thesis.

Did more debriefing of our Friday meeting session in beginning to write a draft of letter to lansing staff.  I also need to do more with a nuts and bolts logic model that i put together to provide a visual of our beginning steps for the planning team.  We have quite a bit and i have got to do some review of ecopmaps--Urie Bronfenbrenner in shaping this parent, family and community engagement piece.  I have been using a nuts/bolts logic model as a way of visualizing our first steps of planning.  I also have been reviewing Stack's thesis and like her name for her model---DREAMS .  Would be good to find a name unique to MI GEAR UP experience.

Good work meeting!  We all had a chance to at least survey the Carnevale readings and agreed that this was useful information for our cloud library.  We spent time getting Kelli caught up on discussion for the evaluation project and the use of 2012 as a planning year.  She gave us an overview on her research, the articles she has been reading and insights into gear up parent and teacher surveys. 

We then spent the lion's share of the time outlining highlight for the letter to the Lansing GEAR UP staff.  The following highlight summarize the key points we want to present in the letter:

1.  This is an information gathering and sharing session
2.  The value of the APR's to increasing program efforts/impact
3.  Further augment relationship and communication with GEAR UP staff
4.  Review/explore role of VISTAS in evaluation process
5.  Questions/Challenges/Barriers related to best practices and program impact to include the following: parent engagement, community resources/stakeholders, macro factors, BEST PRACTICES (alums as mentors, OU Sat academy, collaboration--grantee partnerships
6.  Deliverables--short, intermediate and long terms
-----------------------------------------------
Long term
7.  Creation of MI GEAR UP website
8.  Collection of school data
9.  Strategic Plan
10.  MI GEAR UP Evaluation Plan

I agreed to shape the above into a draft letter for everyone's review at next week's meeting.  Chris will continue to work on maps and exploring cloud based drop box and Kelli is collecting information on accessing school data.  Finally, we will divide the APR's and each review based on the highlights for Lansing meeting.

Oh my God, i have forgotten to blog! Ok back on track, we had a team meeting this past Friday where we put all the pieces on the table;  this was right on track with key insights as a result of the Washington DC conference.  We  discussed ideas and tasks to move us closer toward our innovative evalutaion model and what needs to happen in 2012--our planning year.  Dr gant stated he wanted us to work as a team to make this happen.  Some key deliverables were a visit with the Lansing GEAR UP team; there should be  a one pager to go out stating who, why, purpose of visit etc.  Other tasks include reading article by Anthony Carnevale and reviewing Wendy Stack's dissertation on the value of parent involvement in  program outcomes and evaluation.  Additional deliverables--for me ecological map for each grantee, Chris--continue to work on her geomap. Dr gant stated that the team should also set up times to meet.  Chris, Kelli and I are planning to meet this Friday.

Chris and i met yesterday;  we first needed to debrief from our Friday session.  We reviewed highlights from our Friday meeting and i used the highlights to create a logic model--just something to give us a visual of what needs to happen in 90 days.  Chris and i sat and talked about the geomap and noted some interesting patterns emerging from her excel chart-geomap.  For example, schools with high % reduced lunch tend to also be high priority schools --akin to not meeting adequate yearly progress.  The latter was also a part of our discussion of MDE top to bottom education database.  Chris remarked that we had hoped for more data to assist with evaluation. Finally, we also looked at dr gant's point of media proxy as it realtes to GEAR UP's visibility.

 A good session as always.  We confirmed our 9:30 Friday meeting to include Kelli.

What a day!  Chris and ,i as always had a lively meeting.  We discussed the evaluation framework and she also shared Dr. Gant's comments regarding the team process and the development of a framework.  We agreed that we would find a time during the week for two sessions, our continued Friday session and the adding of another session with just Chris, Kelli and myself.  We also agreed that we must work in concert with each other and per Dr Gant's request, Chris is the team leader--yeah!  At any rate, we put some pieces on the table, a review of our previous session.  The next step is to begin to meet as a team to develop a framework with timelines, goals, objectives/outcomes.  Very important, Chris stated that Dr.Gant wanted us to see this year as a planning year for the development of this evaluation framework.  The key components are: (1) the geo map and possible configurations; as an addendum, Chris is working a database with all of the Mi GEAR UP logistic information and key demographic data TBD; (2)family/community engagement (3) the socio cultural context--ecological map and (4) post secondary and gateway factors/variables for investigation.  Questions include:  what are the measures of important program outcomes/impact/  what is the narrative of GEAR UP ?  etc...We also confirmed again that we need to have a series of sessions/meeting with GEAR UP VISTAS, staff and leadership.

I had a chance to peruse the conference book with Chris and saw some of the workshops offered.  Chris and i have talked primarily about the parent workshops/sessions and the possibility for example of visiting one of the model programs of parent/family engagement.  In addition, i saw a few other sessions: parental involvement index looking @ conceptualizing and measuring parent involvement, use of ipad for real time evaluation and a mixed method study of a six year gear up grant.  Chris and i will be talking more on Wed so i will have more to share then.

Chris and i met yesterday afternoon to debrief about the GEAR UP Washington conference.  We did discuss the itinerary and most importantly she shared information regarding data/research to support the importance of family/parental involvement in program outcomes and impact.  We are on to something.  I found several research articles and a dissertation whose findings point to the critical role of family/parental involvement in outcomes for first generation college bound students.  I shared the revised framework with her based on our shared understanding of re-thinking reshaping evaluation.  As a result we posed three things for the to do list: 
1.  Develop a revised evaluation framework that reflects what services GEAR UP performs--we need to know what is everyone doing, are we all doing the same thing etc.  This can help us develop a uniform tracking system/documentation
2.  Visit each grantee
3.  Complete geomappimg
4.  Determine what key information should we gather to better understand family and community engagement.

Not discussed...my question --does GEAR UP have a strong partnership relationship with community college system? 

We agreed to meet again on Wed@ 10:30 to further continue this discussion.

I have been reviewing a draft of a proposal from a few years ago that may prove to be a working model for our mixed method approach for evaluating GEAR UP 2012-2017.  There are several factors that make this a good conceptual model:  (1) first the age group for inquiry was geared toward adolescents--middle school age youth (2) interests in ecological/developmental factors that promote positive youth outcomes  (3) what makes GEAR UP successful as a gateway to post secondary education (4) building on best practices, the creation of a best practice GEAR UP model and (5) best practice and model for African American males. 

One more critical aspect that may support our efforts, this was a proposed mixed methods longitudinal study which works well in the context of GEAR UP programming which follows youth from middle school -high school.

I  tinkered with the model from the draft proposal and attempted to upload this to my blog but ran into a roadblock so i will attach this to my hard copy or send via email if that is more convenient. I replaced a few constructs to reflect GEAR UP's program characteristics and the areas we have identified as important in determining program impact.

Today i had an opportunity to explore California's GEAR UP program.  First of all i was impressed with the website  that served as a hub for all  of the program sites.  Of particular interest and excitement to me was the family engagement discourse.  At first glance on the website you get the sense that families and communities are important.  There is a Parent Institute & Quality Education arm of the program that spearheads family /parent engagement.  Very encouraging--there is also an accompanying project research model and there is more.  This research model begins for this year's middle school cohort and is titled the Family Initiatives project.  Anyway i should have a copy available tomorrow for everyone to look at.

I also see where the CA GEAR UP program will be presenting a workshop at the DC conference on social media and advocacy and there will also be a presentation by their director.

I did see the email from Kelli--the doc student and sounds like her research questions and model is timely for our mixed methodology evaluation model.  Again, i think looking at California's model might give some additional insights.

Ok that's all for now and i am sure more dialogue will take place tomorrow.

Chris and i met to discuss mapping and an ideas for a innovative framework.  Some key questions we both arose as a result of key parts or fundamental aspects of the framework.  For example, some questions that help us think more deeply about evaluation:
1.  What is the vision and mission of MI GEAR UP?
2.  How is this vision/mission articulated in the program ?
3. Is there a centralized location where MI GEAR UP program info can be accessed for parents, students, interested stakeholders?
4.  Do we all have the same understanding regarding the mission/vision/ goals and how is this monitored or evidenced in evaluation and program outcomes?

We went on to discuss the Stanford article on shared outcomes which echoed critical areas for rethinking and possible reshaping evaluation.  Chris shared her experience from the NY conference and the results of her exploration of other programs. We then went on to discuss Bronfenbrenner's ecological model and how we might incorporate this into the mapping project.

So we first needed to succor the list of participating middle schools which Ingrid forwarded to us.  Ingrid did forward today so we took a look at the list.  We can now begin mapping and use this informationto create a framework that may be a hybrid--mapping, Bronfenbrenner and the Shared Outcomes Framework.

Ahh notes on the hottest day close to a record;  cool inside the UM center.  Ok....I  read an interesting article in epigenetics.  Interesting discovery that challenges how we  think about human development--stress, environmental change can alter the human destiny.  Another glance at the article on shared outcomes-- how do we continue to enable the environment and expand the capacity of the community/environment?

Gear UP does implicitly  play a meaningful role in social transformation--that fits with Bronfenbrenner's concept of the role of the chronosystem in human development.

My paragraph to VISTAS
Greetings VISTAS; as you know we are preparing for another successful year with GEAR UP.  We appreciate the hard work and dedication that you contribute to the program.  Your role is critical to the success of the program.  It is with this understanding that the U-M Evaluation Team would like to schedule a session with you to gather information about your program experience and discuss your insights into best strategies for working with GEAR UP students and their families.  The following are some possible dates or let us know what works for you and what accommodations you will need.

Thank you for your time and commitment to GEAR UP's success.

Sincerely,
Gloria Thomas
VISTA & Program Assistant

Really good day for revisiting the Kery Daly article on the theories that families live by.   He uses the metaphor of negative spaces as a way of thinking about important aspects of family life that educators and family scientist fail to capture and that we choose to foreground in studying families.   Daly goes on to state that one reason why this failure occurs is that we are the primary consumers of knowledge produced.  I also revisited Lev Vygotsky's work on the context of education and human development. Some key points for insights into GEAR UP evaluation:

1.  How can we capture the experience of being family? For example
what is the everyday reality of gear up families?
2.  What is the socio-historical context and the narrative of gear up families and communities?
3.  What is the cultural matrix of gear up program context?
4.  "Greatest irony in family theory is the reluctance to talk about love in contemporary family process"
5.  Family stories represent a critical cultural vehicle for how families define themselves:  what they believe, what they value and how they act.
6.  How does or can gear up evoke a new cultural cartography in first generation college bound youth ?
7.  What does the negative space of print involvement look like--activities/roles parents engage in or do to support their child's participation that is not captured in current evaluation process?

Today i am searching for an article in Stanford's SIR (social innovation review) title Virtual Models for Real Issues-- a form of computer visualization described as agent based modeling.  No i am not a tekkie but just curious about the use of different frameworks to assess an issue so .....

More reflections on the article by Rodin & MacPherson--Shared Outcomes after another reading...found it :)

Ok, still a few bugs...i have a draft somewhere out there...  so here we go again..

Something we have talked about that the article on shared outcomes posits:  Evaluation Must Evolve and How does evaluation change lives?  Also from the APR i have gleaned some valuable information regarding the effectiveness of the program as well as  strategies that support achieving GEAR UP goals-objectives.  I've listed some questions/comments that these readings generated:

1.  What is GEARUP program success in the eyes of participating youth and families?
2.  Do we share with our communities about what works or does not work in the program in order to develop more effective strategies?
3.  (Vygotsky& Rogoff  flavor)  What is the socio-historical narrative of the communities we serve?
4.  Evaluation results...social transformation and accountability?
5.   Are there tech investments we can make to support/augment real time data and feedback?
6.  Who are our GEAR UP community stakeholders?
7.  What about the formation of critical friends who can act as monitoring partners and mini-grants to support this group?
8.  Use evaluation results to develop learning forums where we can highlight lessons and challenges
9.  Innovative tools that augment a culture that values evaluation as a resource for learning, collaboration and shared lessons
10.  What about a GPS storytelling project  for GEAR UP youth and families as a way to share evaluation outcomes (eg. Solutions) ?
11.  Outcome of  mixed methods methodology--creation of a shared outcomes model.

Time to blog.....I spoke with Ingrid Friday for a while about if vistas have participated in any sort of roundtable discussion/feedback about their program experience and she said no, not to her knowledge;  she also thought this would be something good for the program.  I shared our discussion about a possible focus group with the vistas as a way of getting feedback on the program and for example giving us more insight into parent/family involvement;  Ingrid was amenable to the such a possibility and felt it would be something positive for the program.

Next did a little at a glance at the work of Jualynne Dodson, interesting and more to come;  we both also share an interest in the study of the Black Church and its role in human development.  Back to GEAR UP.....  I did go on the Department of Education's website to locate possible examples of mixed method or qualitative research and in particular as it relates to parent/family involvement;  the result zero.  I did go on to research the site and found non GEAR UP related exemplars of innovative strategies for family, school and community engagement published in March 2010.  There is a National Family, School and Community Engagement Working Group.  I have the executive summary of the doc and i can share with you on Friday.  Two projects that with interesting family strategies were the New Visions for Public Schools out of NY and Tellin Stories out of DC.  The former teaches parents how to use student data to support high school graduation and college readiness and the latter home school relationships.

Today i spent time reading Stanford's Social Innovation Review; social innovation is defined as " a novel solution to a social problem that is more efficient, effective, sustainable or just than existing solutions..... family and community engagement in student learning is a fundamental innovation in itself". Questions i posed from the readings/research:

1.  Does Gear UP partner with any family/parent organizations, associations...?
2.  How much of a voice do parents have in shaping the GEAR UP experience?
3.  Is there an opportunity for students, families and parents to tell their stories?

In looking at the review's issue and focus for the month--evaluation and global philanthropy
an article by Judith Rodin and Nancy MacPherson posit interesting insights for our GEAR UP project-- rethinking, re framing and reforming evaluation.  They are as follows:

1.  Broaden inclusion of stakeholders in evaluations;  only when the voices of those whose lives we seek 2 impact are heard, respected and internalized will we be able to effectively evaluate with success.
2.  Broaden the objectives of evaluation to learn more....beyond the individual grant:  frame evaluation to take into account the drivers of unsustainability and causes of challenge being addressed to provide greater learning beyond the intervention.
3.  Regard evaluation knowledge as public good and share it:  an example of this i personally experienced was at NC A&T where a annual CD was produced called Solutions and it simply was families, individuals sharing the impact of Cooperative Extensions work on their lives--very powerful piece and here is an idea from me--maybe this is something parents could help produce or even a documentary, particularly with     the film industry becoming a more integral part of this community.

Ok that's all folks.  Got to work on bactchgeo  :) :(

Ok, still playing with blogging to see what i can and cannot do.  I am trying to figure out how to paste my batchgeo map...  I also have been reviewing cloud based data backups to see which one will work for the project and myself.  There seems to be a lot of cloud storage vendors???  So far i am interested in Just Cloud (best possible fit) MyPC Backup or ZipCloud so we shall see.  Most important i am reading up on how cloud storage works--i do better when i have a sense of a thing!

So for the past few days per last meeting with dr. gant, i looked at ecological models as a way of visualizing the evaluation process.  There is the data and then there is this process of human development that is also occurring with the individual and their respective family.  Something i thought about and recall from a pbs :) special on Amish families and viewing my fav show Criminal Intent and also the comments from other VISTAS:  " I wouldn't want to be away from the family". 

When we look at first generation post secondary (and even secondary in some instances)  the process of college/university matriculation requires transformation from poor/working/racial  to white middle class and at the same time how do you remain connected and viable to the family and community values and beliefs as place of origin???  I like Bronfenbrenner's model because the emphasis and impact of development across time--chronosystem.

Also for further explication, something powerful that Kerry Daly articulated-- family theory versus the theories that families live by.

Monday i took the opportunity to review dr gant's conversation regarding GEAR UP program evaluation.  Key points include creating a map/template that supports better understanding how to evaluate the community; i did go into batchgeo to play around.   I shared what i had data had been collected--demographic information on the city of Pontiac, history, current events related to school district and school docs with some information on academics.  I spent time thinking about innovative or strategic approaches to the Pontiac pilot model for evaluation.  I researched/reviewed a couple of theories in education anthropology that may be useful in at least thinking about the study of the community/context.  Again i am playing---perhaps a possibility for the development of a ground theory.  Kinda of like me in the kitchen, what's another interesting twist to sweet potato pie.

And i also reviewed Ruby Payne's work on class-based rules of thinking and doing.  If we think about it we are asking working class/poor youth to acquire another (middle) class based language and skill set.  There is an expected cognitive and cultural change as they continue to interact in the cultural milieu of their respective communities and families.

Tuesday i thought it would be good to review articles by Barbara Rogoff and Vygotsky, both of whom represent inquiry into culture, cognition and human development.  Don't know if i am on the right track but its a good way to begin the process of understanding the GEAR UP program in the context of the Pontiac community and the development/transformation of students from college/university as a thought  to a reality.   So from this perspective of ecology and human development we may also derive best practices and the process that determines which staff strategies become best practices.  For example developmental responses may be defined as apprenticeship, guided participation and participatory.  These concepts seem to be aligned with aspects of the GEAR UP program process that promote success or best practices; we'll see!

Yesterday i attended the financial literacy training--train the trainer. Very good hands on curriculum by NEFE.  I recall this curriculum in NC where it is required class in the high school.  Seems to be very effective there.

What was most rewarding for me was interaction with other VISTAS and the conversations about the challenges and rewards of GEAR UP program.  For example the training focused on lessons to teach youth about the value of money,how it works in life and how good financial literacy knowledge and skills can support the goal of attending college.  One of the issues that arose was related to parents who can become a barrier;  VISTAS shared that students tell them that thier parents point to themselves as an example of  success without a college education.  Another comment from Chevy in the UP was that parents do not want their children to go to college because they believe that after attending college, their son or daughter will not return home and this will have an impact on family and community well-being.  Thoughts of a foucs group were running through my head.....

Along the lines of evaluation, i am curious about since this financial literacy component is being added to activities to  support student success acclimation to college,  is this something for APR???
Well that's all for yesterday and today i am perusing the curriculum and NEFE's website as a follow up for the training.

peace,
docglo

Today i am reviewing CMU's final report as they were identified as having the best response to return of student and parent surveys.  I also see where they appear to have a good relationship with teachers and school administrators such that this creates a framework for program impact.  The teachers for example knew what kinds of incentives house to proffer to increase survey response.  Second this strong relationship with teachers and school administrators may provide stability and program continuity in the context of a turbulent school district and massive migration of families.  Perhaps it is worth examining how this relationship has come about and determine is this is a best practice model for GEARUP and school personnel.  Finally CMU is also unique in offering every activity listed in the APR in year 5.

I also see the continued challenges related to students such as absenteeism, hunger and the challenge of caring for younger siblings and parent participation.  I looked at the data/tables for student expectations given problem with incorrect listing of answers etc.  Would be interesting to explore the process of student expectations--from uncertainty about college as a goal to knowledge and belief that college is affordable and cane achieved.

Tomorrow i am scheduled to attend the financial literacy training in lansing so i will see how this fits in the affordability dialogue for both students and parents.

A thought that came to me this morning after reflecting on the eval reports is oh my God how do we do this; as we all know there continues to be much economic uncertainty, turbulence and challenge globally but particular to us here in Michigan.  The school system, our fishing hole is a part that circumstance.  I liken the best evaluation model to capturing what's good about the eye of the storm.  I am still working on my learning curve and getting acclimated to the office and a new focus in my work.   Yesterday i just looked at some historical and demographic info on city of Pontiac.  Today, well, back to the reading....

Still working on how this works ?????

Tues-Wed.
Another reading :) of the final report doc to help this BIG picture view ...links to understanding the overall evaluatin process, impact of the challenges to formulating/aggregating data.  Downloaded OU and CSU final reports--OU as this is the pilot site and CSU according to data, one of the better exemplars of parent involvement.

In the OU review, i took a closer look at the Saturday Academy as it indicated the most successful vehicle for implementing GEARUP/ CD   and also as a venue for parent involvement.  Questions: how to improve getting back surveys, what is parent involvement?  do we have the same understandings among participants and grantees?  what should we realistically expext?  what is the impact of turbulence/challenges on parents involvemnt

Questions generated from remarks regarding disconnect/lackof alignment in APR process and grant expectations;  How do we better align?  Is there a model out there local, national that demonstrates better continuity? 

Orientation June 15th-22nd

Friday June 15th
This is my first time blogging so i feel like a child learning something new.  I would first like to summarize key points from thr meeting.  My understanding is that my overall goal is to get a state's eyeview of MI GEAR UP and look at some new/strategic ways to approach evaluation that can give us a richer context for success and challenges.  Ok, a lot in a mouthful....  This includes getting detailed information.  The Pontiac schools will be the pilot site for this stage of the project.  So my first few days i'll be spending learning about the Pontiac school system, the surrounding community and parent involvement. We also discussed what makes MI GEARUP successful and research/evaluation strategies that may better capture and augment those program assets and successes.


We concluded with some logistics talk:  deliverables via blogging journal, weekly meeting Friday morning (except this Friday) and office supplies  needed such as computer, ability to phone out of the area, umich research account for library data access, etc., eamil address.


After our meeting this past Friday i started downloading info on the schools; what i have collected includes the strategic action plan 2008-2013, map of the school district which inlcludes a list of elementary, middle and high schools and parent involvement information.


Regarding the surrounding context i looked at articles from the Oakland press that related to POntiac school district.  These articles described the challenges and turbulence that surrounds Pontiac and other school districts such as teacher layoffs, mismanagement of school funding and financial meltdown coupled with state intervention


Monday, June 18th
Well, i looked at some tutorials on how to blog and decided to go with google since i have agoogle acct.  So i successfully created a blog :)  Today i also researched more on Pontiac schools and some history of the city.  I also identified the Pontiac Schools that are participating in MI GEAR UP; i focused on parent information but so far only have a modicum of information--parent news and announcements, standard MEAP testing-score communication.  So now my reading starts, whoooo.  I did pull out and look at the final report a few weeks ago.  I spent the remainder of the day reviewing this document in light of my readings. I sent an email to Ingrid for a phome meeting about OU as grantee in Pontiac schools and also Tracy's contact information.  My goal in the upcoming days and weeks is to better connect the dots--not bad for a MOnday!