Research Methodology Case Study

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 Education US Department of Education Subcontract Number OVAE 99-11 MPR Associates Incorporated Contract 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
October 2003
This study was undertaken in compliance with Contract Number ED99-CO-0160, Subcontract No. OVAE 99-11 executed by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) of the U.S. Department of Education 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 official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.
October 2003
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 for Advanced 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 in helping to focus our research design and for his unfailing faith in our efforts. Our gratitude is also 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 the Adult 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 preparing 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 are grateful 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.
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, City University of New York Graduate Center; Mary Weaver, State Director, Adult Education, California.
October 2003
Table of Contents
Page 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.................................................................................... 17 Instrumentation.............................................................................................................. 17 Quantitative Data Requested ......................................................................................... 17 Quantitative Data Received ........................................................................................... 18 Qualitative Data............................................................................................................. 19 Checking Facts and Interpretation ................................................................................. 20 Presentation 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............................... 49 Research 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: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Literature Review................................................................................................. 77 References ............................................................................................................ 86 Instruments for Data Collection ........................................................................... 89 Interview Protocol.............................................................................................. 104 List of QSR-N5 NUD*IST Codes, Initial and Secondary.................................. 108
iii
October 2003
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.............................................. 33 Table 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 ........................................ 40 Table 8: Characteristics of Students at Site C by Age Group......................................... 41 Table 9: Characteristics of ABE/GED Students at Site D by Age Group ...................... 42 Table 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 Distribution in 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 in 1994-95 and 2000-01 by Age Group............................................................ 30 Figure 6: Site C Percent Increase in Enrollment 1994 to 2000 All Programs................................................... 31 Figure 7: Site D Enrollment Distribution in 1994-95 and 2001-02 by Age Group............................................................ 32 Figure 8: Site D Percent Increase in Enrollment 1994 to 2001 All Programs................................................... 32 Figure 9: Site E Enrollment Distribution in 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
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 current exploratory 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 can serve 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 AE programs within LEA jurisdiction. Non-LEA venues for youth enrollment such as communitybased 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 characteristics for age-cohorts 16-20, 21-24, and 25+ was also sought for two points in time: the 19961997 and the 2000-2001 program years. Only one of the five sites was able to come close to providing the data as requested. Nonetheless, data were provided from all sites for two points in time; 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. Interviews were 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 the interviews. A total of 62 interviews were conducted. Interview questions were provided in advance of the interview sessions to help interviewees develop thoughtful and complete responses to questions. Nevertheless, 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. 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.
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.
October 2003
Page 2
THE SITES Site A serves students who read at third grade level and above, and refers lower-functioning 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 maintained 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 disruptive behavior 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 are integrated 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 contacting 16-18 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 olds read at grade level 4.9 or below. Site C operates a large part of its AE services in satellite community college space in a downtown 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 a short 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 1620 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 consists largely 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-old applicants who are still in high school and reading below the 8th 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 referrals. 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 school program 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 at or 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,
October 2003
Page 3
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 are located 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 each particular type of program3 [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, if only 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 important for 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 large enrollment 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 two sites, 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 also includes 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 considerable presence 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%.
Since Career and Technical data represent duplicated enrollment counts, these numbers are not included in discussions 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.
October 2003
Page 4
Table A: Enrollment Distribution at All Sites by Age

Time 1 AGE 16-20 21-25 25+ Time 2 AGE 16-20 21-25 25+ Site A
12% 20% 68%
Site B
36% 13% 51%
Site C
24% 18% 58%
Site D
19% 18% 63%
Site E
NA* NA NA
Site A
18% 20% 62%
Site B
62% 11% 27%
Site C
35% 16% 49%
Site D
31% 20% 49%
Site E
53% 16% 31%
Change in Percentage (Proportion) of 16-20 Year-Olds at Each Site

Site A 16-20 Years Elapsed
+6% 4
Site B
+26% 2
Site C
+11% 7
Site D
+12% 8
Site E
0% ** 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, examination 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 yearolds than for other age groups. In summary, the total current enrollment of 16 to 20 year-olds in the study sites was estimated 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 at their 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.
October 2003
Page 5
Figure A
Comparison of Enrollment Changes by Age Group in All Programs from Time 1 to Time 2
Site A 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% 4 Years -26% 2 Years 7 Years 8 Years 91% 123% 138% 103% Site B Site C Site D 230%
Percent Change
16-20 57% 21-24 25+
21%
18%
18%
9%
14%
Elapsed Years between Time 1 and Time 2

Site E: No enrollment changes were found in 16-20 year-olds.
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 from which 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 sites were 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-old students. 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 the statistical 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 criminal justice system or are welfare recipients. Some youth have been away from formal education for 2-3 years.
October 2003
Page 6
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 by the 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 Male Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E
55% 47% 47% 85% NA
4
Ethnicity NatAmer
0% <1% 1% 4% NA
Female
45% 53% 53% 15% NA
Asian
2% 3% 2% <1% NA
Black
10% 50% 58% 55% NA
Hisp
79% 17% 26% 11% NA
White
9% 31% 13% 30% NA % of ABE Reading at 4.9 or Below 52% 30% 32% 43% 33%
Disability
2% NA 1% NA 12%
Distribution by Program5 ABE GED 29% 82% 33% 41% 44% ESOL 20% 6% 8% 9% 9% Car/Tech 20% 100% 34% NA NA
6
% Distribution by Reading Scores ABE 64% 66% 59% 55% 54% GED 36% 34% 41% 45% 46%
Employed 10% NA 11% NA NA
Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E
51% 12% 59% 50% 47%
In summary, the information gathered by interview adds to the statistical picture of the 16-20 year-olds. While some in the 16-20 year-old cohort included hard-working, motivated students, the general perception of this age group in comparison with older AE students is consistent with their status as adolescents and young adults. However, even taking this stage in their development into account, they are perceived to be: less mature less motivated less responsible more involved in drugs more involved in gangs and fighting more likely to exhibit behavior problems more likely to manifest symptoms of learning disabilities and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder more often mandated to attend by courts and drug rehabilitation programs. The conduct of 16-20 year-old students has had direct impact on the AE programs. At some sites, administrators separated classes by age, hired new and special personnel, including security officers, and retired teachers to deal with classroom management.
4 5 6
NA = Data not made available. Career and technical students were also enrolled in ABE, GED, or ESOL programs. Reported at low levels via interview data.
October 2003
Page 7
Additional themes emerged from the interviews regarding the participation of 16-20 yearolds 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, several conclusions 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 report an 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 as members 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 5th grade 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 prepare for 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 services 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 currently 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 the sites, 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 interfere with AE school attendance. These pressures have influenced school administrators to relax the number of absences that lead to immediate removal from the AE programs.
October 2003
Page 8
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 Education 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 funding to support 16-20 year-old students is short-changed. In the state studied in this report, the federal share of funding at local sites is estimated to range from to 10 to 25%. Federal legislation 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 in regard to 16-20 year-olds. Moreover, AE directors interviewed for this study uniformly described 16 to 20 year-olds as 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 the following recommendations are offered. Issue 1: Recommendation Undertake a national study of how states and local entities fund AE programs. This study would 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 practices 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 AE reporting, 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 1620 year-olds and the extent to which disabilities were formally reported. However, data in this study 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,)
October 2003
Page 9
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 and expanded, 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-olds and future enrollment trends. These analyses need to be disaggregated by service delivery entities, e.g., LEAs, community-based organizations, community colleges, and quasigovernment agencies such as public libraries. More accurate and precise student outcome data need to be collected to support outcome studies. 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 be provided 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 be undertaken 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 to improve 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 upon quantitative data, further investigation of this particular student characteristic is warranted. AE professional staff frequently cited lack of resources and trained personnel as 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) to determine 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 NRS data can be facilitated by training local professional personnel in the NRS protocols and by 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 local programs. More complete follow-up data needs to be collected regarding post-AE transition outcomes for 16-20 year-olds. For example, the current study suggested that close connec-
October 2003
Page 10
tions between GED preparation and community college education had positive effects on student retention and performance. Traditionally, states and districts have established GED 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 Community Based Organizations (CBOs) that provide literacy services, and 4) at different combinations of these settings. Because of these multiple approaches, further study to assess 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 of severity, 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 to students Structured instruction with computers Application of adult education learning theory and methodology rather than a continuation 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 officers and 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 comprehensive programming 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
October 2003
Page 11
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 program features 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 and practices that are most effective in improving attendance, academic achievement, and employment, while reducing attrition among the 16-20 year-old cohort. These promising programs and practices would be shared with the adult education community 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 incorporating selected student outcome variables. Included within this promising practices initiative would be the identification of professional development programs that have proven their utility in preparing 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 stakes testing 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 coursework, who have few educational options within regular school programming, and who are unlikely 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 AE were 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 enrollment caused by welfare reform that requires recipients to be employed) District policies for administering GED tests that encourage 16-18 year-olds to prepare 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.
October 2003
Page 12
The intent of this study was not to establish a causal link between the above variables and the 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 patterns including social, economic, governmental, personal, and educational factors and the difficulties in collecting reliable data, the research methods and the statistical analyses needed to ascribe 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 listed above, 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 more fully the educational, social, health, and career needs of out-of-school 16-20 year old AE youth.
October 2003
Page 13
October 2003
Page 14
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, federally-funded AE programs are intended to help low income, educationally disadvantaged adults, persons with disabilities, single parents, displaced homemakers, persons with limited English language 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 outof-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 accustomed 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 9
Career and technical programs are not supported by federal AE funding. US Department of Education, OVAE, Digest of Education Statistics, 2001. Table 151: Ages for Compulsory School Attendance.
October 2003
Page 15
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 21st birthday is included in the states appropriation to the Local Education Agency (LEA) for secondary education. The primary 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 headcounts 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)
October 2003
Page 16
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 component 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 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)
October 2003
Page 17
to provide both quantitative and qualitative data with the understanding that no program or participant 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 particularization (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 attempting to determine the extent of change in youth enrollments in AE, the study utilizes historical 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 comparable 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 participating 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 collection 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
October 2003
Page 18
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 collection 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+. 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 A B C D E Historic Date 1997-1998 2000-2001 1994-1995 1994-1995 1997-1998 Most Recent Date 2000-2001 2001-2002 2000-2001 2001-2002 2001-2002 Thus, data for the study were derived from reports prepared in conformance with two different age-
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 12
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. Career and technical programs are not supported by federal AE funds.
October 2003
Page 19
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-consuming activity for the researchers. However, given the lack of empirical information concerning 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 different 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 inconsistency, 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. Nevertheless, 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 6 Site B 12 Site C 19 Site D 12 Site E 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
October 2003
Page 20
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 availability 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 analyze 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 correct 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
October 2003
Page 21
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 admissions basis. The site serves 16-17 year-olds in age-segregated classes, and serves 18-20 yearolds 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 permission is not required, but applicants must present full working papers.
October 2003
Page 22
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 difficulties 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 personality 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 that point. 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 administrator. 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 administrators 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 problems here, and then dropping out. (Administrator, Site C) Site C tries to enforce an attendance policy that drops students from the rolls for excessive 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, precipitate 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
October 2003
Page 23
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 dropped 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 mandated 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 learning 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 alternative 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 admissions 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 Organizations (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 data collected; i.e., despite these statements, students with lower reading scores were included in the quantitative database.
October 2003
Page 24
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 atmosphere 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 inconsistent among the districts. Policies that permit multiple re-entry of students and maintain relaxed attendance requirements tend to obscure retention studies and may be 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.
October 2003
Page 25
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 years ago? What is the current magnitude and extent of change in youth enrollment in each component 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 cumulative 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%
Site A: 2000-2001 Enrollment by Age Group

18%
16-20
16-20 16-20
20%
21-24
25+
25+
21-24
21-24
20%
62%
25+
68%
16-20
21-24
16-20
25+
21-24
25+
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-
October 2003
Page 26
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 increases 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 distributions 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 population are a significant consideration.
Figure 2
Site A: Percent Increase in Enrollment 1997 to 2000 - All Programs

91%
100% 90% 80% Percent Increase 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
21% 9%
21%
16-20
21-24
25+
Total All Age Groups
Age Groups
14
Since Career and Technical data represent duplicated enrollment counts, these numbers are not included in discussions 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.
October 2003
Page 27
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
Table 1: Site A Enrollment Changes 1997-1998 to 2000-2001 Program Type ABE 16-20 ABE 21-24 ABE 25+ Total ABE All Age Groups GED 16-20 GED 21-24 GED 25+ Total GED All Age Groups ESOL 16-20 ESOL 21-24 ESOL 25+ Total ESOL All Age Groups Total Enrollment Change All Age Groups, All Programs % Increase 84% 9% 5% 17% 122% 58% 12% 37% 73% 19% 12% 18%
for 16 to 20 year-olds. Rank ordered for the 1620 year-olds, GED increased by 122%; ABE increased 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 in Figure 2, page 26. The enrollment increase 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.
21%
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%, extensively in comparison to increases shown for the other age groups. 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 contiguous 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 during 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
October 2003
Page 28
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 increased 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
Table 2: Site B Enrollment Changes 2000-01 to 2001-02 Program Type ABE 16-20 ABE 21-24 ABE 25+ Total ABE All Age Groups GED 16-20 GED 21-24 GED 25+ Total GED All Age Groups ESOL 16-20 ESOL 21-24 ESOL 25+ Total ESOL All Age Groups Total Enrollment Change All Age Groups, All Programs 39% % Increase 178% -14% -43% 21% 145% 38% 5% 73% 10% -23% -67% -52%
adult education students was already significant at 24%. Through the 2000-2001 program year enrollments continued to grow disproportionately for 16 to 20 year-olds, culminating in a 35% share of the AE population. Table 3, page 30, presents the enrollment changes at the site by age and program type. For the 16 to 20 age group, all program enrollments increased extensively as follows: GED 151%; ABE 91%; and ESOL 53%. Of note is the decrease in enrollments in the oldest age cohort (25+) in ABE. Except for ESOL enrollments, increases for 16 to 20 year-olds far exceeded those of
other age groups. For all program types combined, Figure 6, page 31, illustrates the extent to which the 16 to 20 year-olds enrollments grew at a much greater rate than did the other age cohorts. Percentage increases in enrollments were as follows: 103% for 16 to 20 year-olds; 18% for 21-24 year-olds and 14% for those 25 and older.
October 2003
Page 29
Figure 3: Site B Enrollment Distribution in 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 by Age Group
Site B: 2000-2001 Enrollment by Age Group
Site B: 2001-2002 Enrollment by Age Group
27%
36%
16-20
25+
25+
51%
21-24
16-20
21-24
11%
62%
13%
16-20
21-24
25+
16-20
21-24
25+
Figure 4
160% 140% 120%
Site B: Percent Increase in Enrollment All Programs 2000-01 to 2001-02

138%
Percent Increase
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40%
39% 18% - 26%
16-20
Age Groups
21-24
25+
October 2003
Page 30
Table 3: Site C Enrollment Changes 1994-95 to 2000-2001 Program Type ABE 16-20 ABE 21-24 ABE 25+ Total ABE All Age Groups GED 16-20 GED 21-24 GED 25+ Total GED All Age Groups ESOL 16-20 ESOL 21-24 ESOL 25+ Total ESOL All Age Groups Total Enrollment Change All Age Groups, All Programs % Increase 91% 4% -19% 15% 151% 18% 29% 64% 53% 65% 61% 61%
In summary, at Site C, over the seven-year period studied, the percentage that 16 to 20 year-olds constitute of the entire adult education enrollment increased by 11%. Nevertheless, this moderate increase has brought the 16-20 year-old cohort to 35% of the total enrollment. Moreover, the enrollment of 16 to 20 year-olds during this period increased by 103%, a large increase relative to the growth of other age groups. Enrollment Levels at Site D Program participants were enrolled at this site in one of three programs: ABE, GED or ESOL. Figure 7, page 32, represents enrollment distributions at site D by age group for enrollments irrespective of program type at
36%
two points in time, 1994-1995 to 2001-2002. At this site, the percentage of 16 to 20 year-olds enrolled in 1994-1995 was 19%; however, with enrollment increasing more rapidly than for other age groups, the 16 to 20 year-olds represented 31% of the site enrollment by 2001-2002. Figure 5: Site C Enrollment Distribution in 1994-95 and 2000-01 by Age Group
Site C: 2000-2001 Enrollment by Age Group
Site C: 1994-1995 Enrollment by Age Group

24%
35%
16-20
49%
25+
16-20
58%
25+
21-24
18%
21-24
16%
16-20
21-24
25+
16-20
21-24
25+
October 2003
Page 31
Figure 6
Site C: Percent Increase in Enrollment 1994-95 to 2000-01 All Programs
120% 100%
103%
Percent Increase
80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
36% 18% 14%
16-20
21-24
25+
Age Groups
Table 4, page 33, presents the enrollment changes at the site by age and program type. Enrollment changes for the 16 to 20 age group increased extensively as follows: ABE 290%, GED 251%, and ESOL 58%. The enrollment increase for 16 to 20 year-olds exceeded those of other age groups. Figure 8, page 32, illustrates the extent to which the enrollments of 16 to 20 year-olds in all programs grew in comparison with the growth of the other age groups. Percentage increases in enrollments were as follows: 230 % for 16 to 20 year-olds; 123 % for 21 to 24 year-olds; and 57% for those 25 and older. In summary, at Site D, over the eight-year study period the percentage of 16 to 20 yearold students as a part of the entire AE population increased moderately by 12%, rising from 19% to a substantial 31% of the total AE enrollment. However, the enrollments of 16 to 20 year-olds at Site D during the same period increased 230 %, an increase larger than that of other age groups. Enrollment Levels at Site E Site E enrolled 16-20 year-olds in ABE, GED, and ESOL programs in two separate units of the LEA: the adult education unit and the alternative education unit. The adult education unit provided the typical ABE, GED and ESOL services to older students with only 10% of the population in the 16-20 year-old age bracket.
October 2003
Page 32
Figure 7: Site D Enrollment Distribution in 1994-1995 and 2001-2002 by Age Group

Site D: 1994-1995 Enrollment by Age Group
19%
Site D: 2001-2002 Enrollment by Age Group
31%
16-20
16-20
25+
21-24
49%
18%
25+
63%
21-24
20%
16-20 21-24 25+
16-20 21-24 25+
Figure 8
Site D: Percent Increase in Enrollment 1994-1995 to 2001-2002 by Age Group -- All Programs
250%
230%
Percent Increase
200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 16-20 21-24 25+ Total All Age Groups 123% 57% 102%
Age Groups
October 2003
Page 33
Table 4: Site D Enrollment Changes 1994-95 to 2001-2002 Program Type ABE 16-20 ABE 21-24 ABE 25+ Total ABE All Age Groups GED 16-20 GED 21-24 GED 25+ Total GED All Age Groups ESOL 16-20 ESOL 21-24 ESOL 25+ Total ESOL All Age Groups Total Enrollment Change All Ages, All Programs 102% % Increase 290% 175% 55% 128% 251% 178% 61% 146% 58% 14% 58% 52%
Juxtaposed was the alternative education unit, which served 16 to 20 year-olds exclusively. The backgrounds of these students varied widely from those who had been incarcerated to those attending LEA sponsored alternative high school classes housed at local public, private, for profit, and at not-for-profit sites in the community. These alternative high school students typically received between 12 to 15 hours of instruction per week, and, therefore, were not considered to be full time high school students.15 Figure 9, page 33, illustrates the enrollment distributions only in the adult education
system in the 1997-1998 and 1999-2000 program years. As can be seen, the percentage of 16 to 20 year-olds among all AE students is relatively small in both years. Moreover, their percent drops very slightly from 10% to 9% of the total enrollment over the three-year period reported. Figure 9: Site E Enrollment Distribution in 1997-98 and 1999-2000 by Age Group
Site E: 1997-1998 Enrollment by Age Group
10%
Site E: 1999-2000 Enrollment by Age Group

9%
16-20
16-20
21-24
30%
25+
21-24
30%
60%
25+
61%
16-20
16-20 21-24 25+
21-24
25+
15
As such, alternative programs do not receive the same school aid as full time high schools, but they do receive state funding that is, on average, half the amount the state allots for adult students in AE programs.
October 2003
Page 34
Figure 10, page 34, presents another view of all 16 to 20 year-olds who received ABE, GED, and ESOL services. The data in this figure are derived by adding the alternative education enrollment data for 16 to 20 year-olds receiving ABE, GED and ESOL services together with the total enrollment data for the adult education unit. As can be seen for the 1999-2000 program year, the only year for which the data can be combined with confidence, the percentage of 16 to 20 year-olds receiving adult education programming in the LEA is 53%. Unfortunately, comparable combined distribution figures for other years cannot be determined, but an examination of related data sets along with the enrollment change data indicates a likelihood that the combined enrollment distributions have not varied much over the three-year period for which data are available. The enrollments at Site E for 16 to 20 year-olds were examined separately for the adult education unit and for the alternative education unit. Although data were not available for both units for the same time periods and
Figure 10 Site E Adult Education and Alternative Education Enrollment in 1999-2000 by Age Group
disaggregated data by age group and program type could not be provided, the enrollment changes for both units were found to be negligible for different but overlapping time periods: 1997-1998 to 1999-2000 (three years) in the adult unit, and 1999-
31%
25+ 16-20
2000 to 2001-2002 (three years) in

53%
the alternative unit. In summary, at Site E the percentage of 16 to 20 year-old students served with adult education programming by this LEA in two units combined was substantial. The
21-24
16%
total enrollment for the most current year in which the data for the two units could be combined was fifty-three percent (53%) of the 1999-2000 adult education services population. However, the enrollment distributions by age group were judged not to have changed appreciably for the three years under study, 1997-1998 to 1999-2000. Enrollment changes in the two units for two
October 2003
Page 35
overlapping time periods, 1997-1998 to 1999-2000 for adult education and 1999-2000 to 20012002 for the alternative unit, were also found to be essentially unchanged.16 At Site E, the impact of 16-20 year-olds on the regular AE unit was minimal because of the manner in which the LEA chose to serve this population. However, the overall impact on the LEA was substantial as the large number of 16-20 year-olds receiving AE services and the low state aid reimbursement rates for these students. Summary of Cumulative and Cross-Site Enrollment Data Research Questions 2-4 To give a sense of the magnitude of the enrollment data presented, without compromising the anonymity of the study sites, an aggregated enrollment number is presented in this section of the report. It should be noted that enrollments were not equally distributed across sites. In addition, to summarize major trends, cross-site data are also presented, although primarily in terms of percentages. The total most current enrollment across five sites was 71,981 students. This total was aggregated for the program years 1999-2000 from one site, 2000-2001 from two sites, and 2001-2002 from two sites. Across all sites, student age was distributed as follows: 16 to 20 year cohort 50% 21 to 24 year cohort 15% 25 or older cohort 35%
Table 5, page 36, 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 also includes 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 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 can be seen in Table 5, the current proportion (time 2) 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 considerable presence in this sites entire adult education program. From site to site, increases from time 1 (historic) to time 2 (most recent) in the proportion of 16 to 20 year-olds range from a 0% increase to an increase of 26%. The impact of 16 to 20 year-olds on a site can be viewed as a function of both the increase in the percent they represent of the entire enrollment at a site (proportion of the enrollment distribution) and the rate at which the proportion of this age group is increasing. Using these criteria, the impact on all five sites caused by the presence of 16 to 20 year-olds is apparent.
16
Enrollment data from both the adult and alternative units could not be combined as data were available only from different, though overlapping, time periods.
October 2003
Page 36
In the five-site study sample, four of the five sites showed a moderate to high in percentage of 16 to 20 year-olds in the AE programs, as well as modest increases in the percentage of 16 to 20 year-olds in AE programs from Time 1 to Time 2. Although Site E did not appear to have any change in its enrollment distribution, the 16-20 year-old cohort comprised a very large percentage (53%) of its AE student population. A full 91% of those students were enrolled in the alternative high school unit of the LEA as opposed to the adult education unit. Table 5: Enrollment Distribution at All Sites by Age
Time 1 AGE 16-20 21-25 25+ Time 2 AGE 16-20 21-25 25+ Site A
12% 20% 68%
Site B
36% 13% 51%
Site C
24% 18% 58%
Site D
19% 18% 63%
Site E
NA* NA NA
Site A
18% 20% 62%
Site B
62% 11% 27%
Site C
35% 16% 49%
Site D
31% 20% 49%
Site E
53% 16% 31%
Change in Percentage (Proportion) of 16-20 Year-Olds at Each Site Site A 16-20 Years Elapsed
+6% 4
Site B
+26% 2
Site C
+11% 7
Site D
+12% 8
Site E
0%** 3
* NA = Data not made available. ** Estimated change. Estimate is drawn from different but partially overlapping 3 year periods.
Figure 11, page 37, illustrates the percentage of change by site for each age cohort at the four sites where the data were available. Within durations extending from as few as two years to a high of eight years, changes ranged from 91% to 230%. These increases were all much greater for 16 to 20 year-olds than for the other age groups. At Site E (not shown in Figure 11), the change in enrollment for 16-20 year-olds was estimated to be zero. In summary, the total current enrollment of 16 to 20 year-olds in the study sites was estimated at 35,656, just short of 50% of the total enrollment of 71,981. Sixteen to twenty yearolds had a strong impact on the five study sites: 5 sites enrolled a moderate to large percentages of 16-20 year-olds; At 4 sites, the percentage of 16-20 year-olds grew modestly from Time 1 to Time 2; At 4 sites, enrollment of 16-20 year-olds grew dramatically from Time 1 to Time 2;
October 2003
Page 37
Figure 11
Comparison of Enrollment Changes by Age Group in All Programs from Time 1 to Time 2
Site A
250%
Site B
Site C
230%
Site D
200%
Percent Change
100%
91%
103%
123%
57%
150%
138%
21%
18%
18%
-26%
50%
9%
14%
0%
-50%
4 Years
2 Years
7 Years
8 Years
16-20 21-24 25+
Elapsed Years between Time 1 and Time 2

Site E: No enrollment changes were found in 16-20 year-olds.
Research Questions 5-7: Student Characteristics 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, reading, writing, and math levels, criminal justice involvement, homelessness?
How do youth differ from adult students in these descriptive categories? What personal risk factors have been identified by professional program personnel? How are programs responding to these factors?
Each site was asked to provide data related to the characteristics of all students enrolled at the site for two points in time, the 1996-1997 and 2000-2001 program years (see data collection form in Appendix C).17 As noted regarding the enrollment data, sites varied greatly in their ability to retrieve and provide information. This was the case, as well, for the data on student
17
At some sites additional information about employment was provided, e.g., not employed and available for work; not employed and not available for work. Given the limited availability of data in the latter two categories, only the employed category is reported.
October 2003
Page 38
characteristics. Therefore, this section includes information from all sites on characteristics for the most recent year for which data were provided.
Table 6: Characteristics of Students at Site A by Age Group
Gender Age 16-20 21-24 25+ % Male 55 48 43 % Female 45 52 57 % NatAmer 0 <1 <1 % Asian 2 8 5 Ethnicity % Black 10 12 13 % Hispanic 79 72 70 % White 9 8 12 % of ABE Reading at <5.0 52 43 37
% Distribution of ABE % Distribution by Program [1] Age 16-20 21-24 25+ ABE 51 29 45 GED 29 16 18 ESOL 20 55 37 Car/Tech 20 42 24 GED by Reading Scores ABE 64 64 71 GED 36 36 29
% Distribution by Reading Grade Levels [2] Age 16-20 21-24 25+ 1-2.9 16 5 4 3-4.9 18 22 22 5-7.9 30 37 45 8-9.9 23 29 23 10-12.9 13 7 6 % Disabled 2 7 2 % Employed 10 35 36
% Distribution by Mathematics Grade Levels [3] Age 16-20 21-24 25+ 1-2.9 16 7 27 3-4.9 52 68 24 5-7.9 23 11 21 8-9.9 5 8 9 10-12.9 4 6 18
[1] Career and technical education students were also enrolled in ABE, GED, or ESOL programs. [2] Students reading 8.0 and above were assigned GED status. [3] Distribution derived from 72% of enrollees in ABE/GED. Math generally lower than reading scores.
To present a quantitative picture of the students for whom sites are currently providing services, tables have been prepared by site that describe enrollees by age group; gender, ethnicity, disability, employment status, program type, reading, and mathematics scores. As designation of GED students across sites was inconsistent, this study treats those reading 8.0 and above as GED students.18 Where data for a characteristic were not fully available, the percentage
18
Program status is reported in two ways: 1) by the actual designation of the student by the site, and 2) by assigning the student to a program status by reading scores. All students with reading scores above 8.0 were assigned GED status.
October 2003
Page 39
of the totally enrolled students from which the number was derived is noted. At some sites, data were completely missing for several student characteristics. The data on student characteristics provided by the sites are summarized in Tables 6-10. A summary table (Table 11, page 44) is included for data aggregated across sites. Characteristics of Students at Site A (2000-2001) At Site A, student enrollment for all age groups was distributed as follows: ABE 43%, GED 20%, ESOL 37%. Table 6, page 38, describes the students by age cohort in relation to student characteristics. In general, all students in ABE and GED programs score less well in mathematics relative to their reading scores, and the reported number of students with disabilities was low. Relative to other age groups, 16 to 20 year-olds are more likely to be male (55%), enrolled in ABE (51%) and GED (29%) programs, have low employment levels (10%), and are involved in additional career and technical training programs to a limited degree (20%). Within the combined ABE/GED programs, as assigned by reading score, 64% of students 16 to 20 years old were enrolled in ABE programs. Of these ABE students, 52% were reading a grade level of 4.9 or lower. Characteristics of Students at Site B 2001-2002 Eighty-two percent (82%) of students at Site B were enrolled in GED programs, with ABE at 12% and ESOL at 6%. Table 7, page 40, provides data on student characteristics at Site B by age cohort. Assigned by reading level, 66% of the 16-20 year-old students in the ABE/GED track were ABE. Within the 16 to 20 year-old ABE age group, 45 % had reading scores that were 4.9 or below, a pattern similar to other age cohorts. Data for disability or employment were unavailable. Over all, students had mathematics scores that were slightly lower than their reading scores. Sixteen to twenty year-olds did not present a statistical profile that was markedly different from other age groups. Of note is the fact that at Site B 100% of all the ABE, GED and ESOL students were reported enrolled in a Career and Technical program. A follow-up inquiry revealed that at Site B all adult education students were required to enroll in a short-term computer literacy course considered at the site to be part of a technical training program. Characteristics of Students at Site C (2000-2001) At Site C, student enrollment for all age cohorts was as follows: ABE 47%, GED 25%, and ESOL 28%. Students at Site C are described by age cohort in Table 8, page 41. Their mathematics scores are lower relative to their reading scores, and they have low rates of reported disabilities. In comparison with other age groups, at Site C 16 to 20 year-olds are more likely to be enrolled in ABE (59%) than in GED (33%) programs. Eleven percent (11%) are employed, and 34% are enrolled in technical training programs, a slightly higher rate in both categories than found among older cohorts.
October 2003
Page 40
Within the combined ABE/GED track as assigned by reading levels, 59% of 16 to 20 year-olds were enrolled in ABE programs. Of these ABE students, 32% had reading grade levels of 4.9 and below.
T ab le 7:
A ge 16-20 21-24 25+
C haracteristics of S tudents at S ite B b y A ge G roup

G e nde r E thnicity % N atA m e r <1 1 1 % A sia n 2 3 4 % B lack 50 48 49 % H ispa nic 17 13 13 % W hite 31 35 33 % of A B E R ea ding
< 5 .0
% M ale % F em a le 48 47 43 52 53 57
% D istribution of A B E % D istribution b y Program [1 ] A ge 16-20 21-24 25+

ABE GED ESOL Car/T ech
G E D b y R e ading S cores
ABE GED
12 10 12
82 77 74
6 13 14
10 0 10 0 10 0
66 65 70
34 35 30
45 44 53
% D istribution by R ea ding G ra de Leve ls [2 ] A ge 16-20 21-24 25+ 1 - 2 .9 12 13 17 3 - 4 .9 18 16 20 5 - 7 .9 36 37 33 8 - 9 .9 17 17 13 1 0 - 1 2 .9 17 17 17 % D isable d NA NA NA % E m ploye d NA NA NA
% D istribution by M a them atics G rade Le vels [3 ] A ge 16-20 21-24 25+

[1] 1 - 2 .9 3 - 4 .9 5 - 7 .9 8 - 9 .9 1 0 - 1 2 .9
8 15 11
17 16 23
44 46 48
16 12 12
15 11 6
Care er and te ch nical education stude nts w e re also enrolled in A B E , G E D , or E S O L prog ram s.
[2 ] S tudents reading 8 .0 and ab ove w e re assig ned G E D status. [3 ] T h is distrib ution re pre se nts 10 0 % of th e re porte d A B E / G E D population.
Characteristics of Students at Site D (2000-2001)
At Site D, enrollment for all age
groups was distributed as follows: ABE 40%, GED 30%, and ESOL 38%. The students at the site were predominantly male. No disability, employment, or mathematics data related to students were provided. Sixteen to twenty year-old students did not present themselves as appreciably different from other age groups in terms of the data in Table 9, page 42, except that they were more likely to be enrolled in ABE classes (50%). When assigned ABE or GED status by reading level within the ABE/GED track, 55% of the students were ABE and 45% were GED. For ABE level students, 43% were at a 4.9 reading level or lower.
October 2003
Page 41
Characteristics of Students at Site E (1999-2000) Site E could provide only limited data describing student characteristics. As noted, this site provided adult education programming to 16 to 20 year-olds in two settings: the adult education unit and the alternative high school education unit. The latter served more than 91% of the 16 to 20 year-olds at Site E. As shown in Table 10, page 43, the 16 to 20 year-olds were enrolled primarily in ABE (47%) and GED (44%) programs in the alternative adult education unit. ESOL enrolled a distant third (9%). Twelve percent of students had reported disabilities.
Table 8:
A ge 16-20 21-24 25+
Characteristics of S tudents at S ite C by Age Group

G ender Ethnicity % N atA m er 1 <1 <1 % A sian 2 4 9 % Black 58 53 41 % H ispanic 26 25 24 % W hite 13 17 26 % of A BE Reading < 5.0 32 37 37 % Fem ale 53 60 59
% M ale 47 40 41
% D istribution of A BE % D istribution by Program [1] A ge 16-20 21-24 25+ A BE 59 50 37 GED 33 25 19 ES O L 8 25 44 Car/Tech 34 20 13 GED by Reading S cores A BE 59 62 61 G ED 41 38 39
% D istribution by Reading G rade Levels [2] A ge 16-20 21-24 25+ 1-2.9 9 4 7 3-4.9 10 19 16 5-7.9 40 39 38 8-9.9 22 24 23 10-12.9 19 14 16 % Disabled 1 3 4 % Em ployed 11 6 3
% Distribution by M athem atics Grade Levels [3] A ge 16-20 21-24 25+ 1-2.9 2 3 7 3-4.9 18 20 23 5-7.9 50 54 50 8-9.9 18 16 16 10-12.9 12 7 4
[1] Career and technical education students w ere also enrolled in A BE, G ED, or ESO L program s. [2] Students reading 8.0 and above w ere assigned G ED status. [3] Derived from 81% of A BE/G ED students reporting. M ath scores generally low er than reading scores.
Within the combined ABE/GED track as assigned by reading levels, 54% of the 16 to 20 year-olds were in ABE programs. The distribution of students reading levels for the ABE/GED track appears in Table 10, page 43. Of the ABE students, 33% had reading grade levels of 4.9
October 2003
Page 42
and below. While no quantitative data were available regarding enrollment in career technical training programs, interview data suggest that it was limited.
Table 9: Characteristics of Students at Site D by Age Group
Gender Age 16-20 21-24 25+ % M ale 85 79 52 % Female 15 21 48 % N atAmer 4 5 3 % Asian <1 1 6 Ethnicity % Black 55 58 34 % Hispanic 11 14 36 % W hite 30 22 21 % of ABE Reading <5.0 43 40 51
% Distribution of ABE % Distribution by Program [1] Age 16-20 21-24 25+ ABE 50 42 34 GED 41 41 18 ESO L 9 17 48 Car/Tech NA NA NA GED by Reading Scores ABE 55 51 95 GED 45 49 35
% Distribution by Reading Grade Levels [2] Age 16-20 21-24 25+ 1-2.9 7 7 17 3-4.9 17 13 16 5-7.9 31 30 32 8-9.9 22 27 18 10-12.9 23 23 17 % Disabled NA NA NA % Employed NA NA NA
% Distribution by M athematics Grade Levels Age 16-20 21-24 25+ 1-2.9 NA NA NA 3-4.9 NA NA NA 5-7.9 NA NA NA 8-9.9 NA NA NA 10-12.9 NA NA NA
[1] Career and technical education students were also enrolled in ABE, GED, or ESOL programs. [2] Students reading 8.0 and above w ere assigned GED status.
Summary of Student Characteristics Research Questions 5-7 Characteristics of 16-20 Year-Olds at All Sites Table 11, page 44, summarizes the characteristics of 16 to 20 year-olds for all sites from which data were available. Of the total number of enrolled students at all sites, 41.6% were Black and 31.2% Hispanic in the four reporting communities in which these groups constitute, respectively, 31.2% and 12.7% of the total population. 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 in the ABE/GED track across sites were considered
October 2003
Page 43
to be in the ABE category. Of these students, 30% to 52% of the ABE students were reading at a 4.9 grade level or below. 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 1620 year-olds.
Table 10: Characteristics of 16 to 20 Year-Old Students in the Alternative

High School Unit at Site E (2001-2002) % Distribution by % Distribution by Program
Age 16-20 ABE 47% GED 44% ESOL 9%
1
% of ABE Reading at 4.9 or Below

33%
Reading Scores
Career/Tec NA ABE 54%
2
GED 46%
% Distribution by Reading Grade Levels - ABE/GED

Age 16-20
1 2
1.0-2.9 6%
3.0-4.9 15%
5.0-7.9 33%
8.0-9.9 21%
10.0-12.9 25%
% Disabled 12%
% Employed NA
Career and technical education students were also enrolled in ABE, GED or ESOL programs. Students reading 8.0 and above were assigned GED status.
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 the statistical data. As reported by AE professional personnel, the large majority of 16-20 year-olds in AE have dropped out voluntarily or have been expelled from high school. Many are known to the criminal justice system or are welfare recipients. Some youth have been away from formal education for 2-3 years. 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 by the interviewees, further descriptive studies of this population are certainly needed. Overview of Risk Factors Interviewees described serious academic, behavioral, and social problems, which are more common among the 16-18 year-olds than among those 19-20 years old. Many 16-20 year-olds are mandated to attend AE as a condition of probation, parole, drug rehabilitation, or welfare regulations. For families on welfare, students parents can continue to collect public assistance only if underage children are in an education program. At one site, at least one third of the 16-20 year-olds have had interactions with the police. Frequent mandated social service appointments for students regularly interrupt classroom continuity.
October 2003
Page 44
Interviewees observe that most or all of the students on probation are male and that some of the students continue to be involved in illegal activities, such as drug dealing and raising pit bulls.
Table 11
Characteristics of 16-20 Year Old Students at All Sites For the Latest Year Available
Gender Male Female
45% 53% 53% 15% NA Nat Amer 0% <1 1% 4% NA
2
Ethnicity Asian
2% 3% 2% <1 NA
Black
10% 50% 58% 55% NA
Hispanic
79% 17% 26% 11% NA
White
9% 31% 13% 30% NA
Disability
2% NA 1% NA 12%
Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E
55% 47% 47% 85% NA

1
% Distribution by Distribution by Program ABE Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E

1 2 3
% of ABE Reading at 4.9 or Below

52% 30% 32% 43% 33%
Reading Scores ABE

64% 66% 59% 55% 54%
GED
29% 82% 33% 41% 44%
ESOL 20% 6% 8% 9% 9%
Career/Tech
20% 100% 34% NA NA
3
GED
36% 34% 41% 45% 46%
Employed
10% NA 11% NA NA
51% 12% 59% 50% 47%
NA = Data not made available. Career and Technical students were also enrolled in ABE, GED, or ESOL programs. Reported at low levels via interview data.
Other risk factors were described. Many students experience family poverty. Little parental control or involvement is a common condition. The students parents themselves are young: Well, you know, the kids who come here who are 16 or 20, their parents are only 16 years older than they are. They're born in the same generation. So it makes it kind of difficult for the parents to parent a child that's in the same generation with them so they don't really understand the power of education and what it can lead to. So they can't really give that to their child. (Administrator, Site C) Employment Status Most of the 16-20 year-olds are unemployed, although one student interviewee worked from 5-11 PM as a custodian and attended the AE class from 8:30-11:30 AM. Some students seek jobs, but then realize they are better off on welfare. Some of the 16-20 year-old students are homeless for at least some period of time. Some are gang members. At one site, 40-50% of female youth have at least one child.
October 2003
Page 45
Academic Skills
A wide range of reading skills was found in the AE classrooms, and
youth sometimes read better than the older students. However, interviewees indicated that many youth were far away from attaining a GED because of low reading grade levels. Incarcerated students who have college-level reading skills were referred by a pre-trial program to one site for GED preparation. They were an exception. Pervasive, severe math weaknesses were described. Difficulty in solving math problems was attributed by one interviewee to students lack of life experience. Some students have difficulty conceptualizing word problems: a lot of them, again, the math is there, but it's the way the problems are asked, the problem solving skills, it just kind of throws them off guard. They don't have test-taking skills, and that's really important in math. Sometimes they'll do the problem but they don't get to the final answer, because they get a number and say: "There it is!" But they didn't finish. So a lot of it is problem solving skills. (Teacher, Site C) I have a couple of young guys in my class now who (have) 12-9 reading and 12-9 math. Why did you drop out? He probably didn't want to finish gym! (Teacher, Site A) Effects of Academic Functioning on Employability A teacher worried about the potential of the lower-functioning 16-20 year-old students regarding their ability to participate later as a functioning member of the workforce. She indicated that even the previous GED exam would have been beyond their abilities: I mean, we know that, no matter what you do, if a person has limited abilities because they're working to their capacities, no matter how much you do for them and how much you support them, if a high school diploma's supposed to mean that that person can perform on a technical job, they'll never be able to do that. They'll always need their caseworker or their assistant working alongside them in a sheltered learning situation. I think that there's a component of the under-20 that's going to fit that model, that no matter what we do for these people, no matter how much money we put in, they're not going to meet the new technical standards that our society and businesses ask for. They couldn't pass the old GED. (Teacher, Site D) Learning Disabilities Across the sites, a substantial number of 16-20 year-olds were described as having learning disabilities, especially Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, e.g., estimates of 30-40% at Site A and 25% at Site C. Interviewees also reported that some youth in AE appeared to have hearing loss or seem to be neurologically impaired. However, these estimates were based upon personal observations of the instructors, since documentation from high
October 2003
Page 46
school special education or state disability services was rarely available. This absence of documentation explains the low disability rates recorded by sites in quantitative surveys. In comparison with older students, 16-20 year-old participants are reported to have a short attention span, requiring teachers to build more variability into their pedagogy. Skills deficits create embarrassment and cause some students to shy away from collaborative learning activities in the classroom. A teacher at Site D stated, people who are on the lower end dont want others to know how much help they really need. Understanding the Nature of GED knew there were differences: Interviewer: What is the difference between a GED and a high school diploma? Student: It's more proficient, it's more like crucifying the flesh, more like just focusing on your work, no more playing around, just being into it and asking questions, even though things are easy, still ask questions. Interviewer: You do that in the GED? Student: Yeah. Interviewer: Say you go to a job interview and you tell them you have a GED. Does it make any difference to them if you have a high school diploma or a GED? Student: If I have a high school diploma or GED? Interviewer: Is it easier to get a job with one or the other? Student: To me, I think it's the same, but others probably think lower if you have the GED diploma, because you'll probably be just a failure or something in your life. Some, I can't criticize others, but that's probably why I think that way. (Student, Site C) Another student at the same site was unable to differentiate between the two credentials: Interviewer: What's the difference between a high school diploma and a GED? Student: I don't really know. I know there is, but I don't know. Interviewer: Does it make a difference when you go for a job, you're interviewing, if you tell them you have a GED as opposed to a... Student: No, you get some kind of written document that you finished 12 years of school, then you're fine. You get some kind of diploma or something like that to show. (Student, Site C) Behavior, Motivation, and Attitude At Site B, a teacher stated that the academic skills of the youth and adult participants were similar; what differentiated them was behavior. Especially in the case of 16-18 year-olds, these youth needed a high degree of structure, but even that was not always effective. A counselor at Site B stated that youth who had been unsuccessful with Sixteen to twenty year-old students often did not understand the difference between the GED and a traditional high school diploma. One student
October 2003
Page 47
standard high school teaching methods were being exposed to the same approach again. At some sites, teacher turnover was high because of youth discipline problems. The teacher at Site B stated that students live in areas characterized by gang and racial wars, and they come in bringng their neighborhoods with them. Court-mandated students required much attention. A teacher at Site C stated that there were not many court-mandated students, but you know when theyre here. They had to be watched carefully, for example, because they often tried to sign out early. Sometimes, conduct was better because of monitoring by caseworkers. An administrator at Site C described the consent process by which AE staff interacted with probation officers: We get them [i.e. individuals on probation] at intake, because that's where I work. I ask if anyone wants to sign a release of information . . . so that we can give that information to their probation or parole officer. Some would sign, some would say, "No, they're gonna know I'm here." I said, "You have rights too. If they call, you don't exist." "What do you mean?" "I won't talk to a parole officer unless you sign this paper." So once I get the paper signed, it gave me a chance to call, send a message and say, "So and so's not attending." (Administrator, Site C) Many of the 16-to-20 year-olds have poor work skills, and are not accustomed to following directions. According to a teacher at Site B, theyre not accustomed to people telling them what to do, or following orders. One teacher cited a lack of job experience as a reason for younger students inability to understand the value of education. Motivation and behavior were best among ESOL (immigrant and international) students, and better for GED than ABE students. An interviewee at Site B stated that the ESOL students tended to exhibit better focus and attention. Additionally, according to a teacher at Site B, GED students as a group were better motivated because theyve realized that this is the end of the line. If they dont get their GED, theyre probably going to have entry-level work for the rest of their life. However, for mandated students, education was not a priority. One interviewee at Site D described them as still really on the street. Some of the court-mandated students who were attending prior to sentencing seemed to be motivated, but a teacher suspected that the motivation was not real: I have this one group of students that is kind shepherded by [name of agency]. Part of their thing is pre-sentencing or pre-court kinds of things. If they make the case to the judge that this person's going to school, the judge will look favorably. So a lot of them are taking the attitude of "how little can I do to get away, not get caught," as opposed to taking the opportunity to learn. (Teacher, Site D)
October 2003
Page 48
Behavioral difficulties were linked to motivation by personnel at Site Es alternative high school program, but frequent communication with the referring agency as well as small classroom size kept problems to a minimum: kids are coming in a little more angry in some instances, they're coming in now being mandated as opposed to by choice. In the past, when youngsters were coming in by choice, it obviously meant that student volunteered to be there, wanted to be there. Didn't mean the student was always successful, but did mean that he came of his own free will. What's happening now is because some are regarding their placement as a mandated placement, they're still resisting, so we are dealing with some classroom management issues but we are still having relatively few serious occurrences in our sites. But yes, kids act out in the classrooms. [The number of] kids that may not be really prepared emotionally or academically, as I alluded to before, sitting in a classroom for several hours a day is increasing. I think that the smallness of our sites and the work that we're doing with the host agencies is keeping . . . incidents and really serious acting-out behavior to a minimum. (Administratror, Site E) A young AE student at Site D had strong opinions about the attitude of some fellow students: Student: Well, the younger ones that come here, they get smart with these teachers, like these teachers don't have to put up with these kids because they have their degrees and they're the ones that are trying to get it. So we need something from them, so therefore they need to cooperate with [them]. Interviewer: Can you tell me what it looks like? If I were in class, what would I see? Student: Like, she probably tell someone to do something, everybody like "Excuse me?" Like with an attitude, or like "Huuhhhh," all tired, like they don't want to be here. But they don't have to; it's they choice. If they want something, they better come. Interviewer: Could you tell me what the students are like in this program? Tell me about their ages. Student: They're all type of ages, some older, some younger. But it don't really bother me as long as everybody's trying to learn and get work done. But some people, they don't like doing work, they just go home early, they just blow it off like they do in high school, but [that] how they is, that's why they still in school. (Student, Site D) However, interviewees pointed out that the social, academic and behavioral problems were not confined to the youth population. At Sites B and C, some of the students aged 21 and above suffer severe mental health problems. Some talk to themselves in class. Their presence creates an environment for youth that is very different from that which they experienced in high school.
October 2003
Page 49
Summary of Perceived Student Characteristics Interview Data In summary, the information gathered by interview adds to the statistical picture of the 16-20 year-olds. While some in the 16-20 year-old cohort included hard-working, motivated students, the general perception of this age group in comparison with older AE students is consistent with their status as adolescents and young adults. However, even taking this stage in their development into account, they are perceived to be: less mature, less motivated, less responsible, more involved in drugs, more involved in gangs and fighting, more likely to exhibit behavior problems, more likely to manifest symptoms of learning disabilities and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, and more often mandated to attend by courts and drug rehabilitation programs. Certainly, the conduct of 16-20 year-old students has had a direct impact on the AE programs. At some sites, AE program administrators separated classes by age and hired new and special personnel, including security officers and retired teachers to deal with classroom management issues. Program Adaptations and Adjustments New program policies have been enacted to address youth characteristics. For example, wearing of hats, other headgear, and scarves that might signify gang membership is prohibited. No electronic equipment, including telephones and pagers, is allowed. At one site, after three warning letters sent to parents for inappropriate behavior, the student is expelled from the program. As a result of the classroom behavior of 1620 year-olds, teaching has become more structured. Fewer projects are assigned that require mature work habits, such as collaborative work with other students. Older students resent this loss of opportunity. One teacher described his success in running the classroom like a highly structured workplace in which students have to follow strict rules. In some cases, youths distractibility and lack of respect for teachers drive adults out of the program. Older students may drop out one by one, although, as indicated elsewhere in this report, welfare requirements tend to decrease adult departures. In other cases, older students provide some support. Some simply ignore the younger students. At one site, a teacher thought that the older students should learn to be more tolerant. Quite honestly, I think it's something that maybe some of the adults have to have a little more tolerance. I mean, this is life. My philoso-
October 2003
Page 50
phy is, this is the way things are in life. It's not a perfect world and it's not always a perfect classroom and we have to be a little tolerant. It was never that horrendous that I felt that they should leave; and if that's the kind of situation they need to have, then I'm sorry they felt they had to leave, but you have to be a little tolerant. I feel for the young kids who, these are the people who did not succeed in high school. They went to school maybe once a month or once in a week or whatever, and the fact that they're coming to school every day, to me, is always a good sign and I want to work with them. (Teacher, Site A) However, adult students might find it difficult to be tolerant: Administrator: If the younger students are acting in their high school mode, the older students get upset. And what we find will happen is the students won't put up with it; they'll just leave. They'll come back next day, but they'll just say, "I'm not listening to this," and leave. Now if it's particularly bad, we have to ask the younger to leave, because we don't want to lose the [older] student. Teacher: But sometimes the behavior is just, it's not offensive, they're just being kids. And sometimes the older students don't have a lot of patience, even with that. (Administrator and Teacher, Site C) The conduct of 16-20 year-old students has had direct impact on the AE programs. At some sites, administrators separated classes by age, hired new and special personnel, including security officers, retired teachers to deal with classroom management. Some have added a counselor or case manager just for youth, an additional person responsible for contacting parents when students are absent, and an additional clerk just to deal with paperwork related to parole. One site has contracted with a local agency to provide conflict resolution training for staff. Another site is using passkey instructional software, which enables students to move easily and quickly from one subject to another. An interviewee stated that it took more effort to work with 16-20 year-olds than the others because they needed more individual attention: We have to work harder too, and spend more time with each one especially the young men, but some young women also,. If you can't establish a personal rapport with that student, he's not going to gain anything. He's going to be disruptive, he's going to listen to his CD player and argue when I ask him not to, and somehow you've got to find some hook with each one individually. (Teacher, Site B)
October 2003
Page 51
Research Question 8: Reasons for Increased Youth Enrollment in AE Why are more 16-20 year-olds enrolling in AE programs? Since evening classes mainly serve employed adults, the increase in youth enrollments in AE was confined to daytime classes. Many different reasons were given by interviewees for the increased youth enrollment. Relocation In some cases, students were attempting to complete a GED program begun in another location: Student: I'm not from here, I'm from [another state]. My cousin, she showed me, I need to get back to school to get my high school education. Everyone else was graduated, but I got to walk across the stage. I just didn't get my high school diploma. Interviewer: Now you may not know about this since you just got to [name of city], but why do you think students your age decide to come to this program, in general? Student: I guess because they let you work at your own pace. They give you more time to get stuff together, rethink, rebuild your skills so you can pass the GED test. Some of them drop out, some go in GED programs. I was in a GED program in [another state] but I didn't get to finish the whole thing because graduation was coming and I was gonna walk across the stage, so they let me and I moved here. (Student, Site B) Personal Interaction with Instructors Students who had difficulties interacting with high school teachers may find AE instructors more sympathetic, as in the case of a student interviewee: Student: I went to [name] High School. I didn't get along with the teachers that well. Interviewee: What was it about them that...? Student: I guess it was they attitude, how they came at me, and a whole of other stuff. (Student, Site B). Another student preferred the personal attention and safer, more supportive environment in AE to an the urban high school setting: Myself, I couldn't stay focused there with all the surround going on at the school, and here they work one-on-one with you and you can get any questions asked that you need because they take the time out to be there for you. They have like tutoring people coming to your house if you need help with your work. You can stay here later. There are volunteers that stay here as long as you need until you get what they're teaching. There, I couldn't do that with all the stuff that's going around in school, people's not really paying attention, they're out of control. They have drugs. A lot of people sell drugs at the schools, smoke and I'm not into that. I don't want to be around anything violent. I actually came from a suburb school,
October 2003
Page 52
[name of school. I was doing well out there. Then once I came here, to a city school, things started to decline. So I knew I wasn't going to be able to make it if I stayed at a city school, so I came here. There's no trouble here, no drugs, no violence. They're setting goals so when they get their GED, what are they gonna do next? Everybody's got a real positive attitude. (Student, Site C) Adult, College Mentality attracts some 16-20 year-olds: I think that's the primary impetus, but again, if you think about the K-12 setting, especially the high schools and middle schools, the pressures are different. We treat students here like they're on a college campus. This is a campus. And our mentality about who you are and our expectations for you are different. So you may be 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, and you might want to act like you're 15, 14, 13, well there are enough of us around here that we're not going to allow that to happen. In order for you to become the kind of learner we want you to be, there are certain behavioral patterns and things. (Teacher, Site C) High School Graduation Standards Some interviewees attributed the increases in youth enrollments to higher state standards for secondary school graduation. They pointed to the increased credit requirements for students to graduate (previously 18, now 26 in the study state) and to the state required examinations, which are more difficult than before. Further, a minimum-competency graduation exam previously in effect has been discontinued so that all graduates must take the same high-standards exam. Interviewees stated that high school students often age out, i.e., they have earned too few credits during their stay in high school to be eligible for graduation by the end of their fourth year. They also drop out when they realize that they will be unable to earn enough credits to graduate and perceive that they have no chance of passing the state exams: They don't plan to drop out and come to adult ed. It's just something that happens, because they got so far behind, might have gotten frustrated, felt like they were trapped, nowhere to go. I talked to a young man recently who dropped out of school and he just couldn't express what he was feeling well and he felt frustrated. His parents were on him, teachers were on him, no one was really listening to him. They were all telling him, "Listen, you gotta finish high school." So he dropped out. He didn't even have any plans to go to adult ed, he just felt he couldn't take it anymore and just dropped out. (Administrator, Site B) The adult, college mentality and level of personal support
October 2003
Page 53
AE as a Fast Track to College Some students are bored with high school and enter AE, perceiving it to be a faster route to college. Site B, which is known in the area to have close relationships with the local community college, attracts high school dropouts who have college aspirations. High School Attendance Some 16-20 year-old AE students have been expelled from high school for poor attendance or behavioral difficulties including substance abuse. I feel that they have a problem with the scheduling in terms of early mornings, being in school all day. I feel that they get discouraged, that they somehow have the impression that if they drop out of school, getting a GED will be easier than what they would have to do to get their high school diploma. Even though that is a fallacy in my opinion, I think that's why a lot of them do it. They want to be grown up, they want to be on their own. Many of them have children, infants. I think it's a grueling schedule for them and somehow they think dropping out will make their life better. (Teacher, Site D) Some high school students are referred by guidance counselors or by teachers to AE. Interviewees at one site mentioned a newly enacted high school attendance policy whereby students were expelled if they were absent more than 28 days in an academic year. Need for Quick Action Sometimes the students, whose problems had not been noticed before, suddenly come to the attention of high school personnel. Needing to take action quickly, school officials consider AE to be an appropriate referral: Sometimes the guidance system doesn't work to its perfection. And a lot of kids get lost through the cracks. So I get these kids through the junior high school, and they get to high school, and the guidance counselors there were just so overwhelmed that the marginal students either end up cutting classes or whatever, and they don't have any interest, so they fall through the cracks and they're juniors or whatever and they don't have any credits, so they go to the guidance counselor or the principal or whatever and they (the school personnel) say, "We don't want you on our rolls, we're going to drop you from school. I think you should go for the GED program because it's better off for you than staying in school." (Teacher, Site A) AE may be seen as the last resort for high school students who have been overlooked by parent and school alike: And I think for a lot of them, nobody is encouraging. For a lot of kids, there's no encouragement, there's no parental encouragement there's no guidance counselor encouragement, there's no peer encouragement. We're Last Chance Gulch. (Teacher, Site D)
October 2003
Page 54
Sometimes, parents do not express concern about the referral of their child to AE as a last-resort: [in a previous job], if I had a kid who was a pain in the neck or a bad kid or troublemaker, I tried to get rid of a kid by hook or by crook. Any way I could get a kid out of a building, I would look to do that. And people do that. So they send us game-players, or sometimes, they'll fill them full of sunshine and then reality sets in, they say, "Go to the [program name], you'll get a GED." And yet when we test a youngster, the kid's (below) a 4th grade reading level, and we say, "Hey, you belong in a literacy center." And the interesting thing is, when we reject kids, parents don't really get angry at us. Normally you'd assume they'd get angry. (Administrator, Site E) Pregnancy, Poverty and Parole Additionally, some pregnant high school students were encouraged to leave high school without a diploma. An interviewee described this push out guidance as being more subtle than an overt recommendation to leave. Another reason given for youth participation in AE was an increasing level of family poverty, which was affecting students ability to remain in high school. In addition, 16-20 year-olds with criminal justice involvement are generally referred to AE programs by corrections agencies or the court as a condition of parole. Misperceived Ease of Earning a GED Some interviewees stated that youth mistakenly perceive the GED to be a shortcut, a quicker route to self-sufficiency, and do not realize how difficult the exam is. One interviewee thought that high school guidance counselors might be reinforcing this misconception. I think what's frustrating, and in all fairness I haven't talked to the guidance counselors, but I feel the guidance counselors might sit down with somebody and say, "Well, it's going to take you two or three years more to get your high school diploma here. It would be better for you to go get a GED." As if the GED is really simple! They think it is. I think that the guidance teachers actually think that this is such a major shortcut. (Counselor, Site D) A teacher felt that the high school guidance counselor might have no more information on the GED than your average citizen. Some 16-20 year-olds who do not respond well to the high school regimen may perceive AE to have a looser structure and consider AE to be less hassle than high school. Some students may view AE as safer than the high school environment, which is marked by disruption and fighting and in which teachers spend much time on behavior management. Some 16-20 year-olds like to be with older students. Some perceive AE to be the best option they have:
October 2003
Page 55
The only thing these students seem to understand is the lesser of two evils. So I always have the joke, "What would you rather do, be in my class or in jail," and some say, "Jail, because she makes us work!" But jail isn't jail to them. I won't speak for all of them, but jail to many of them is not the way we interpret jail. It's not that fear. I know when I have several people being registered... somebody will come in, they all know each other (from jail)! It's like they greet each other. And I tested at a jail, I tested there a couple times a week, and I was amazed that somebody would walk in and all know each other. It wasn't that fear that we would have if we were carted off to jail! (Teacher, Site D) Marketing At one of the sites, AE marketing has attracted parents who see the program as a comprehensive service agency that provides high tech facilities with a connection to the local community college. At another site, students seemed attracted by word-of-mouth information regarding an effective writing teacher and the availability of individualized attention. Hypotheses Regarding Youth Enrollment Future research needs to disentangle the reasons for the rapid increase in youth enrollment in AE from the causes for the overall growth in AE programming. Several hypotheses might be considered. One hypothesis that should be explored is the possibility of a reciprocal relationship between youth and adult enrollments related to changes in welfare law. Several interviewees mentioned that adult welfare recipients were required to start work immediately and could no longer attend AE. Facing lowered adult enrollments, AE programs might be reaching into the youth market in order to preserve program viability. obtain a GED. Summary of Reasons for Increased Enrollment of Youth in AE Research Question 8 Based upon their perceptions of youth characteristics, teachers, counselors, and administrators cited the following reasons for increased youth participation in AE: A better learning environment in AE than high school, Higher (more difficult) secondary school graduation standards, Students behavioral difficulties in high school, Increase in referrals by the courts and drug rehabilitation agencies for GED instruction, High school student and counselor misperceptions about the nature of the GED, Marketing AE to a younger group because of reduced welfare related adult enrollments. Other reasons, not addressed in the current research, may be the result of an increase in the youth population in general and increased workplace skill demands. At the same time, one interviewee mentioned changes in the welfare law affecting young mothers, who can receive funding for career and technical education if they
October 2003
Page 56
Research Questions 9-11: Program Characteristics What are the characteristics of the AE programs in which youth are enrolling? What services are available for them beyond traditional classroom instruction? What is the process for youth participation, from program entry to exit? What program features have personnel found to be positive for youth? Programs vary in their policies and practices regarding the placement of youth and older students in same class or separate classes. Site A has drop in class (term seems to mean opposite of drop out) for students aged 16-17. Students 18-20 attend the regular ABE and GED classes with adult students. The same curriculum and rules for youth and adults apply. Three full-time teachers are assigned to the AE program. A rolling admissions policy permits enrollment of new students on a daily basis. No computers are available for students. While site A morning classes are oversubscribed, little demand exists for afternoon classes. Strict behavior rules are specified at orientation to help students understand program behavioral and academic expectations. Students tend to be well motivated. Site B is housed in a refurbished red brick schoolhouse with large rooms and offices. The GED program operates 15 hours a week; however, students on probation must attend school 25-30 hours per week. Therefore, the remaining hours are spent in computer training. Site B is notable for the presence of computers, often referred to as a smart building, uses Passkey software for GED instruction, and has developed a sequenced instructional pattern. All of these innovations are considered to have enhanced student retention. One classroom contains enough computers for all students, who, because they enjoy the work, often do not want to stop at break time. The site supports several active partnerships with local private industry. However, many teachers are part-time employees, paid on an hourly basis, and work with no contract. Some teachers are unionized and receive half benefits and 12 sick days a year. Most teachers are paid for instructional hours only. Although they are expected to fulfill all of the additional duties of a teacher, including marking tests, completing official paperwork, preparing for class, and other activities, they receive no remuneration for performance of these duties. Site B does employ a counselor who sees 80% of youth participants. The sites rolling admissions policy encourages and facilitates the daily enrollment of new students. The counselor attempts to reach absentees; her primary effort in this regard is with the 16-18 group.
October 2003
Page 57
Site C describes its program as drop in the same use of term as at Site A. Part of the adult education program occupies rooms in a downtown community college satellite site with easy access via the many bus routes that converge nearby. The adult education program at site C is comprehensive in that it provides health care and counseling as well as educational services. During the first two weeks in the program, youth attend segregated classes. They then move to classes with adults. The teachers use instructional modules with an assessment component. The apparent success of the modules can be measured to some degree by the fact that students are now doing their homework, a departure from their earlier practice. Student testing is frequent, at least every month and also at 100 instructional hour intervals. Computers are available, but the program administrator intends to strengthen the job search component. Instruction is individualized. A dropout defined from the AE program is defined as one who has been in nonattendance for 2 months. The AE program also has a contextualized GED program for nursing assistants. With rolling admissions, students are accepted every day. Site D provides two separate levels within the AE program: ABE and GED divided by a reading score of 8.0. One teacher was hired because of his background with incarcerated youth. Student enrollments are terminated if absent for a few days without advance notice, and 85% attendance is required for all students. One teacher stated that youth need to be treated as adults, and excuses should not be made for them. All ABE teachers are part-time hourly workers with no benefits. The teachers spoke of the programs computers as being out of date, slow, not working. 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 conducts the alternative high school program for the express purpose of awarding GED and alternative high school diplomas to high school dropouts. Maximum class size is 35, and includes much individualized instruction. All teachers are licensed by the state. Classes are held mostly in non-school settings, such as firehouses and hospitals. Although students are not employed by the agencies that house the alternative AE programs, students frequently are befriended by employees at the sites and learn about jobs and job opportunities at these agencies. Some classes are held in a limited number of school settings. The major focus of instruction is GED preparation; ESOL plays a very small role. The program provides no special services, and does not provide daily availability of a guidance counselor. Attendance policy is flexible, similar to that for AE. Although the alternative high school program structure is similar to more ortho-
October 2003
Page 58
dox AE programs, more direct oversight is imposed by the central office of the LEA than is generally found among AE programs. Summary of Program Characteristics Research Questions 9-11 Accommodating Learning Differences Across the sites in this study, despite the lack of resources to address learning difficulties, most teachers obviously invest much time and expend great effort to understand the students learning patterns and to help ensure student success. I find I'm doing more motivational activities. It's not from within them. I also have to do more retesting. These folks are covering up their capabilities. We find them speaking with the intake counselor about a learning disability, and as I test I discover this learning disability. You have to nail it down. It turns out a higher percentage of time it's educational deficit, and I actually interview them as to why: "What is it you did in your previous school experience?" And we do see results, and it takes a while for them to realize, when they get a sense of their abilities, then they have to decide whether they really want to use them or not. Because some people don't understand that just getting by, there really is a choice, you can get beyond just getting by and living for today. I don't know when maturity kicks in because most of these young men, I hate to say it, are fathers. (Teacher, Site D) Value of Traditional Teaching A counselor at Site B reinforced the need for a structured instructional approach with young adults, while recognizing their desire to be independent and on their own: A lot of these students leave school because they weren't learning in the first place the way the teacher's teaching, and they're coming to a school here where the teachers gives them freedom but still not reaching them. The regular adult education class students working on their own just wont work [for 16 year olds]. They need individualized instruction, but with lots of structure. (Counselor, Site B) Valuable AE Practices in Teaching 16-20 Year-Olds A number of program features
seem to be positive for youth. Several interviewees identified positive factors in educating young adult learners. They listed the following: 1) highly structured instruction, 2) computers, 3) strict rules for behavior, 4) similarity to a worksite environment, 5) individualized instruction, and 6) small group learning activities tailored to individual learning styles. They're also excited about learning here. We're very non-traditional, extremely non-traditional in our instructional modalities and our approach to teaching. We also look very heavily at learning styles and do a lot of small group techniques versus the traditional classroom atmosphere that they're getting in [name of city] public schools [in] 9-12. (Administrator, Site B)
October 2003
Page 59
Computerized modular instruction with frequent teacher supervision and intervention, practice and assessment were found to be helpful at one site. I get back homework now, starting this year, in September. I have never had that before. When I first started in adult ed, I tried doing that, but it frustrated me to no end. They just didn't do it. So basically, each instructional period became a self-contained component, like a module. You present it with the intent of being able to assess it at the end so you know if the learner got it. And, of course, there are practice opportunities, and then there's follow-up. Well, now I teach so that I build from one component module to the next, and if they miss it, they either have to come in in the morning with me or stay later in the afternoon with me to get it. Sometimes, I can even refer them to websites in order to get that bit of instruction. And then there are some cool technology devices that you can also get for generating notes right off the board, having them come through the computer, then printing out so kids can get that at the end. (Teacher, Site C) An adult rather than high school teaching style was preferable, along with active learning. ...when you lecture them too many times, they're falling asleep. They just ignore you. They have to be working. I tell them, when you come to my class, you're not going to be sitting there. You're going to be doing problems, because practice makes perfect. (Teacher, Site A) Other practices, situations, and use of materials that seemed to facilitate learning for the 16-20 year-old students included the following: The presence of a case manager to follow up on absentees, A working relationship with a local community college, Proximity to a community college, Regular use of basic skills assessment instruments and placement testing, Transition strategies for GED students include locating GED programs on community college campuses and providing interactions for students with college admissions officers and potential employers, Active partnerships with local private industry, Small class size, Full-time rather than part-time teachers, Teachers with experience in special education, Teachers with experience working with incarcerated youth, Counseling services by a young counselor, Concurrent vocational training, and On-site provision of health care for students.
Segregated Versus Integrated Instruction for Youth and Adults The question of whether it is optimal to segregate by age needs further investigation. Sites A and C offered separated classes for the younger and older students. A teacher at Site C stated that problems with students
October 2003
Page 60
had decreased substantially as a result of having segregated the 16-17 year-olds prior to entering the GED level. However, at another site an interviewee thought mixing the age groups was beneficial: there's peer pressure and group pressure put on students, no matter what their age is, not to interfere with learning. And so that culture is in the building. (Teacher, Site D) Research Question 12: Program Effectiveness What are program personnels perceptions of the effectiveness of AE programs for 16-20 year-olds regarding retention, GED attainment, literacy improvement, re-entry to high school, employment, and transition to postsecondary education? Interviewees were asked about the effectiveness of AE in serving 16-20 year-olds in the following areas: persistence, re-entry to high school, GED attainment, academic skills, employment, and transition to postsecondary education. Retention Among AE students, academic success is generally related directly to classroom attendance. Anecdotal evidence from teachers, counselors, and administrators testify to the fact that increased efforts to improve retention among AE students of all ages result in improved GED performance. Nonetheless, attendance of the 16-20 year-olds was reported consistently as sporadic; however, serious attendance problems were reported across all age groups. At one site, an administrator stated, If 75% of the students who registered stayed, this building could not hold them. Students of all ages may attend one day and then miss two, or stay out for months at a time and then return. A teacher at Site B indicated that Hispanic students were more at risk for dropout. At Site A, because of frequent appointments related to probation or substance abuse treatment, you never know whos going to show up on a given day. Some of the 16-20 year-olds fade in and out of the program, and in a six-month period some may attend for 1-2 months and then stay out for three months before returning. Across the sites, despite an AE high drop out rate, youth dropouts often return at a later time. Many in the current adult cohort may have been some of yesterdays 16-20 year-old students. Retention measures varied across the sites. For example, at Site C, students were counted as participating if they attended 1-3 days in one month. Sites C, D and E appeared to define dropout as leaving without passing the GED exam, irrespective of amount of time spent in program, although definitions were not entirely clear, for example: Interviewee: If we were to define a dropout as any student who leaves the program without a diploma, we'd have a pretty high dropout rate.
October 2003
Page 61
Interviewer: In other words, a student who may not be capable of getting a GED would be considered a dropout? Interviewee: Well, that could be one definition. I would not consider a student who has improved their skills by 100% as still being a dropout. (Teacher, Site E) At Sites A-D, retention rates were generally low for 16-20 year-olds and adults alike, although somewhat lower for 16-20 year-olds at some sites. At Site A, 16-20 year-olds persist in the program an average of 3 months. The dropout rate was 33% to 50%. However, an administrator at this site stated that high retention is not a program goal since attendance is voluntary, depending on the needs and desires of the student. Retention was lowest for the 16-17 year-olds, who feel somewhat coerced to attend. Students of age 18 and above are more motivated and have chosen to attend. At Site C, the average retention rate for youth is six months. At site D, a 40-50% dropout rate across age span was noted, apparently higher for youth, but precise figures were not known. At Site A, youth and adult dropout rate was similar; but at Site B, youth dropout rate was higher. At Site B, attrition was highest for the Hispanic students. At site E, the alternative high school program did not appear to have a high dropout rate. Length of persistence in the program was not related to skill level. For example, an administrator at Site C stated, Attendance hasn't improved [when compared with attendance patterns at their previous school] just because theyve come over to GED. Attendance for this population is always a problem. Reasons given by AE instructors, counselors, and administrators for 16-20 year-olds dropout from AE included immaturity, pregnancy, lack of child care, family problems, lack of motivation, peer pressure, arrest, and the decision not to persevere after failing the GED exam. Some students drop out when they take jobs; some attend another program closer to home. Some students stop attending because they feel that they have strong skills and dont feel need for further instruction and may just be waiting for the test date, as described by a student interviewee: Student: Tell you the truth, my understanding, the way I think about others is just like they'll come to school, they'll learn, but they already know they have a certain average, a certain average number that they know they're going to pass, so they don't really accomplish it because they know they'll get it in the future. So they don't waste their time sitting in the classes, most of the time. Sometimes I think of it, I would be learning still if I had that high average.
October 2003
Page 62
Interviewer: Let me make sure I understand. Are you saying they have a feeling they could pass the GED so there's no reason to come here? Student: To learn, because they already know they're smart like that. Interviewer: So they're waiting for the test day and they don't come here. Student: Most of them are signed up for the test. Sometimes they already know that they're going to pass. (Student, Site C) According to one interviewee, youth drop out for different reasons from adults. The younger students may feel dejected by their low test scores and respond to pressure exerted by friends outside of AE. When an older person drops out, it might be because of a job change or a family situation. It could be that they thought they weren't getting anywhere and they weren't going to get anywhere, but I don't think that, I don't see that sort of hopeless attitude. It's usually for a good reason when they drop out [But for the younger ones] I think sometimes it can be overwhelming. When they take their [name of test] score and they realize how far they have to go. I think that's... what I remember talking to kids about, was that pull of the street. You have kids that have friends on the street, and those friends on the street are telling them, "You don't need that! Look at all the money I have selling drugs! You don't need that!" They don't encourage them. They don't want them getting, making themselves better. They don't want their friend better than they are. So it's that pull of the street, and it's a difficult choice for them, it's a hard choice, it's hard for them to get up every morning, if they're up till one or two o'clock at night. (Administrator, Site B) At Site E, in the alternative high schools, several reasons for dropout were given: some of them drop out and try other programs. A lot of them may drop out because they don't want, they really don't want to, they want to get away from their home life, it's not too good, so they go to Job Corps or just move, some of them may move with other relatives, but generally I'm seeing in the last 5 years I've been in [town], I might have had maybe 2% that dropped out, and in many cases a lot of them have gotten in trouble with the law or get where they go back and to court. Usually that's the reason, most of the time they don't drop out! They really don't. Because we kind of do some interventions. (Teacher, Site E) At Site D, attrition among 16-20 year-olds was high despite a labor-intensive intake procedure that included testing and interviewing. A teacher described feeling disappointed when students dropped out after the intake: ... I think it's a frustration level because you see someone coming in that has good ability and you look at them and you try to do as much as you can to them in that very short period of time and take away from other students and they don't come back. (Teacher, Site D)
October 2003
Page 63
Retention Strategies Sites B, C, D and E had developed retention strategies. Site C reported that even with substantial support services youth dropout rates are high, although dropouts may come back at later time when more mature. Retention strategy at Site C includes regular appointments with a counselor. At site C approximately 35-40 take the admissions placement tests. Twenty-five to thirty return a day later to complete the admissions process; about 25 enroll. Then attrition begins. Some applicants do not return, possibly because the applicants own testing experience may drive him/her away. At Site D, students register and then return a week later to begin class. On the assumption that those who initially took the placement test had literacy needs, attrition rates based on initial enrollment may be understated. Site E monitored students attendance closely in an attempt to increase retention: We have a share [of dropouts]. We try to do everything we can do. We bring the parents in, we do a million phone calls. When do we find time [to make the calls]? After school, during school, and before school! Sometimes we'll even call at nighttime if we have to. I've been known to call kids at 5 in the morning to wake them to get them to school on time. (Teacher, Site E) Re-entry to High School Re-entry of 16-20 year-olds to high school was not a program goal at any of the sites. A student interviewee at Site D stated that he preferred a conventional high school diploma to a GED, but he was not willing to attend afternoon school because he worked in the afternoon. Another student interviewed stated that he was on probation and, therefore, was not permitted to re-enter high school: Teachers have talked to me about going back to high school. In a way I want to but in a way I can't because I'm on probation, that's another reason I'm doing this because the GED because I couldn't get back into high school because it was too late. So I figure since I'm doing this might as well just finish up instead of starting next year with 10th grade again. I'd rather be done with this and by September start college. (Student, Site C). Another interviewee thought high school had more to offer than a GED program: Interviewer: Have you met anyone from one of your classes who wants to go back to high school now? Student: Besides me, yeah, two others. Interviewer: Would you go back? Student: Would I? Sometimes I would. Interviewer: Why is that? Student: Because I just thought that I will pass. It's like, you gotta be very, very smart at this GED program and you gotta focus on your work, you gotta know what you're doing. In a regular classroom, you just have all the help you need and I think it's better because of situations that like I
October 2003
Page 64
been through. They helped me in class and I passed my grade, and I think I would have passed already, finished with school. (Student, Site C) GED Attainment Because several sites did not receive pass lists at all or received them long after students had left, they relied primarily on departed students for information regarding who had passed the GED exam. Therefore, the wide range of pass rates estimated by the interviewees for youth in the AE programs is subject to several reporting variables. Site A reported a 45% pass rate for ages 16-17. Site B estimated a pass rate of 33%. At Site C, only 5% of students who enter with low skills pass the GED; but according to an AE instructor, the higher skilled students also have difficulty passing the test. At the same site, a different AE teacher corroborated her colleagues report, estimating that no more than 15% of youth who take GED exam each year pass. However, another interviewee estimated the pass rate to be as high as 75%, but only if one considers the fact that many students take several years to pass the test. Moreover, some interviewees expected the GED pass rate to fall further for the AE youth cohort during the next few years. Teachers perceive the new form of the GED to be more difficult and, as a result, expect that motivation for youth to seek GED certificates will likely decrease. Teachers at Site E reported that over the past three years at least half of the students at Site E earned a GED. Doubt was expressed about the ability of some of the students to attain a GED. According to interviewees at Sites B and C, students who enter with low skills (e.g. reading levels 4-6) have a very small chance of ever passing the GED exam. I'm being honest with you, some of our teachers here are very good and very honest and will tell clients right out that maybe they'll never be able to get a GED. Other teachers just keep taking them to keep the numbers up in their class. (Teacher, Site B) Some students do not have a realistic sense of their own skill levels. According to the same teacher, We've got a lot of students that have it in their brain that they walk in here, "I just need a refresher and I'm going to take the exam," and I try to ground them a little bit when they come in. But then you've just got students who just... take the test, and usually I try to catch them and say, "Okay, are you sure you don't want to just see where you're at? You sure you don't want to take the predictor and see where you're at," because it can be, I think, incredibly disillusioning, incredibly detrimental to them, to take the exam, fail terribly, and just feel like they can't do it at all. A lot of them might have just dropped out of 11th or 12th grade. (Teacher, Site B) A similar view was expressed at Site D:
October 2003
Page 65
The worst part of it is they come here and discover, although they're 11th grade, now in my class there's no learning disabilities, it turns out they wasted so much time in school that the GED is too tough. They're not writing; their math skills, that's a danger issue, math skills are below level; writing is below level; and reading is below level. Unfortunately, if they had stayed in high school, they would have been better off. They would have gotten a diploma. Now they're going to have to work to get the GED diploma, because that is not a gift (and) lot of people aren't going to get it. (Teacher, Site D) Academic Skills Despite the difficulties with passing the GED exam, increases in literacy skills on the part of 16-20 year-olds were reported. For example, at Site A, There is always growth. There is constant movement in the different levels for kids moving from the basic level to pre-GED and pre-GED going into GED. (Administrator, Site A) Similarly, at Site E, It's not in leaps and bounds, but we do see increases anywhere from half a year to 4 to 5 years (Site E, Teacher) At Site C, 40% of the ABE students advance to GED classes. The improvement in skills was connected with regular attendance and was thought to be real growth rather than improved test-related skills: I have taken a look at our statistics, and if a student stays here every day, their reading level will go up significantly from one test period to another test time period, as well as the math. The reading has gone up one grade level in a month and the math has gone up one year in four months, on the average they're just not scores. The students are given different tests It's not the familiarity of the test. It's the fact that they have actually learned more because they're here more. And I constantly am talking with my teachers. It's just a different structure of how things are being done now than they were in the past. (Administrator, Site C) Also at Site C, the younger students advanced from ABE to GED more quickly than did older adults. At Site D, the literacy instruction was considered to be more effective than at high school because of the college-type environment in the AE program. Employment Programs vary regarding their focus on employment. One site did not see employability as a goal. A student interviewee at one site stated that employers were only interested in college graduates and that his own peer group was perceived by employers as being unreliable. Some teachers help students with employability skills, although teachers have little
October 2003
Page 66
time for this type of assistance. Most of the sites do not assist with finding employment. One site sends students to the local employment center. One site helps those who pass GED get jobs. Little, if any, tracking of job outcomes is undertaken. Higher skilled students may continue on to vocational programs, but, according to a counselor at Site D, students with lower skills, who have a special education background, have a longer road, a bigger struggle. According to another interviewee, relatives were an important resource in helping young AE students find jobs. Transition to Postsecondary Education If AE completers continue to higher education, they usually attend community colleges rather than move directly to four-year institutions. Several sites reported that students who do complete the AE program still need to take remedial courses before matriculating at local community colleges. Personnel at Sites B and C work with local community colleges to facilitate this transition, including providing college-related remediation in the AE program, preparing students to pass college placement tests, and permitting coenrollment for some students. No data were made available regarding the number or percent of youth who attain a GED credential and continue on to postsecondary education, although estimates were 10% for Site C and 50% for Site E. Site D reported that most who passed the GED went on to the local community college. Personnel at Site E provide extensive support for college entry: [we] have sent a lot of them off to college. We really push them to college We had a boy here who we sent to college 3 years ago, he graduated from a 2-year school, one of the state universities, and now he's transferring to a 4-year school. We help them with the applications, we do their financial aid forms, everything for them. (Teacher, Site E) Summary of Effective Program Strategies Research Question 12 Retention measures varied across the sites. At Sites A-D, retention rates were generally low for 16-20 year-olds and adults alike, although somewhat lower for 16-20 year-olds at some sites. At Site A, 16-20 year-olds persist in the program an average of 3 months. The dropout rate was 33% to 50%. To improve retention rates, Sites B, C, D and E have developed retention strategies that employ counselors, home visits, and phone calls to encourage attendance. Re-entry of 16-20 year-olds to high school was not a program goal at any of the sites. However, attainment of a GED credential was a high priority. Site A reported a 45% pass rate for ages 16-17. Site B estimated a pass rate of 33%. At Site C, only 5% of students who enter with low skills were reported to have passed the GED. Site E reported that at least half of the
October 2003
Page 67
students earned a GED. According to several interviewees, the higher skilled students also have difficulty passing the GED test. At one site, an interviewee reported that 15% of youth who take GED exam each year pass; however, another interviewee estimated the pass rate to be 75%. Interviewees stated that in their opinion the GED test has become more difficult with the result that motivation to seek GED certificates has decreased. Without corroborative data at the study sites to support these estimated GED pass rates, the wide range of pass rates for youth in the AE programs reported by the interviewees is subject to further review. Despite limited success in GED attainment, teachers and administrators cited periodic test scores as an indicator of continuing student academic progress. This evidence of skills gain, they felt, was the result of regular class attendance. They stated that this progress was real growth rather than just a measure of improved test-taking skills. Instruction in AE programs was considered to be more effective for 16-20 year-olds than at the high school because of the collegetype environment in the AE program. Programs vary in regard to their focus on employment. One site did not see employability as a goal. Most of the sites do not assist with finding employment. Little, if any, tracking of job outcomes is undertaken. If those who complete the AE program continue on to higher education, they usually attend community colleges rather than four-year institutions. Several sites reported that students who complete the AE program usually need to take remedial courses before matriculating at a community college. No data were made available to estimate accurately what proportion of youth who earn their GED credential continues to post-secondary education. CONCLUSIONS From examination of the quantitative and qualitative data collected in this study, several conclusions can be drawn: 1) Enrollments of 16-20 year-olds 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 increases in that proportion was reported; nor did that site report an 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.
October 2003
Page 68
2)
For this study, students reading below the 8th grade level were categorized as members 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 5th grade 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 achieve their literacy and credentialing goals as they prepare for productive employment and an independent life.
3)
Along with their academic difficulties, many of the 16-20 year-old students have behavioral problems. These young adults are in very high need of, but not receiving, the services 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.
4)
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 currently shouldered primarily by AE will need to be shared more equitably by other supporting state and local agencies. Additionally, AE instructors and administrators perceive a need for significantly extra funding for high-risk youth relative to the needs of older students if they are to provide the more extensive programs and services required by the 16-18 years-olds.
5)
Although the operational definition of dropout in adult education varied among the sites, 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 in AE and the personal and societal pressures that interfere with school attendance. These pressures have influenced school administrators to relax the number of absences that lead to immediate removal from the AE programs. Effective strategies for furthering the education of 16-20 yearolds in AE programs cluster around accommodating the lack of maturity these students exhibit. Services and methods listed in this studys section entitled, Valuable Practices in AE in Teaching 16-20 Year-Olds, pages 58-59, seem to meet this
October 2003
Page 69
need with some degree of success. Segregation of 16 and 17 year-olds from older AE students has been generally successful where it has been tried. At one site, the segregation was limited to the first 60 days only. At another site, 16-20 year-olds are generally excluded from regular AE programs and may enroll only in an alternative high school program, thus avoiding entirely the complicating effects of integrating immature with more mature learners. ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issue 1: Funding Levels and Policies for Use of Funding Funding issues were beyond the scope of the present study, but they require clarification. 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 Education of AE funding through the years 1992-1996 averaged approximately 22%, with state and local sources making up the remainder.19 Levels of state and local funding of AE vary, but funding to support 16-20 year-old students is generally viewed as being insufficient by the AE directors who were interviewed for this study. In the state studied in this report, it is estimated that the federal share of funding at a local site could range from to 10 to 25%. Federal legislation authorizes adult education funding for programs that serve 16 to 20 year-olds; but state and local legislation, guidelines, and polices differ in the limits placed upon non-federal AE funding, especially in regard to 16-20 year-olds. These practices and state policies place an enormous burden upon AE administrators in their effort to maintain the viability and the high quality of their programs. Nevertheless, AE programs continue to serve 16-20 year-olds, as these students, literally in many instances, have nowhere else to turn. Funding for this youngest age group has traditionally been provided as part of the tax levy money appropriated for elementary and secondary education by local and state governments. Therefore, rerouting this tax levy K-12 funding stream to AE programs has also become problematic. Moreover, AE directors interviewed for this study uniformly described 16 to 20 year-olds as 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 the following recommendations are offered.
19
See footnote #10, page 16.
October 2003
Page 70
Issue 1: Recommendations Undertake a national study of how states and local entities fund AE programs. This study would specifically target policies and practices that have a direct impact on programming for 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 that produce the greatest amount of service to students and/or produce the greatest gains in student achievement relative to effort or cost expended, Recommendations for changing federal, state, and local funding levels and policies, 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 AE reporting, such as the 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 this study were drawn from a limited number of sites, and the study was confined to LEA run AE 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 and expanded, 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-olds and future enrollment trends. These analyses need to be disaggregated by service delivery entities, e.g., LEAs, community-based organizations, community colleges, and quasigovernment agencies such as public libraries. More accurate and precise student outcome data need to be collected using precise definitions regarding such variables as attendance and attrition to support outcome studies.
October 2003
Page 71
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 be provided 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 be undertaken 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 to improve 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 upon quantitative data, further investigation of this particular student characteristic is warranted. AE professional staff frequently cited lack of resources and trained personnel as 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) to determine 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 NRS data can be facilitated by training local professional personnel in the NRS protocols and by 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 local programs.
Finally, more complete follow-up data need to be collected regarding post-AE transition outcomes for 16-20 year-olds. For example, the current study suggested that close connections between GED preparation and community college education had positive effects on student retention and performance. Traditionally, states and districts have established GED 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-
October 2003
Page 72
munity Based Organizations (CBOs) that provide literacy services, and 4) at different combinations of these settings. Because of these multiple approaches, further study to assess 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 varying degrees of 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: Rules of behavior rules clearly specified and consistently enforced Worksite-like environment Case manager on site to address problem of absenteeism and coordinate services to students Structured instruction with computers Adult rather than high school teaching style Program connection and physical proximity to a local community college Regular use of skills assessment instruments (both placement and periodic testing) Transition strategies for GED students that include locating GED programs on community college campuses and providing interactions for students with college admissions officers and potential employers 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 a regular professional development program provided Teachers experienced in working with special education and incarcerated youth Computer supported Individualized learning style 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
October 2003
Page 73
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 comprehensive
programming 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 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 program features 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 and practices that are most effective in improving attendance, academic achievement, and employment, while reducing attrition among the 16-20 year-old cohort. These promising programs and practices would be shared with the adult education community 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 incorporate selected student outcome variables. Included within this promising practices initiative would be the identification of professional development programs that have proven their utility in preparing 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 stakes testing 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 those who are failing regular coursework, who have few educational options within regular school programming, and who cannot accumulate sufficient credits toward graduation are advised to transfer (some say are pushed out) so that they dont eventually reflect negatively on school failure rates. Some of these assertions were repeated in various forms in interviews with AE personnel in this study, along with other reasons for the increasing enrollments of 16 to 20 year-olds in AE sites.
October 2003
Page 74
Possible causes of 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 to compensate for lower enrollment of adults caused by welfare reform that requires welfare recipients to be employed Guidelines for administering GED tests that encourage 16-18 year-olds to prepare for and take the test rather than complete high school 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. The intent of this study was not to establish a causal link between the above variables and the enrollment and age distribution changes, but to suggest areas requiring further research studies. Many factors cause or contribute to change in adult education enrollments and to AE populations locally and nationwide. These multiple causes, including the social, economic, governmental, personal, and educational factors listed above, certainly effect change in AE enrollment patterns. The multiplicity of factors alone, without any effort to assign weights to them, complicates efforts to establish a cause and effect relationship between any single factor or any combination of factors and changes in the AE age and enrollment distribution. Additionally, collecting reliable data, designing research methods, and performing the statistical analyses that are needed to ascribe the relative impact of each of these variables to outcomes such as droppingout of high school or transferring into AE programs are difficult and complex.
October 2003
Page 75
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 listed above, 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 more fully the educational, social, health, and career needs of out-of-school AE 16-20 year-old youth.
October 2003
Page 76
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Literature Review References Instruments for Data Collection Interview Protocol List of QSR-N5 NUD*IST Codes, Initial and Secondary
October 2003
Page 77
Appendix A: Literature Review

The number of 16-20 year-old youth in adult education (AE) programs appears to be a growing. Although the number of high school dropouts does not appear to be growing nationwide, the number of students seeking an alternative secondary education credential (i.e. the General Education Development diploma, GED) is increasing. Reasons for this growth may be traced to a variety of factors, e.g., the standards movement, changing conditions in the K-12 school system, altered social and economic characteristics the student population itself. Regardless, an already over-taxed AE system is being called upon to serve a new population of younger students at mixed academic levels who often exhibit behaviors inimical to orthodox classroom instruction. The following is a review of recent research on youth in AE programs. Unfortunately, few studies have focused on this phenomenon. Moreover, the research literature lacks data regarding the number of youth actually being served by AE programs. Hayes (2000) conducted a rare study of the recent growth of the youth population in AE programs. She spoke to nineteen state AE directors as well as to twenty-three practitioners in twenty states. As will be discussed below, her research illustrated practitioners handling of the influx of youth into their programs. Adult Education According to the U.S. Department of Education (2001), 2,891,895 students participated in AE programs in 1999-2000. A large number of services are available to this cohort. Unlike the K12 public school system, the U.S. does not have a coherent infrastructure for adult education (Venezky & Wagner, 1996). Services are provided by local educational agencies, community colleges, community-based or volunteer organizations, vocational and technical schools, and regional service agencies. Within the AE structure, adult basic education (ABE) is usually defined as providing basic skills instruction at a pre-high school level, and preparation for the General Educational Development (GED) exam is usually considered to be instruction at a high school level. To earn a GED certificate, students take a five part examination that assesses test takers knowledge of content areas representative of high school curricula (Hayes, 2000). Some districts offer adult high school External Diploma Program programs which enable AE students to obtain a school district diploma. This diploma is awarded upon students demonstration of proficiency in a prescribed number of academic and life skills areas (Hayes, 2000). For the purposes of this study we refer to AE programs as any program that falls under the above categories. Magnitude Youth enrollment in AE may be related to high school dropout rates. In October 2000, 3.8 million 16-24 year-olds were not enrolled in high school and had not received a diploma, translating to over 10.9% of the nations 16 to 24 year-old population (NCES, 2001). In 2000, three-fourths (75.8%) of the current dropouts were age 15 to18 years old. Two-fifths (42.0%) were age 15 to17. Five out of every 100 students enrolled in high school in October 1999 dropped out of grades 10-12 before October 2000 (NCES, 2001). Despite year-to-year fluctuations, the national percentage of students dropping out of high school has actually stayed relatively the same since 1987 (NCES, 2001). However, Hayes (2000) points out the recent increase in the overall number of youth has created a larger high school population
October 2003
Page 78
as well as a larger number of potential dropouts. She reports that over the past few years, the proportion of youth in AE programs doubled and even tripled, with youth now accounting for up to a third or more of their total student enrollments (Hayes, 2000). Practitioners (Hayes, 2000) in Louisiana, Kansas, and North Carolina reported the proportion of youth in AE programs in 1996 to be 62%, 52%, and 47% respectively. However, youth enrollments varied considerably state to state, e.g., Massachusetts reported only 19 percent in this age group. Since 1978 nationwide, the proportion of teenagers acquiring alternative high school credentials has more than doubled, reaching almost 7 percent in 1997 (Chaplin, 1998). In 1998, more than 13,000 GED recipients were 16 years old, and the number of states that allow 16 year-olds to take the GED increased from 25 in 1989 to 35 in 1997 (Chaplin, 1998). In 2000, 37% of New York state GED test takers were age 16-19 (GED Testing Service, 2001). Most of these former high school students ostensibly had the option to return to high school but chose alternative routes to completing high school requirements. Between 1988 and 1999, the diploma rate declined by 3.5%, falling from 80.3% in 1988 to 76.8% in 1999. In comparison, the alternative credential rate increased by 5.0% (NCES, 1999). The rise in alternative credentialing provides an indirect indication that more youth may be leaving school and entering alternative programs (Hayes, 2000). GED testing appears to be on the rise. The GED Testing Service (2001) reports that more adults worldwide (860,684) took the GED in 2000 than in any previous year except 1996, when 867,802 took the exam. In 2000, 41% of test takers were nineteen years-old or younger. In New York State, the highest percentage of test takers was the age group 20-24 (25.4%). The number of GED test takers in New York in 2001 was 65,860. Nationally, this number is second only to Texas, which had 82,132 people take the GED in 2000 (GED Testing Service, 2001). Reasons for Dropping Out of High School In recent years, studies have focused on the reasons for student attrition. Several extrinsic and intrinsic motivations for dropping out appear to be operative. Students described internal factors such as feelings of hopelessness and not knowing where they could turn that led to their decision to dropout of high school (Brouillette, 1999). A study by Reder and Strawn (2001) found that the three most commonly reported reasons for leaving school were 1) boredom, 2) feeling that one didnt belong in school, and 3) school performance problems. They also found that a larger percentage (40%) reported positive school experiences than reported negative experiences (28%). Dropouts interviewed in Brouillettes (1999) study indicated that violence in and around their former schools was the pivotal issue in the decision to drop out. External factors included a need to assist their families financially, pregnancy, and fear of violence at school. Students who dropped out because of external factors had performed at an average or at an above average level in school. While financial needs were a factor in external reasons for dropping out, overall, teenage employment on dropping out has a highly variable effect on decisions of whether to leave or to remain in school (McNeal, 1997). From a life course perspective, dropout is not so much an event as a process, a process of progressive academic disengagement that often traces back to childrens earliest experiences at school (Alexander, Entwisle, & Kabbani, 2001). Alexander, et al. (2001) found that engagement behaviors at school traced to first grade rivaled test scores and report card marks in forecasting
October 2003
Page 79
an eventual dropout. Even with school performance and behavior controlled, grade retention in both elementary and middle school was found to elevate dropout risk. However, of the background factors considered by the researchers, family socioeconomic level bore, by far, the strongest relation to dropout. At least three other factors also increased the risk of dropping out: 1) living in a single-parent household, 2) having a teenage mother, and 3) being in a family with high levels of stressful change. The authors also note that problems with the law and delinquent involvement can interfere with school continuation (Alexander, Entwisle, & Kabbani, 2001). The recent standards movement has made obtaining a high school diploma more difficult than it has been in the past. The overall national concern with improving the skills of the workforce and reducing the number of welfare recipients has led to new policies that require schools to raise academic standards (Hayes, 2000). Proponents of standards insist higher standards will motivate both students and schools to perform better. Opponents suggest that these new standards will lead students to dropout of high school in larger numbers. Jacob (2001) found that students in states and schools that adopt mandatory graduation tests serve more disadvantaged populations. Students in these test states enter high school with lower achievement scores than do their peers in non-test states. They have lower socio-economic status (SES), are more likely to be African American or Latino, come from homes with single parents, and live in homes in which English is not the dominant language (Jacob, 2001). Lillard and DeCicca (2001) found that state-mandated minimum course requirements are associated with increased dropout rates, but his requirement did not have a statistically significant effect on dropout decisions. Jacob (2001) points out that these results do not necessarily imply that the existence of graduation requirements will lead to higher dropout rates. He notes that states and districts that implement minimum competency testing may have other policies or characteristics that act to reduce the probability of dropping out. Jacob (2001) found that mandatory graduation tests do not have a positive impact on student achievement. While they have no appreciable effect on the probability of dropping out for the average student, they do increase the probability of dropping out among the lowest ability students (Jacob 2001). Hoffer (1997) examined effects of policies that require high school students to complete at least three years of mathematics in order to graduate. No effects were found on either the probability of dropping out or on achievement gains, and the effects of SES are not reduced in the schools requiring three math courses. Based on the research cited above, the degree to which the standards movement is causing students to leave high school is difficult to determine. The benefits of the standards movement for average and above average students have not yet been proven either. It is clear, though, that low-performing students with low socioeconomic status are often inclined to leave school rather than succeed within the new standards and tests framework. High School Dropouts Reasons for Entering AE Programs A study examining former dropouts decisions to obtain a high school diploma or a GED certificate (Wayman, 2001) found that 59.2% of dropouts in the study returned to gain either a diploma or a certificate. Greer (2002) reports that nearly 27,000 students who officially drop out of New York City high schools annually (he claims the actual number is most likely higher) flock to the citys AE centers. Dropouts have ample reason to seek out an AE program. In a study looking at when dropouts return to education, Metzer (1997) found that few students
October 2003
Page 80
reported success at work, starting a family, or having a good time once they dropped out of high schools. These experiences, along with changes in personal views and attitudes regarding educational benefits, prompted students to return to an education program. Students who failed to do so seem to have been prevented from enrolling by severe or complicated obstacles that made returning almost impossible, such as age, substance abuse, or extreme delinquency. Other reasons for not returning included childcare needs, viewing work and money as a priority, and perceiving school as unchallenging or boring (Metzer, 1997). Young people generally have the option of returning to high school after dropping out. Metzer (1997) found that 35% of interviewees returned to high school, while 60% returned to a GED program. Respondents considered a GED program a shorter option leading to high school graduation equivalency and more flexible in terms of schedule, with a personal approach to students. Hayes (2000) indicated that dropouts may choose adult literacy education because they want to avoid the stigma associated with returning to a traditional high school. She notes that young people who have not been successful in school may seek out educational alternatives in an effort to increase their chances of securing employment that pays a living wage. Wayman (2001) found that students of higher SES and of higher school capability who left school without a diploma were more likely to get a GED than pursue a high school diploma. Additionally, leaving school at a higher grade was associated with diploma attainment. A participant was approximately twice as likely to attain a diploma for each increase in grade at dropout. These results suggest that many GED students have the resources and capability needed to complete high school, but for some reason, school does not provide them with the fit they are looking for (Wayman, 2001). Indeed, the GED program appears to offer students something they did not receive in school. GED classes are not a necessity for students preparing for the exam. Venezky and Wagner (1996) found that the average individual taking the test reported studying 30.5 hours for the tests. Many do so individually or with tutors, thus large increases in tests administered would not necessarily translate into large increases in GED class enrollments. Brouillette (1999) found that for many students the benefit derived from the GED program was primarily associated with the relationships between students and instructors, which was markedly different from the relationships they had with teachers in the past. Brouillette suggests that this is because the pass/fail decision has been taken out of the teachers hands; thus setting and enforcing academic standards was separated from the role of interacting with students. The GED is often seen as a shortcut by high school students and can in itself be a direct influence in their decision to drop out. Duncan Chaplin (1999) found through data analysis that state policies allowing teenagers to get a GED without parental permission encourages large numbers of students to drop out of high school. However, when parents permission is required, dropout rates are lowered. This policy may have the effect of encouraging communication between atrisk youth and their parents and, thereby, lowering dropout rates (Chaplin, 1999). Additionally, findings from the study suggested that most youth who drop out because of the GED option do not actually go on to get GEDs during their teen years. Student Characteristics Hayes (2000) found that several practitioners reported an increasing number of youth in their programs had learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder, factors contributing to their lack
October 2003
Page 81
of success in traditional high school. The most difficult group to handle appeared to be youth who were mandated by court to attend the adult literacy education program (Hayes, 1999). This court-mandated population is in need of academic assistance that could reduce their likelihood of recidivism. Brunner (1993) found that the recidivism rate for juvenile offenders could be reduced by as much as 20% for youth involved in effective reading programs. Malmgren and Leone (2000) report that most juvenile offenders do not return to any formal school program, and point to a study by the Florida State Legislature (1998) that found that nearly 80% of juveniles admitted to residential facilities scored one or more grade levels lower than their age-peers in reading. Furthermore, juveniles often receive substandard education while incarcerated (Leone & Misele, 1997). Many of the juveniles have psychological/emotional problems (Sikorski, 1991). A study of resilience of formerly incarcerated adolescents by Todis et. al. (2001) notes that youth exoffenders are still adolescents, many of whom are experiencing delayed emotional and cognitive development because of early drug use. They have never successfully used problem-solving or coping skills outside of the correctional settings. Furthermore, they still have no adults in their lives to help them learn the skills they need to deal with the problems that confront them. The study recommends that schools should be used as a mechanism for both at-risk youth and for potentially resilient youth returning from correctional facilities to access structure, positive adult influence, skills, and problem-solving experiences (Todis et. al., 2001). Additionally, Briscoe and Doyle (1996) stress the need of after-care services for released juvenile delinquents. They state that the extent to which adjudicated delinquents can achieve socially desired goals of community assimilation, educational development, and successful employment is dependent on the availability of effective, integrated treatment services. These youth have problems that are chronic, require long-term comprehensive solutions, and demand a coordinated multi-agency approach. Unfortunately, AE programs typically do not offer these kinds of services. Former juvenile delinquents are not the only students under age 20 that instructors find problematic. Practitioners reported to Hayes (2000) that they felt that the overall characteristics of youth were not suited to the adult-oriented education that they were used to providing. As Hayes points out, much adult literacy education stresses self-paced, individualized instruction, assuming that most adult learners are self-motivated, goal directed, and willing to take responsibility for their own learning. Hayes found these assumptions at odds with how the youth were perceived. In a few rare cases, program staff reported that they were refusing to serve youth, but most often they were trying to find ways of handling youth, with different levels of enthusiasm and success (Hayes, 2000). Other studies mentioned above (Chaplin, 1997) have found that the individualized element of AE is particularly appealing to youth. Cochran (2000) surveyed at-risk teenagers in a GED program and found that the factors that kept students coming to the program were respect for individual needs, such as being able to collaborate with teachers to create individualized academic plans, a supportive and relaxed climate, and the opportunity to pursue alternative paths. In some instances this practice appears to backfire. A study of Chicano AE students (Sparks, 1998) in the southwest found that students who experienced individualized instruction concluded they were being neglected, pushed to a corner to work alone, and thus became invisible to ongoing teacher assistance. In some cases, students felt they had not been identified as someone with whom it was worthwhile to work (Sparks, 1998).
October 2003
Page 82
Acceptance Policies Reasons for accepting and rejecting youth in AE programs vary. While the number of youth entering AE appears to be increasing, the number of adults may actually be decreasing. This may lead to programs acceptance of younger students. Hayes (2000) found that in recent years an emphasis on work first has placed greater restrictions on educational participation for welfare recipients. According to reports from several program staff members, this emphasis has reduced the number of adults participating in adult literacy programs,. Conversely, the stipulation that teen mothers receiving welfare must stay in school and can count high school or equivalency programs as approved work activities has increased the number of young mothers who participate in adult literacy programs. Some programs have begun to recruit more youth to offset dropping enrollments of adult students. A director of a family literacy program in Indiana led her staff to seek out teen mothers to maintain enrollment levels in their programs (Hayes, 2000). Programs in New York State do not appear to have the same struggle for enrollment that the Indiana program had. In New York, 16 to18 year-olds must wait to take the GED test until they are 19. Accepting 16-18 year-olds, therefore, creates a space issue for programs with limited capacity. The younger students take up seats that are available on a first-come, first-serve basis at community centers in New York. Greer (2002) reports that students continue attending intermittently at the centers until they pass the tests. Therefore, fewer seats are available in the program for new students of any age (Greer, 2002). Student behavior is also a factor in the acceptance of younger students into the AE programs. Greer (2002) reports that after a disciplinary incident in one GED course that nearly cost the classroom it uses to conduct its courses, the program banned 16 and 17 year-olds. Similarly, at one site 17 year-olds were banned because they didnt have the same poise or focus the adults did, making the classroom environment too juvenile and distracting. Another literacy center that runs test prep programs told Greer (2002) that it bars students under 18 because it has found that they tend to be a little more impatient, thinking they could get a GED in three weeks. Some literacy center directors feel that they have no choice but to accept 16 and 17 year-olds. Last year, despite tight space, she was forced to split a class in half. The teenagers were too advanced in their reading skills and were interfering in the educational process of adults (Greer, 2002). Impact of Youth on AE Programs Hayes (2000) found that the impact of youth on AE programs varies across programs and locales. In many cases, the growing number of young students has led programs to adopt new rules, impose more structure, adapt instruction and curriculum, and even create new classes. Most programs have, at a minimum, established new rules for youth. In some situations, serving youth has interfered with programs ability to attract and retain adult students. Although some practitioners feel successful in their efforts to work with the younger population, others are less sanguine (Hayes, 2000). In some programs, adult students have been so disturbed by the influx of youth and their behavior that many have dropped out. In programs that do integrate, a key strategy reported by a number of staff is to keep the proportion of youth low, at most less than half, while others suggested less than one-third or even fewer (Hayes, 1999). NCSALL (2001) reported that relatively homogenous AE classes seemed to promote sharing and community. Some programs assign youth to different classes to separate them from peers who create disruptions when
October 2003
Page 83
together. Others employ an initial interview and/or a trial period or instruction to determine a teens maturity level (Hayes, 2000) before deciding placement with peers or in a mixed age class. Many practitioners felt that youth responded to the more serious atmosphere of a largely adult class and improved their behavior; adults are seen as positive role models and relate cautionary tales. Hayes noted that in earlier studies, Elder (1967) and Carter (1988) found that age integration in adult literacy and vocational education courses had positive effects on youth, including encouraging appropriate, adult-like behavior and increasing the younger students desire to do well. Elder and Carter noted that youthful behavior is not completely different from the behavior of older students. NCSALL (2001) observed considerable tardiness and tuning out in adult students in AE programs. They report that these behaviors were almost universally tolerated rather than negatively sanctioned by teachers (NCSALL, 2001). AE classroom dynamics are shaped by three strong forces: classroom composition, enrollment turbulence, and funding pressure (NCSALL, 2001). As noted above, the presence of youth can exacerbate classroom instability. Continuous rolling enrollment in AE programs is both common and problematic. Creating a sense of community is very difficult when class membership is always in flux. With continuously changing classroom populations, teachers refrain from using complex teaching methods, such as project-based learning or peer coaching (NCSALL, 2001). The study concluded that continuous enrollment and mixed skill levels are two of the most serious and understated problems facing adult literacy education today (NCSALL, 2001). This may affect younger students more adversely than older students, simply because they have less coping skills. Outcomes Given the number of people entering AE programs with the hope of passing the GED, the merits of a GED certificate must be weighed. Heckman and Cameron (1991) have found GED holders to be statistically indistinguishable from high school dropouts: theyre not significantly more likely to land a job or to have higher hourly wages. The most reliable evidence generally suggests that obtaining a GED instead of a regular high school diploma results in substantially lower earnings later in life (Chaplin, 1998). Greene (2002) reports that almost 75% of GED holders who enroll in community colleges fail to finish their degrees, compared with 44% of high school graduates. Among GED recipients, 95% do not complete four-year colleges, compared with 25% of high school graduates. Greene (2002) claims that the GED is easy to pass, noting that 60% of the 833,000 who take it each year do so. The average GED recipient passes the test after 30 hours of class time and study. The Job Corps found that GED students with a fifth-grade education could pass the test after 200 hours of instruction (Greene, 2002). It remains to be seen if this will change with the newly revised GED test. Many teenagers appear to have been given a misleading signal that a GED is similar to a regular high school degree (Chaplin 1998). GED and pre-GED programs may also prove to be a disappointment for enrollees. The high drop out rate now experienced in adult literacy programs indicates a rather large mismatch between what adults expect from such programs and either the efforts required to reach these goals or the content of many literacy programs (Venezky & Wagner, 1996). This mismatch signifies another hurdle for teenagers entering these programs.
October 2003
Page 84
Fitzgerald & Young (1997) conducted a study estimating the effect of student persistence on literacy outcomes in English as a Second Language, Adult Basic Education, and Adult Secondary Education. They found little evidence to suggest that persistence in AE instruction, in and of itself, leads to better literacy outcomes. If there is a positive effect, it is very small. Instead, they found that initial ability, individualized curricula, and the use of full-time staff were the main influences on improving the literacy of AE students. Experienced AE teachers significantly contribute to the use of individualized criteria and that the use of highly individualized curricula tends to help improve reading achievement among AE students. Fulltime staff, which includes experienced AE teachers, has a positive effect on students reading achievement. Full-time staff also enables the use of lab instruction, which tends to be an environment characterized by highly individualized curricula for students with above average reading ability. This led Fitzgerald and Young (1997) to believe that greater use of experienced, full-time staff in AE programs would help to promote individualization in both classroom and lab instruction, which in turn should help improve student literacy. Teacher Characteristics The link between full-time adult educators and student achievement does not bode well for the current state of AE. As Perin (1999) points out, the adult literacy workforce is largely part time or volunteer, with little formal training in reading instruction or ABE (Venezky & Wagner, 1996). Unlike other areas of education and human service, adult literacy has no commonly recognized credential or other mechanism designed to ensure quality of practice (Perin, 1999). Furthermore, teachers pre-service credential and prior educational experience did not predict their current teaching assignments in ABE, ASE/GED, or ESL. (Sabatani et. al., 2000). Adult educators lack of preparation and employment status is troubling. Designing effective instruction requires that the teacher have a detailed understanding of the cognitive, affective, and social processes that influence adults literacy acquisition. Full-time employment of teachers provides the time and resources needed for high-quality instructional planning (Perin, 1999). When all means of improving instructional quality are considered, NCSALL (2001) reports that professsional development stands out as the most important. The needs of younger students make this all the more necessary. Given Hayes (2000) finding that many youth entering these programs are learning disabled and/or have attention deficit disorder, and the behavior problems of young high school dropouts, and/or formerly incarcerated youth, adult educators need more expertise than ever. Funding To meet the academic and emotional needs of younger students, AE programs need proper funding. Although the amount of federal funding seems large at first glance, it is nowhere near the level needed to meet demand resulting in the marginalization of adult literacy instruction (Sticht et al., 1998). Funding pressures (NCSALL, 2001) affects what happens in adult literacy classrooms in at least two ways. Funding source regulations and eligibility requirements often determine what kind of learners will be served, the type of instruction they receive, and how long they can stay. The amount of funding also affects such things as hours of available instruction and class size (NCSALL, 2001). If these programs are to have any hope of successful outcomes for their students, class size needs to be reduced, full-time teachers hired, and those teachers need training in how to deal with the myriad of problems evident in their classroom. However, AE
October 2003
Page 85
Act grant funds are mandated to support programs that serve out-of-school individuals sixteen or older (Hayes, 2000). Over the past three decades, federal and state policy changes, particularly those that involved new funding for education, appear to have influenced participation in adult literacy instruction (Venezky & Wagner, 1996). They report that enrollments in adult literacy programs increased from 389,000 to an estimated 3.7 million from 1967 through 1992, nearly a ten-fold increase, with a parallel increase in funding. With adults leaving programs while youth are entering, the need for more funding may not be readily apparent to legislators. Summary and Conclusions This exploratory study attempts to document the presence and the size of the youth population in AE. A large number of youth under twenty are dropping out of high school and, subsequently, pursuing their GED certificate. Many are turning to AE programs to prepare them for the test, taxing an already overtaxed system. These programs are short-staffed, often with part-time teachers lacking expertise in their field. Continuous rolling enrollment keeps the classroom in a constant state of flux. Younger students, many of whom have behavior problems and/or were formerly incarcerated, add an often unwelcome element to the class. Programs are doing their best to accommodate these students, but a lack of funding makes such accommodations increasingly difficult. A noteworthy finding by Hayes (1999) was that the most extensive and well-developed system for serving teens is based on extensive collaboration between high schools, vocational training programs, and adult literacy education in Los Angeles. The collaboration is intended to prevent youth from dropping out of high school rather than serving them once they do (Hayes, 2000). Students who do drop out of high school, or are not allowed back on campus because of expulsion, nevertheless, need a program that provides education, vocational, and support services. AE focuses on an individualized approach for self-motivated students. Disaffected teenagers need additional support if they are to have success in ABE programs. Much more research is needed to assess the role the standards movement has played in the increase in alternative education credentials. However, evidence that students taking graduation exams have a lower SES (Jacob, 2001) than students in non-test states is troubling, considering the relationship between lower SES levels and dropout rates (Alexander et. al., 2001). Waymans (2001) suggestion that many GED students have the resources and capability needed to complete high school, but for some reason, school does not provide them with the fit they are looking for naturally leads us to question the extent to which the K-12 system is serving all students.
October 2003
Page 86
Appendix B: References
Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., & Kabbani, N. (2001). The dropout process in life course perspective: early risks factors at home and school. Teachers College Record (103) 760-822. Beder, H. & Medina, P. (2001). Classroom dynamics in adult education. (NCSALL Report #18). Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. Briscoe, R. V. & Doyle, J.P. (1996). Aftercare services in juvenile justice: approaches for providing services for high-risk youth. Preventing School Failure 40. 73-76. Brouillette, L. (1999). Behind the statistics: Urban dropouts and the GED. Phi Delta Kappan, December. 313-315. Brunner, M.S. (1993). Reduced recidivism and increased employment opportunity through research-based reading instruction. (NCJ Publication No. I41324). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Cameron, S. V., & Heckman, J.J. (1991). The non-equivalence of high school equivalents (Working Paper No. 3804). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Cochran, E. (2000). Futureworks: An alternative avenue to success. Practitioner Research Briefs, 1999-2000 Report Series. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 445240). Elder, G.H. (1967). Age integration and socialization in an educational setting. Harvard Educational Review, 37. 594-619. Fitzgerald, N. & Young, M.B. (1997). The influence of persistence on literacy learning in adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 47, 78-91. Florida Legislature. (1998) Review of educational services in juvenile residential facilities. (Report No. 98-29). Tallahassee, FL: Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (ERIC Doc. Reproduction Service No. ED 426335). GED Testing Service. (2001). Who took the GED? GED 2000 Statistical Report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Greene, J. (2002). GEDS arent worth the paper theyre printed on. City Journal 12 (1), 1-6. Greer, M. (2002). Learning disabled. City Limits, 27 (2), 13-17. Hayes, E. (2000). Youth in adult literacy education programs. Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 74-110. Hoffer, T. (1997). High school graduation requirements: Effects on dropping out and student achievement. Teachers College Record 98 (4), 584-607. Jacob, B. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23 (2), 99-121.
October 2003
Page 87
Leone, P.E. & Meisel, S. (1997). Improving education services for students in detention and confinement facilities. Childrens Legal Rights Journal 17 (1), 2-12. Lillard, D.R., & DeCicca. P.P. (2001). Higher standards, more dropouts? Evidence within and across time. Economics of Education Review 20 (5), 459-473. Malmgren, K.W. & Leone, P.E. (2000). Effects of a short-term auxiliary reading program on the reading skills of incarcerated youth. Education and Treatment of Children 23 (3), 239-247. McNeal Jr., R. (1997). Are students being pulled out of high school? The effect of adolescent employment on dropping out. Sociology of Education 70 (July), 206-220. Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1944). Qualitative data analysis, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Metzer, D. (1997). When do high school dropouts return to education and why? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York City Board of Education. (2001). An examination of the relationship between higher standards and students dropping out. New York, NY: Author. Perin, D. (1999) Professionalizing adult literacy: Would a credential help? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42 (8), 610-619. Reder, S. & Strawn, C. (2001). The K-12 school experiences of high school dropouts. Focus on Basics 4 (D). Sabatani, J.P., Daniels, M., Ginsburg, L., Limeul, K., Russell, M., & Stites, R. (2000). Teacher perspective on the adult education profession: national survey findings about an emerging profession. (NCAL TR00-02). Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult Literacy. Sikorski, J.B. (1991). Learning disorders and the juvenile justice system. Psychiatric Annals 21. 742-747. Sparks, B. (1998). The politics of culture and the struggle to get an education. Adult Education Quarterly 48 (4). 245-259. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Stake, R. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995. Sticht, T.G., McDonald, B.A, & Erickson, P.R. (1998). Passports to paradise: The struggle to teach and to learn on the margins of adult education. El Cajon, CA: Applied Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences. Todis, B., Bullis, M., Waintrup, M. Schultz, R., & DAmbrosio, R. (2001). Overcoming the odds: Qualitative examination of resilience among formerly incarcerated adolescents. Exceptional Children 68 (1). 119-139.
October 2003
Page 88
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000) Dropout Rates in the United States: 1999. Washington DC. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001) Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000. Washington DC. Venezky, R.L. & Wagner, D.A. (1996). Supply and demand for adult literacy instruction in the United States. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 197-208. Wayman, J. (2001). Factors influencing GED and diploma attainment of high school dropouts. Education Policy Analysis Archives 9 (4).
October 2003
Page 89
Case Study of 16-20Year Old Youth in Adult Education Programs
Appendix C: Instruments for Data Collection

Student Characteristics We are asking that you fill in the charts below. This information is requested by the Center for Advanced Study in Education of the City University of New York Graduate Center for a study of youth in adult education programs, funded by the U.S. Department of Education. All information that you provide will be held confidential. No participating person or program will be identified in any reporting. Any questions about the study should be directed to Seymour Spiegel, CASE/ CUNY, 212-817-1831 or e-mail at sspiegel@gc.cuny.edu. Attached are four charts. Please provide separate information for students enrolled in your ABE, GED, ESL and in other adult education programs. If information for the time point(s) indicated is not available, please provide information for the date(s) closest to the indicated time. For each item, where you do not have access to exact numbers, please provide your best estimate. Please complete and return the attached charts for receipt by (date) to: Seymour Spiegel, Senior Principal Investigator Center for Advanced Study in Education CUNY Graduate Center 365 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 New York, New York 10016-4309 If you would prefer to receive and submit the charts electronically, please send us your email address.
October 2003
Page 90
Chart 1: Characteristics of ABE Students Measure

Fall 2001 or closest date: (indicate) ____________ Age 16-20 Number of ABE students Number of ABE students female Number of ABE students married Number of ABE students single parent Age 21-24 Age 25+ Fall 1996 or closest date (indicate) ____________ Age 16-20 Age 21-24 Age 25+
Ethnicity
Number of ABE students American Indian or Alaskan native Number of ABE students Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Number of ABE students Black or African-American (nonHispanic) Number of ABE students Hispanic or Latino/a Number of ABE students White (non-Hispanic) Number of ABE students born outside of U.S. Number of ABE students with limited English language proficiency
Formal Education
Number of ABE students with formal education less than 6th grade Number of ABE students formal education through 6th grade Number of ABE students formal education through 7th grade Number of ABE students formal education through 8th grade Number of ABE students formal education through 9th grade Number of ABE students formal education through 10th grade
Youth in Adult Education Number of ABE students formal education through 11th grade Number of ABE students completed 12th grade, earned HS diploma Number of ABE students completed 12th grade, no HS. Diploma
October 2003
Page 91
Measure
Fall 2001 or closest date: (indicate) ____________ Age 16-20 Age 21-24 Age 25+
Fall 1966 or closest date: (indicate) _____________ Age Age Age 16-20 21-24 25+
Disabilities
Number of ABE students with learning disabilities Number of ABE students with mental disabilities Number of ABE students with physical disabilities
Employment
Number of ABE students employed Number of ABE students unemployed Number of ABE students not in labor force
Student Goals
Number of ABE students primary goal to obtain a job Number of ABE students primary goal to retain current job Number of ABE students primary goal to improve current job Number of ABE students primary goal earn HS. diploma or GED Number of ABE students primary goal enter post-sec ed. or training Number of ABE students primary goal improve basic literacy skills
October 2003
Page 92
Number of ABE students primary goal improve Eng. language skills Number of ABE students primary goal citizenship Number of ABE students primary work-based project learner goal Number of ABE students other primary personal goal
Academic Capabilities
Number of ABE students with very limited processing ability at most can perform simple routine tasks such as totaling an entry on a deposit slip, identify specific information in a brief newspaper article (level 1 NALS) Number of ABE students with limited literacy skills at most, able to make low-level inferences, can calculate total cost of purchases. Number of ABE students reading grade equiv. 1.0-2.9
Measure
Fall 1966 or closest date: (indicate) _____________ Age Age Age 16-20 21-24 25+
Number of ABE students reading grade equiv. 3.0-4.9 Number of ABE students reading grade equiv. 5.0-7.9 Number of ABE students reading grade equiv. 8.0-9.9 Number of ABE students reading grade equiv. 10.0-12.9 Number of ABE students math grade equiv. 1.0-2.9 Number of ABE students math grade equiv. 3.0-4.9 Number of ABE students math grade equiv. 5-7.9 Number of ABE students math grade equiv. 8-9.9 Number of ABE students math grade equiv. 10-12.9
October 2003
Page 93
Enrolled Concurrently in Other Programs

Number in Career / Technical Programs Number in Family Literacy Programs
Other Programs (Please list.)
If you are unable to provide certain information requested above, do you know where it resides? If so, please provide full contact information so that our project personnel may follow up. We would appreciate any comments that would help us understand the information you have provided. Continue on reverse side if necessary.
October 2003
Page 94
Chart 2: Characteristics of GED Students Measure

Fall 2001 or closest date: (indicate) ____________ Age 16-20 Number of GED students Number of GED students female Number of GED students married Number of GED students single parent Age 21-24 Age 25+ Fall 1996 or closest date (indicate) ____________ Age 16-20 Age 21-24 Age 25+
Ethnicity
Number of GED students American Indian or Alaskan native Number of GED students Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Number of GED students Black or African-American (nonHispanic) Number of GED students Hispanic or Latino/a Number of GED students White (non-Hispanic) Number of GED students born outside of U.S. Number of GED students with limited English language proficiency
Formal Education
Number of GED students with formal education less than 6th grade Number of GED students formal education through 6th grade Number of GED students formal education through 7th grade Number of GED students formal education through 8th grade Number of GED students formal education through 9th grade Number of GED students formal education through 10th grade
Youth in Adult Education Number of GED students formal education through 11th grade Number of GED students completed 12th grade, earned h.s. dipl. Number of GED students completed 12th grade, no h.s. diploma
October 2003
Page 95
Measure
Fall 1996 or closest date (indicate) ____________ Age 16-20 Age 21-24 Age 25+
Disabilities
Number of GED students with learning disabilities Number of GED students with mental disabilities Number of GED students with physical disabilities
Employment
Number of GED students employed Number of GED students unemployed Number of GED students not in labor force
Student Goals
Number of GED students primary goal to obtain a job Number of GED students primary goal to retain current job Number of GED students primary goal to improve current job Number of GED students primary goal to earn h.s. diploma or GED Number of GED students primary goal enter post-sec ed. or training Number of GED students primary goal improve basic literacy skills Number of GED students primary goal improve Eng. language skills Number of GED students primary goal citizenship Number of GED students work-based project learner goal
October 2003
Page 96
Number of GED students other primary personal goal
Number of GED students with very limited processing ability at most can perform simple routine tasks such as totaling an entry on a deposit slip, identify specific information in a brief newspaper article (level 1 NALS) Number of GED students with limited literacy skills at most, able to make low-level inferences, can calculate total cost of purchases. Number of GED students reading grade equiv. 1.0-2.9
Measure
Number of GED students reading grade equiv. 3-4.9 Number of GED students reading grade equiv. 5.0-7.9 Number of GED students reading grade equiv. 8.0-9.9 Number of GED students reading grade equiv. 10.0-12.9 Number of GED students math grade equiv. 1.0-2.9 Number of GED students math grade equiv. 3.0-4.9 Number of GED students math grade equiv. 5.0-7.9 Number of GED students math grade equiv. 8.0-9.9 Number of GED students math grade equiv. 10.0-12.9

October 2003
Page 97
Chart 3: Characteristics of ESL Students Measure

Fall 2001 or closest date: (indicate) ____________ Age 16-20 Number of ESL students Number of ESL students female Number of ESL students married Number of ESL students single parent Age 21-24 Age 25+ Fall 1996 or closest date (indicate) ____________ Age 16-20 Age 2124 Age 25+
Ethnicity
Number of ESL students American Indian or Alaskan native Number of ESL students Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Number of ESL students Black or African-American (nonHispanic) Number of ESL students Hispanic or Latino/a Number of ESL students White (non-Hispanic) Number of ESL students born outside of U.S.
Formal Education
Number of ESL students with formal education less than 6th grade Number of ESL students formal education through 6th grade Number of ESL students formal education through 7th grade Number of ESL students formal education through 8th grade Number of ESL students formal education through 9th grade Number of ESL students formal education through 10th grade Number of ESL students formal education through 11th grade Number of ESL students completed 12th grade, earned h.s. diploma Number of ESL students completed 12th grade, no h.s. diploma
October 2003
Page 98
Measure
Disabilities
Number of ESL students with learning disabilities Number of ESL students with mental disabilities Number of ESL students with physical disabilities
Employment
Number of ESL students employed Number of ESL students unemployed Number of ESL students not in labor force
Student Goals
Number of ESL students primary goal to obtain a job Number of ESL students primary goal to retain current job Number of ESL students primary goal to improve current job Number of ESL students primary goal to earn h.s. diploma or GED Number of ESL students primary goal enter post-sec. ed. or training Number of ESL students primary goal improve basic literacy skills Number of ESL students primary goal improve Eng. language skills Number of ESL students primary goal citizenship Number of ESL students primary work-based project learner goal Number of ESL students other primary personal goal
Language Proficiency
Number of students at beginning ESL level Number of students at low intermediate ESL level
October 2003
Page 99
Number of students at intermediate ESL level Number of students high intermediate ESL level
Measure
Number of students at low advanced ESL level Number of students at high advanced ESL level
Number of ESL students with very limited processing ability at most can perform simple routine tasks such as totaling an entry on a deposit slip, identify specific information in a brief newspaper article (level 1 NALS) Number of ESL students with limited literacy skills at most, able to make low-level inferences, can calculate total cost of purchases. Number of ESL students reading grade equiv. 1.0-2.9 Number of ESL students reading grade equiv. 3.0-4.9 Number of ESL students reading grade equiv. 5.0-7.9 Number of ESL students reading grade equiv. 8.0-9.9 Number of ESL students reading grade equiv. 10.0-12.9 Number of ESL students math grade equiv. 1.0-2.9 Number of ESL students math grade equiv. 3.0-4.9 Number of ESL students math grade equiv. 5.0-7.9 Number of ESL students math grade equiv. 8.0-9.9 Number of ESL students math grade equiv. 10.0-12.9

October 2003
Page 100
October 2003
Page 101
Chart 4: Characteristics of Students Enrolled in Educational and/or Training Programs Other than ABE, GED or ESL Measure
Fall 2001 or closest date: (indicate) ____________ Age 16-20 Number of students Number of students female Number of students married Number of students single parent Age 21-24 Age 25+ Fall 1996 or closest date (indicate) ____________ Age 16-20 Age 21-24 Age 25+
Ethnicity
Number of students American Indian or Alaskan native Number of students Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Number of students Black or African-American (nonHispanic) Number of students Hispanic or Latino/a Number of students White (non-Hispanic) Number of students born outside of U.S. Number of students with limited English language proficiency
Formal Education
Number of students with formal education less than 6th grade Number of students formal education through 6th grade Number of students formal education through 7th grade Number of students formal education through 8th grade Number of students formal education through 9th grade Number of students formal education through 10th grade Number of students formal education through 11th grade
Youth in Adult Education Number of students completed 12th grade, earned HS. diploma Number of students completed 12th grade, no HS. diploma
October 2003
Page 102
Measure
Disabilities
Number of students with learning disabilities Number of students with mental disabilities Number of students with physical disabilities
Employment
Number of students employed Number of students unemployed Number of students not in labor force
Student Goals
Number of students primary goal to obtain a job Number of students primary goal to retain current job Number of students primary goal to improve current job Number of students primary goal earn h.s. diploma or GED Number of students primary goal enter post-sec ed. or training Number of students primary goal improve basic literacy skills Number of students primary goal improve Eng. language skills Number of students primary goal citizenship Number of students primary work-based project learner goal Number of students other primary personal goal
October 2003
Page 103
Number of students with very limited processing ability at most can perform simple routine tasks such as totaling an entry on a deposit slip, identify specific information in a brief newspaper article (level 1 NALS) Number of students with limited literacy skills at most, able to make low-level inferences, can calculate total cost of purchases.
Measure
Number of students reading grade equiv. 1.0-2.9 Number of students reading grade equiv. 3.0-4.9 Number of students reading grade equiv. 5.0-7.9 Number of students reading grade equiv. 8.0-9.9 Number of students reading grade equiv. 10.0-12.9 Number of students math grade equiv. 1.0-2.9 Number of students math grade equiv. 3.0-4.9 Number of students math grade equiv. 5.0-7.9 Number of students math grade equiv. 8.0-9.9 Number of students math grade equiv. 10.0-12.9
Enrolled Concurrently in Additional Programs Other than ABE, GED or ESL

October 2003
Page 104
Case Study of 16-20 Year Old Youth in Adult Education Programs
Appendix D: Interview Protocol

Interview Questions: Program Administrators, Teachers, and Counselors Interviewer: Begin by introducing yourself. Briefly remind interviewee of purpose of project, drawing on Information Sheet for Adult Service Providers. If applicable, ensure that consent form has been signed before interview begins, and provide interviewee with a copy. Explain that you will be taping the interview to ensure accurate representation of information and that the tape will only be used by project staff. State that confidentiality will be maintained. Ask if the interviewee has any questions before beginning the interview . 1. Approximately what proportion of your students are aged 16-20? 2. Why do 16-20 year-olds decide to come to an adult education program rather than stay in high school? 3. Have the numbers of 16-20 year-olds been growing recently? (Ask why or why not.) 4. Among the 16-20 year-olds, has there been increase in any particular group such as students with limited English proficiency or in any particular category of reading ability? 5. Is there any way in which the 16-20 year-olds are noticeably different from the adultaged students beyond their ages? (probe regarding family, employment, immigration, SES). Have these differences been more noticeable in recent years? 6. Are there more or fewer students with learning disabilities, limited English language proficiency or other special needs among the 16-20 year-olds compared to the adult-aged students? (If yes) Has this disparity been increasing in recent years? 7. How is it determined who is accepted into your program from the 16-20 year-old age group? On what basis are applicants of this age accepted or rejected? (probe for policies, regulations, fiscal considerations) 8. What are the characteristics of the 16-20 year-old applicants who are rejected? (probe for differences between youth and adult applicants who are rejected) 9. Where do the 16-20 year-old students not admitted into your program go? 10. Describe the typical process for students, from the point when they enter to the point where they exit your program. Is this process different for the 16-20 year-olds compared to the adult-aged students? 11. How do the 16-20 year-olds compare with the adult-aged students in terms of persistence? (if higher or lower dropout rates, probe for reasons) 12. Do the 16-20 year-olds receive any services in your program beyond what is given to the adult-aged students?
October 2003
Page 105
13. What problems or issues have come up in the program that are unique to 16-20 yearolds? (probe for behavior, motivation, learning ability, language proficiency, level of background knowledge, dropout) 14. Which of these have been addressed and how? 15. Which problems have not been addressed? Why have these not been dealt with? What do you think needs to be done to deal with these problems? 16. Id like to ask you how effective your program has been in serving the 16-20 year-olds regarding several issues: a. Is your program effective with regard to students re-entry into regular high school? b. Is the program effective in helping 16-20 year-olds earn GED diplomas? Is this changing with the new GED? c. How effective is the program in helping 16-20 year-olds improve their literacy and language skills (probe for reading and ESL levels listed on the data charts) d. How effective is the program in preparing 16-20 year-olds for job training and employment? e. How effective is the program in preparing 16-20 year-olds for post-secondary education? Are they applying to colleges? (probe for remedial needs in college) 17. How does your LEA (district) think that both accepted and rejected students in the 16-20 year-old age range can be served better? (probe for policies, regulations, fiscal resources) 18. What additional research do you think could be done that might address any problems related to 16-20 year-olds in adult basic education programs? 19. Is there anything else youd like to say that would help us understand how you are serving youth in your program?
October 2003
Page 106
Interview Questions: Students Interviewer: Begin by introducing yourself. Briefly remind interviewee of purpose of project, drawing on consent form. Ensure that consent form has been signed before interview begins, and provide interviewee with a copy. Explain that you will be taping the interview to ensure accurate representation of information and that the tape will only be used by project staff. State that confidentiality will be maintained. Ask if the interviewee has any questions before beginning the interview. 1. Why do students your age decide to come to this program? 2. Are more students aged 16-20 coming to programs like this? Why is this? Why dont they want to stay in high school? 3. What are the students like in this program? Are students aged 16-20 different from the older ones? (probe for demographic, language and learning differences) 4. What happens if someone applies to this program and does not get in? Are there any other services that they could get in this district? 5. Tell me all the steps students go through to come into and they finish the program. How do they get in? What classes do they take? How do they finish the program? (probe for different classes taken, exit tests) 6. What services do you think other students your age receive here that go beyond what the older students get? (probe for counseling, job preparation, family services) 7. Are there any problems that the16-20 year-olds have in this program that the older students dont have? 8. What has been done about these problems? 9. What do you think needs to be done about any other problems? 10. How helpful has this program been with students your age with: a. going back to high school b. getting a GED c. getting job training or getting a job d. going to college 11. Are there any students aged 16-20 who started coming to this program but then stopped coming? (If yes) Why did they decide to stop coming?
October 2003
Page 107
12. What else can you tell me to help me understand 16-20 year-olds in this program? Is there anything that you think could be done to make it a more successful experience for them? 13. I would like to ask you to write something down for me. Please describe the class you are in now, who is in the class, and what you have been learning recently. Ill give you about 10 minutes. This will help me understand the program better. (Written prompt: Tell me about your class. Describe the students. What have you been learning recently?)
October 2003
Page 108
Appendix E: List of QSR-N5 NUD*IST Codes, Initial and Secondary

Initial Codes (1) /Characteristics Description: Characteristics of 16-20 year-old youth in ABE; how youth needs have/have not been met (1 1) /Characteristics/Current Description: Current cohort; student characteristics; enrollment numbers (1 2) /Characteristics/Past Description: Past cohort: student characteristics, enrollment numbers (1 3) /Characteristics/Age Issues Description: Age of entry, parental permission, etc. (2) /Reasons Description: Reasons for youth participation (2 1) /Reasons/Program Entry Description: Reasons why youth enter ABE (2 2) /Reasons/Increase Description: Reasons for increase in youth in ABE (3) /Policy Description: Policy for acceptance and rejection of youth students (3 1) /Policy/Acceptance Description: State and district policy for accepting 16-20 year-old in ABE; high school policy, parental consent students (3 2) /Policy/Conduct Description: Program or district policy for student behavior, attendance, etc.; reactions of adult students to youth behavior (3 3) /Policy/Improvements Description: Interviewees suggestions for improvement in state, district, or program policy (4) /Programs Description: Program characteristics (4 1) /Programs/Instruction Description: Adult basic skills, GED, ESL, vocational instruction; site descriptions (4 2) /Programs/Support Description: Modifications, accommodations for LD and other special needs; career and personal counseling
October 2003
Page 109
(4 3) /Programs/Entry to Exit Description: Process from entry to exit (4 4) /Programs/Changes Description: Recent and expected changes in instruction and other services in reaction to student needs and characteristics (4 5) /Programs/External Perceptions Description: Reactions by high schools and others re: youth in ABE (4 6) /Programs/Teachers Description: Teacher Characteristics, number of teachers (4 7) /Programs/Recruitment Description: Recruitment and marketing strategies (4 8) /Programs/Funding Description: Funding for program: funding for youth (5) /Outcomes Description: Program outcomes for ABE youth (5 1) /Outcomes/GED Description: GED attainment (5 2) /Outcomes/Retention Description: Persistence and dropout (5 3) /Outcomes/Employment Description: Job and career outcomes (5 4) /Outcomes/Re-entry Description: Re-entry to high school (5 5) /Outcomes/Literacy Description: Improvements in language and literacy skills (5 6) /Outcomes/Education Description: Additional education and training: college, job training, etc. (6) /Research Description: Interviewees' suggestions for additional research
October 2003
Page 110
Secondary Codes (1) /CurrentQ Description: Characteristics of current cohort; age issues (2) /PastQ Description: Characteristics of past cohort (3) /EntryQ Description: Reasons youth enter; recruitment (4) /IncreaseQ Description: Extent of and reasons for increased youth enrollment (5) /AcceptQ Description: State, district, hs policy for accepting youth; parental consent (6) /ImproveQ Description: Suggestions for policy improvements (7) /ProgramsQ Description: Programs serving youth, LD; instruction, teachers (8) /EntryExitQ Description: Process from entry to exit (9) /SupportQ Description: Additional services; funding (10) /ConductQ Description: Youth problems; external perceptions (11) /RetentionQ Description: Effectiveness: retention (12) /ReEntryQ Description: Effectiveness: re-entry to hs (13) /GEDQ Description: Effectiveness: GED attainment (14) /LiteracyQ Description: Effectiveness: literacy skills (15) /EmployQ Description: Effectiveness: employment
October 2003
Page 111
(16) /EducationQ Description: Effectiveness: postsecondary education (17) /ResearchQ Description: Suggestions additional research Additional codes (both initial and secondary analyses): Site (Sites A, B, C, D, E) Interviewee (Administrator, Teacher, Counselor, Student)
October 2003
Page 112
End Paper

Research Methodology Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Methodology Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

An Exploratory Case Study of 16-20 Year-Old Students in Adult Education Programs

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Tables and Figures

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Table A: Enrollment Distribution at All Sites by Age

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

Youth in Adult Education

16-20 57% 21-24 25+

Elapsed Years between Time 1 and Time 2

Youth in Adult Education

Employed 10% NA 11% NA NA

Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E

51% 12% 59% 50% 47%

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Site A: 2000-2001 Enrollment by Age Group

Youth in Adult Education

Site A: Percent Increase in Enrollment 1997 to 2000 - All Programs

Total All Age Groups

Youth in Adult Education

In summary, at Site A, the distribution of 16 to 20 year-olds as a percent of all age groups

Youth in Adult Education

Youth in Adult Education

Figure 3: Site B Enrollment Distribution in 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 by Age Group

Site B: 2000-2001 Enrollment by Age Group

Site B: 2001-2002 Enrollment by Age Group

Site B: Percent Increase in Enrollment All Programs 2000-01 to 2001-02

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40%

39% 18% - 26%

Total All Age Groups

Youth in Adult Education

Site C: 1994-1995 Enrollment by Age Group

Youth in Adult Education

Site C: Percent Increase in Enrollment 1994-95 to 2000-01 All Programs

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

36% 18% 14%

Total All Age Groups

Youth in Adult Education

Figure 7: Site D Enrollment Distribution in 1994-1995 and 2001-2002 by Age Group

Site D: 2001-2002 Enrollment by Age Group