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.