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.