1 / 29

Children’s Scholarship Fund Literature Review

Children’s Scholarship Fund Literature Review. Jessica VanVuren, MSW Student Assisted by Emily Nguyen, MSW, MPA Jieru Bai, PhD Jeanette Harder, PhD. External. Internal. Parents’ Satisfaction Parents’ Involvement Parents’ Choice of School Rural Education Civic Engagement.

tate-dyer
Download Presentation

Children’s Scholarship Fund Literature Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Children’s Scholarship FundLiterature Review Jessica VanVuren, MSW Student Assisted by Emily Nguyen, MSW, MPA Jieru Bai, PhDJeanette Harder, PhD

  2. External Internal • Parents’ Satisfaction • Parents’ Involvement • Parents’ Choice of School • Rural Education • Civic Engagement • Measurement Outcomes: • Grades & Test Scores • Attendance and Parental Involvement • Parental Satisfaction • Alumni Tracking

  3. Back: Ex/In External Parents’ Satisfaction Rural Education Parents’ Choice of School Parents’ Involvement Civic Engagement

  4. Back: Ex/In Internal Test Scores and Grades Parental Satisfaction Parental Involvement Alumni Tracking

  5. Parents’ SatisfactionParent Preferences and Parent Choices: The Public-Private Decision about School Choice • Methodology: comparing parents considering private education through surveys-satisfaction, involvement, priorities in choosing • Findings: • ↑ income, ↑ education, consider private schools • parents considering private schools, more likely to give homework assistance • parents perceive involvement and communication more appreciated in private schools • Relevance: parental involvement questions, parental priorities in schools Back Reference: Goldring, E. B., & Phillips, K. J. R. (2008). Parent preferences and parent choices: The public-private decision about school choice. Journal of Education Policy, 23(3), 209-230.

  6. Satisfaction (cont.) Parent Involvement, Influence, and Satisfaction in Magnet Schools: Do Reasons for Choice Matter? • Methodology: parent survey-involvement, satisfaction, reason for choice • Findings: • chose for academic reasons: ↑ satisfaction • chose for values: perceive more influence in school decisions, ↑ involvement • ↑ parent education, ↑ seeking other schools • lower socioeconomic status felt less appreciated • Relevance: parents want satisfaction, involvement, influence in schools; target lower socioeconomic families Back Reference: Hausman, C., & Goldring, E. (2000). Parent involvement, influence, and satisfaction in magnet schools: Do reasons for choice matter? Urban Review, 32(2), 105.

  7. Satisfaction (cont.) The Effects of School Choice on Parental School Participation and School Satisfaction in Korea • Methodology: 4th, 5th, 10th graders, teachers, parents surveys-participation, satisfaction, educational expectations, priorities in choice, parental self-efficacy • Findings: • ↑ socioeconomic status, ↑ parental participation • choose for academics, ↑ parental participation • ↑ parental participation, ↑ satisfaction • Relevance: specific questions for participation and satisfaction Back Reference: Kim, J., & Hwang, Y. (2014). The effects of school choice on parental school participation and school satisfaction in Korea. Social Indicators Research, 115(1), 363-385.

  8. Parents’ Involvement Do Parents Know They Matter? Engaging All Parents in Learning • Methodology: qualitative interviews with parents, students, teachers investigating student performance and parental involvement • Findings: • parents who emphasize learning in the home had the most impact on child’s learning outcomes • parental engagement directly benefited student behavior • Relevance: parental engagement value, focus group interviews Back Reference: Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research, 50(3), 277-289.

  9. Involvement (cont.) Parental Involvement in Homework • Methodology: literature review of 50 articles examining why parents become involved in homework • Findings: • parents become involved out of duty, positive impact, pressure • involvement associated with students’ attitude, competence, behaviors • Relevance: measuring parental involvement and its impact Back Reference: Hoover-Dempsey, K., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., & Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 195-209.

  10. Parents’ Choice of School Who Chooses and Why: A Look at Five School Choice Plans • Methodology: five school choice programs, parent survey • Findings: • ↑ income, ↑ education; ↑ educational expectations • top reasons: educational quality and learning climate followed by discipline and safety. • Relevance: target low-income, what parents are looking for Back Reference: Martinez, V. & Thomas, K. (1994). Who chooses and why: A look at five school choice plans. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(9), 678.

  11. Choice (cont.) Evaluations by Parents of Education Reforms: Evidence from a Parent Survey in Japan • Methodology: parent survey-satisfaction and attitude towards choice • Findings: • ↑ parent education, ↑ educational expectations but ↓ satisfaction • ↑ occupational status,↑ incomes but ↓ satisfaction • these parents interested in school vouchers • Relevance: what type of parents are not initially interested in school choice programs Back Reference: Oshio, T., Sano, S., Ueno, Y., & Mino, K. (2010). Evaluations by parents of education reforms: Evidence from a parent survey in Japan. Education Economics, 18(2), 229-246.

  12. Choice (cont.) Parents' Participation in their Child's Schooling • Methodology: parent survey-involvement & consideration of school choice • Findings: • academically educated parents more than vocationally educated interested in school choice programs • urban areas more interested than densely populated or rural • teaching emphases as main reason • Relevance: gather demographics about parent education Reference: Räty, H., Kasanen, K., & Laine, N. (2009). Parents' participation in their child's schooling. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 277-293. Back

  13. Choice (cont.) Private Schools and the Parents that Choose Them: Empirical Evidence from the Danish School Voucher System • Methodology: standardized test scores and attendance was gathered from public and private schools in Denmark • Findings: private school students with ↑ SES performed better; worse for ↓ SES • Relevance: comparing students matched on SES status Back Reference: Andersen, S. C. (2008). Private schools and the parents that choose them: Empirical evidence from the Danish school voucher system. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31(1), 44-68.

  14. Rural Education Relationship of School Context to Rural Youth’s Educational Achievement and Aspirations • Methodology: low and high poverty rural schools; academic achievement, educational aspirations, academic self-concept, school valuing & belonging • Findings: • high-poverty, more remote locations had ↑ academic achievement • academic self-concept had positive relationship with achievement & aspirations • Relevance: unique needs of rural poverty families Back Reference: Irvin, M. J., Meece, J. L., Byun, S., Farmer, T. W., & Hutchins, B. C. (2010). Relationship of school context to rural youth’s educational achievement and aspirations. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 40(9), 1225-1242.

  15. Rural (cont.) Planning for the Future in Rural and Urban High Schools • Methodology: compared urban and rural high school classes over 4 years; postsecondary aspirations; focus groups & surveys • Findings: • aspirations ↑ for all students • rural students less satisfactory relationship with parents • rural schools spent more time on homework • rural schools less likely to aspire college • Relevance: differences in rural & urban; long-term outcomes Back Reference: Gandara, P., Gutierrez, D., & O'Hara, S. (2001). Planning for the future in rural and urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6(1), 73-93.

  16. Rural (cont.) Student and Parent IEP Collaboration: A Comparison Across School Settings • Methodology: survey for teachers involved in IEP process in urban, suburban, & rural schools; student & parent participation • Findings: ↑ student and parent participation from rural schools • Relevance: rural parents may be more involved; compare to our own findings Back Reference: Williams-Diehm, K., Brandes, J. A., Chesnut, P. W., & Haring, K. A. (2014). Student and parent IEP collaboration: A comparison across school settings. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33(1), 3-11.

  17. Rural (cont.) The Career Development Needs of Rural Elementary School Students • Methodology: elementary rural students; Childhood Development Scale (needs in career development) • Findings: top needs were curiosity, information, key figures, planning • Relevance: unique needs of rural elementary students Back Reference: Wood, C., & Kaszubowski, Y. (2008). The career development needs of rural elementary school students. Elementary School Journal, 108(5), 431-444.

  18. Civic Engagement Youth Civic Engagement in the United States: Understanding and Addressing the Impact of Social Impediments on Positive Youth and Community Development • Methodology: summary of research on youth civic engagement • Findings: • civic engagement develops problem-solving skills; give back to community; social capital • disconnected & dangerous communities struggle • schools—excellent source of development; private schools more emphasis • Relevance: positive effects of civic engagement (outcome); private schools value Back Reference: Balsano, A. B. (2005). Youth civic engagement in the United States: Understanding and addressing the impact of social impediments on positive youth and community development. Applied Developmental Science, 9(4), 188-201.

  19. Civic Engagement (cont.) Civic Engagement and the Transition to Adulthood • Methodology: reviewed research on civic engagement among youth & young adults • Findings: • declining since 1970’s • young adults that tend to become engaged come from faith-based areas • ↑ educated and ↑ income, more civic values • Relevance: faith-based schools; low-income families Reference: Flanagan, C., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. Future of Children, 20(1), 159-179. Back

  20. Civic Engagement (cont.) Religion, Volunteering, and Educational Setting: The Effect of Youth Schooling Type on Civic Engagement • Methodology: National Study of Youth and Religion longitudinal survey on religion, education, engagement; ages 13-23 over course of 6 years • Findings: • Catholic schools most likely to volunteer in adolescence • Protestant schools highest increase in volunteering and most likely to continue volunteering • Relevance: support private religious education Back Reference: Hill, J. P., & den Dulk, K. R. (2013). Religion, volunteering, and educational setting: The effect of youth schooling type on civic engagement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52(1), 179-197.

  21. Test Scores and Grades Test-score Effects on School Vouchers in Dayton, Ohio, New York City, and Washington, D. C. • Methodology: CSF 2-year program evaluation in Dayton, NYC, Washington; Iowa Test of Basic Skills • Findings: African American students switching from public to private experienced statistically significant increase in test scores • Relevance: positive impact of program; test scores Reference: Howell, W. G., Wolf, P. J., Peterson, P. E., & Campbell, D. E. (2000). Test-score effects on school vouchers in Dayton, Ohio, New York City, and Washington, D. C.: Evidence from randomized field trials. Executive Summary. The Program on Education Policy and Government. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/dnw00x.pdf. Back

  22. Test Scores and Grades (cont.) Analysis of MOST Student Achievement 2006-2007 • Methodology: kindergarten and 1st grade students in CSF program; several academic achievement tests; compared to school and national • Findings: • CSF students scored comparably with national averages, several scoring above • only 3 students completed Terra Nova • Relevance: Terra Nova; other academic achievement measurements Back Reference: Zoblotsky, T., McDonald, A., & Layton, E. S. (2008). Analysis of MOST student achievement 2006-2007. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/CREP-MOST%20Achievement%20Report%2006-07.pdf.

  23. Test Scores and Grades (cont.) Children’s Scholarship Fund Baltimore Academic Performance of Scholarship Recipients in the 2005-2006 School Year • Methodology: parents in program surveyed; grades of 3rd-8th students in program • Findings: majority of students received C or better in all subjects • Relevance: option of using grades as outcome measurement; issue of differing grading scales Reference: Carey, C. (2007). Children’s Scholarship Fund Baltimore academic performance of scholarship recipients in the 2005-2006 school year. Baltimore, MD. Children’s Scholarship Fund Baltimore. Retrieved from: http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/2005-06BaltimoreStudy.pdf. Back

  24. Parental Satisfaction An Evaluation of the Children’s Scholarship Fund • Methodology: comparison of families receiving scholarships, not receiving scholarships, and declining scholarships; parent and student telephone surveys; focus groups; parental satisfaction, reason for choice, experience with school • Findings: • scholarship parents chose based on academics and religion • private school parents more satisfied than public school-discipline problems, respect from teachers • accepted scholarship parents more likely to be more educated, attend religious services, higher income • Relevance: comparison groups; focus groups Back Reference: Peterson, P. E. & Campbell, D. E. (2001). An evaluation of the Children’s Scholarship Fund. Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/EvaluationofCSF.pdf.

  25. Satisfaction (cont.) The Effect of School Choice: An Evaluation of the Charlotte Children’s Scholarship Fund Program • Methodology: elementary students receiving, not receiving, and declining scholarships; Iowa Test of Basic Skills; parents & students satisfaction • Findings: • students with scholarship will perform better after one year’s time • parents and students receiving scholarships reported higher satisfaction • Relevance: comparison group; incentives for participating; satisfied parents and students Back Reference: Greene, J. P. (2004). The effect of school choice: An evaluation of the Charlotte Children’s Scholarship Fund program. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/050211CharlotteStudy.pdf.

  26. Satisfaction (cont.) Memphis Opportunity Scholarship Trust • Methodology: parent surveys; mandatory student standardized academic exams compared to public school data; parent focus groups • Findings: • parents perceive improvement in child’s academic performance, attitude, and behaviors; • parents chose school based on academics, religion, morals, safety • students outscored city but not county • Relevance: how to administer surveys, tests, focus groups; comparison data Back Reference: Nicks, S., Nelson, E., Hargett, J., & Faith, E. (2004). Memphis Opportunity Scholarship Trust: A descriptive and comparative study of the 2002-2003 school year. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/050211MemphisTestScoreStudy.pdf.

  27. Parental Involvement Final evaluation report: The Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia program • Methodology: CSF Philadelphia; interviewed key school staff; student focus groups • Findings: • schools rated CSF students equal or better attendance, academics, parent involvement; equal or less on income and disciplinary incidents • students reported similar grades from previous schools, interested in homework, felt safe, easily make friends • Relevance: student survey or focus groups; data from school personnel Back Reference: Schuh, A. D. & Simon, E. (2003). Final evaluation report: The Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia program. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/050211PhiladelphiaStudy.pdf.

  28. Alumni Tracking Phase II Annual Evaluation Report: The Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia • Methodology: school, parent, alumni parent surveys; student focus groups; current CSF student academics; CSF alumni (HS attended, graduation rates) • Findings: • CSF students performed near or above national averages • majority used Terra Nova • majority of alumni graduated high school (96%) and remained in non-public schools (81%) • Relevance: incorporating alumni statistics Reference: Schuh, A. D. (2008). Phase II annual evaluation report: The Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia program year four. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/CSFP%20Evaluation%20Phase%20II%20Year%20Four%20Annual%20Report%20Dec%202008.pdf. Back

  29. Alumni (cont.) BASIC Fund Evaluation • Methodology: BASIC Fund program evaluation; Iowa Test of Basic Skills; HS graduation rates; parent surveys • Findings: • continual improvement in standardized tests • majority of students on track to graduate (based on failed courses, misbehaviors, family stress, number of schools attended) • Relevance: ways to gather alumni information and graduation prediction; parent survey ideas Back Reference: Saphir, M., & Moore Kubo, M. (2007). BASIC Fund evaluation: Final report. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/csfadmin/evaluations/BASICFund07112007%20BF%20Final%20Report.pdf.

More Related