PC87-‘1-l-WFHF

Peninsula Academies Replications:

1985-86 Evaluation Report

Charles Dayton, Dorothy Reller,
and John Evans

January 1987

Charles Dayton is a policy analyst with PACE.

INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL
STUDIES LIBRARY

FEB :32 XIII/7
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Dorothy Reller is an associate research scientist at American Institutes for Research (AIR).

John Evans is a senior policy analyst with PACE.

This paper was sponsored and published by Policy Analysis for California Education,
PACE. PACE is funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and directed jointly
by James W. Guthrie and Michael W. Kirst The analyses and conclusions in this paper
are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Hewlett Foundation.

This evaluation of the Peninsula Academies Replications was funded in part by a special

grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

 

Additional copies of this paper are available by sending $7.00 to:

PACE
School of Education
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720

CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
(California residents add appropriate sales tax.)

PACE Contract PC87-1-1-WFHF
Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)
Berkeley, California
January 1987

ii

J3

”1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Peninsula Academies are a three—year high school program for at-risk
students, designed to provide them with incentives both to graduate and to
acquire labor market—relevant skills. An Academy combines academic and
technical training in a school-within—a—school setting. It is based on a
school—business partnership, and offers students access to guest speakers,
career—oriented field trips, employee mentors, and work experience.

Since the fall of 1981, the Peninsula Academies have been operated by the
Sequoia Union High School District in Redwood City, California. In the fall
of 1985, ten replications of this program were begun under state sponsorship,
with support stemming from AB3104. The new programs served approximately 500
students, mostly in grade 10, in eight districts located throughout the
state. This report provides a preliminary appraisal of these programs.

Longer term evaluations of the model program itself are available from its
evaluator, the American Institutes for Research in Palo Alto, California.

Academies are three—year programs, only the first year of which has been
implemented to date. Host evaluators feel it is premature to judge the
eventual impact of any program after just one year. Thus this report must be
viewed as a preliminary assessment of these programs. It has two foci. The
first is the quality of implementation of the programs in each of the sites.
The second is evidence to date of measurable impact on students. At this
stage, the first of these is probably more important, but as we gathered
outcome data as well, even though they are imperfect as yet, they are
presented here.

This evaluation was conducted through the support of the William.and
Flora Hewlett Foundation. It is based on site visits and questionnaire
responses from teachers and administrators in each site, as well as from a
sample of parents and company representatives. It also rests on student data
gathered from each of the high schools, including attendance, retention,
credits earned, and grades, as well as a pre—post student questionnaire.
These data come from both the 1985—86 school year, the program's first oper—
ating year, and the preceding year, 1984—85, thereby reflecting changes in
student performance. In six of the Academy sites, a comparison group of
students matched to those in the Academy was tracked, providing a second type
of contrast.

The Academy model is a complex one, specifying a school—within—a-school
structure in the high school and a number of business activities stemming from
the intended school—business partnership. There were two distinct variations
from the Academy model, however. In one district, two Academies failed to
provide the intended academic, school—within-a-school components. In another
district, two Academies began with approximately 100 ninth graders, rather
than the smaller number of tenth graders specified by the model. Overall,
there were various components not yet fully realized in a number of the sites.

1

iii

A total of 538 students were enrolled in the ten Academy sites. Of
these, 43% were female, 57% male. By ethnicity, 38% were White, 30% Hispanic,
24% Black, and 7% Asian.

Findings

The general finding of this evaluation of the ten Academies' first oper—
ational year is that there is encouraging evidence from two or three well
implemented sites that the Academy concept can produce important gains in the
attendance, grades, earned credits, and reduced dropouts of at-risk high school
students. Compared to similar students not in the program, Academy students
in these sites improved their attendance levels by 5% to 18%, their retention
by 5% to 15%, and their GPA's by more than a full grade point. In most of the
remaining sites, however, the evaluation evidence was inconclusive.

Although in this first operational year many of the sites experienced
difficulties in implementing both the program and a full evaluation of it, the
fact that significantly positive outcomes were registered in a few sites where
rigorous evaluation procedures were followed is important. It demonstrates
that the Academy concept is viable, and indicates that if the successful
elements and procedures in these effective sites can be implemented generally,
the successful outcomes can also be widely reproduced.

More specifically, the evaluation data revealed the following:
I. Responses from the pre—post student questionnaires show that:

0 Academy students' attitudes toward school improved significantly;

0 Academy students' self-esteem improved significantly;

0 Students liked the Academies significantly better than their
regular high school program. students' ratings of the program
were strongly correlated with their perception of having received
the extra help they needed with their school work. Attendance
and GPA were also positively correlated with this factor;

0 Students did not have more precise post—graduate plans as a
result of the Academies.

II. The school records data showed that:

o The mean attendance rate for Academy students was 90.5%, up from
83.5% in 1984—85;

0 The mean number of credits earned for Academy students was 53.5,
up from 48.7 in 1984—85;

0 The mean grade point average (4.0 grading system) for Academy
students was 2.1, up from 1.9 in 1984—85.

The absence of consistent comparison group data means these gains,should be
regarded cautiously.

iv

III. It is impossible to provide a cost—benefit analysis at this stage. Each
Academy receives a $50,000/year state grant, which must be matched by both the
participating district and cooperating companies. Given the 538 enrollment
figure across the ten sites this year, this yields a per—pupil cost to the
state of $929. This is estimated to become approximately $500/pupil/year when
the programs are fully implemented. Adding the district and corporate matches
of support, across the three years of an Academy, the combination of state and
local support is expected to total approximately $4,500 for a given student.

While it is too early to estimate the benefits of the programs, data from
studies conducted in New York and Los Angeles of the benefits of keeping
students in school and providing them with basic job skills suggest such an
investment is cost—effective. The Los Angeles study (Catterall, 1985), for
example, suggests that society pays $70,750 for each dropout (in crime,
welfare, health, and employment services, plus lost tax revenues), while the
youth personally loses over $150,000 in lifetime wages. These figures are
broad estimates, however, not precise measures.

In summary, taken across all ten sites, the evaluation data indicate that
the Academy concept has been demonstrated to be viable, but that substantial
improvements are needed in both program operations and evaluation procedures
if a broadly successful program is to be achieved, and a complete evaluation
of its effectiveness is to be possible.

Recommendations

Evidence from the Peninsula Academies themselves, now in their sixth
year, suggests that while this model has the potential to have a significant
impact on student outcomes, careful implementation and adherence to certain
central features of the model are necessary. The evidence from the first year
of the ten replications confirms this fact.

This evidence emerges from the fact that those sites that most fully
followed the model and most carefully implemented the program showed the best
results. What are the features of the model that appear critical to success?

0 A defined student selection process that results in the enroll—
ment of potentially successful, at-risk youth in the program;

0 That the full school—within—a—school structure be implemented, so
that Academy students have in common both a technical class and a
core set of academic courses, taught by teachers Who have a
common preparation period during which they can coordinate their
activities and curriculum.

0 Strong private sector support, including: involvement in a
governing body so that decision—making is conducted jointly by
educators and employers; input into the technical curriculum; and
support for certain critical features of the program, including
business speakers, field trips, mentors, and work experience.

Strong district and school support, so that Academy teachers have
the necessary planning time to coordinate the program's
activities, school counselors and administrators support the
program, and the facilities, equipment, and curricular materials
are adequate.

The fact that not all these elements were present at a number of the
sites during the 1985—86 school—year raises the question of how to correct
this problem. While there is a case to be made for some flexibility in the
model, and the first year of most programs includes start-up problems, there

is also
success.

In
report,

the need to enforce the core features of the model essential to its
The following represent recommendations in this regard:

stricter administration of the grants by the State Department of
Education, including a mechanism for cutting off grants where
called for;

Fuller training of site representatives in the model, prior to
and during its implementation;

Language in the legislation supporting the programs that includes
clearer and firmer guidelines for receipt of state money for
support of an Academy. ‘

addition, the weaknesses in the evaluation itself, detailed in the
must be corrected. Plans are in place to accomplish this.

vi

CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Policy Analysis for California Education . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Academy Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Evaluation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OVerview of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter I: Site Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Health Careers Academy, East Bakersfield High School . .
Edison Financial Academy, Edison High School . . . . . .
Franklin Food Services and Hospitality Academy,

Benjamin Franklin High School . . . . . . . . . . . .
East Side Electronics Academies, Independence High School
Computech Academy, Mountain View High School . . . . .

The Health Academy, Oakland Technical High School . . .
Foothill Computer Academy, Oak Ridge High School . .'.
Rio Cazadero Academy, Rio Cazadero High School . . . . .
Johnson Corporate Academy, Hiram Johnson High School . .
East Side Electronics Academies, Silver Creek High School

Chapter II: Cross-Site Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Enrollments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Program Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
High School Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Credits Earned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grade Point Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Students' Liking of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Students' Self—Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Student Ratings of the Academies . . . . . . . . .

Chapter III:‘ Analyses and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . .

First—Year Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . t . .
Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Student Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Questions for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

ix

27

37
48
55
63
71
81
90

101

101
102

'103

104
105
106
107
108
109

111

111
113
115
118
120

References/Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.. . . . . . . 123

Appendix: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Vlii

Policy Analysis for California Education

Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE, is a university—based research center
focusing on issues of state educational policy and practice. PACE is located in the Schools of
Education at the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University. It is funded by the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and directed jointly by James W. Guthrie and Michael
W. Kirst PACE operates satellite centers in Sacramento and Southern California. These are
directed by Gerald C. Hayward (Sacramento) and Allan R. Odden (University of Southern
California).

PACE efforts center on five tasks: (1) collecting and distributing objective information
about the conditions of education 1n California, (2) analyzing state educational policy 1ssues and
the policy environment, (3) evaluating school reforms and state educational practices, (4)

providing technical support to policy makers, and (5) facilitating discussion of educational
issues.

The PACE research agenda is developed in consultation with public officials and staff. In
this way, PACE endeavors to address policy issues of immediate concern and to fill the short-
term needs of decision makers for information and analysis.

PACE publications include Policy Papers, which report research findings, the Policy
Forum, which presents views of notable individuals, and Update, an annotated list of all PACE
papers completed and m progress.

Advisory Board
Mario Camara A. Alan Post
Partner California Legislative Analyst,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson Retired
Constance Carroll Sharon Schuster
President, Saddleback Executive Vice President
Community College American Association of University Women
Gerald Foster Eugene Webb
Region Vice President Professor, Graduate School of Business
Pacific Bell Stanford University
Robert Maynard Aaron Wildavsky
Editor and President Professor of Political Science
The Oakland Tribune University of California, Berkeley

 

 

INTRODUCTION

During the 1984 session of the California legislature, Assembly Bill 3104
was passed, and on September 30 of that year it was signed into law by
Governor Deukmejian. The bill provides for the establishment of ten replica—
tions of a state-designated model program, the Peninsula Academies, which have
been operated since 1981 by the Sequoia Union High School District in Redwood
City, California. In addition, the bill specified that two years after its
effective date, there was a requirement to "evaluate the Peninsula Academies
model program and report to the Legislature regarding issues which shall
include, but not be limited to, the cost—effectiveness and educational quality”

of the program."

In the fall of 1985, after a year of competitive selection and program
planning, the ten Peninsula Academies replications began operation. During
the past year, these new Academies served approximately 500 students in 10
high schools around the state, and during the 1986-87 school-year will serve
approximately 1,000 students. As three—year programs, the Academies are still
at a developmental stage, and will only be fully implemented in the 1987-88

school—year.
Academy Concept

What are the Academies? Why are they of interest? There are a substan—
tial number of students dropping out of high school in California, by recent
calculations approximately three of every ten who enter. In urban schools and
among udnority students, this figure often exceeds 50%. Many of these youths
want to work but lack the necessary skills to find and hold jobs, resulting in
a high youth unemployment rate. In a sense, the reasons are obvious. For
many youths, high school is a boring, negative experience, with little apparent

relationship to the future.

When a young person drops out of high school before graduating, the loss
is enormous. Lifetime expected earnings immediately drop dramatically.

Chances of welfare dependency rise. The possibility of involvement in drugs

and crime increases. A social stigma may attach itself to the youth, often

for life.

The loss is a societal one as well, in the cost of social programs
designed to serve the unemployed and the lost tax dollars. Further, it can be
seen in the reduced competitiveness of the United States in the international
marketplace. The nation is engaged in an intense economic competition with

other countries today and is losing ground on many fronts.

At the same time, the economy is undergoing dramatic changes. The
majority of new jobs are in the service sector, and many of these require
skills beyond normal high school training. Meanwhile, there will be an
estimated 40% drop in the number of young people in the work force by the year
2000, and the proportion of youths who are Black or Hispanic will rise
dramatically. Unless they can be given useful skills, both they and the

country will be losers.

An Academy is a program designed to provide the potential dropout with
motivation for success, a useful and productive high school experience, and
skills that are valuable to both the economy and the youth. It includes the

following elements:

0 A school-within—a—school structure, in which students are given
a home base and strong support, along with high standards,
challenges, and incentives to graduate

o A combination of academic and technical training, the latter
related to a specific job field that is healthy and growing in .
the local labor market, such as computers, electronics,
banking, health, and hotel/restaurant services

0 A school—business partnership base which allows teamwork
between the high school and cooperating companies, to provide
youth with training, mentors, and jobs, and to provide
companies with needed employees

Students enter an Academy in grade 10, and take a full complement of
academic classes, plus a technical "lab" class. Classes are taught by a team
of Academy teachers who coordinate their efforts and relate the academic and

technical subjects. Guest speakers and field trips to work sites are

emphasized. This pattern continues in grade 11, with the addition of a
company mentor, an employee who volunteers to be a career—related big brother
or sister. A summer job is provided after grade 11, related to the field of
training. In grade 12, the student continues with the technical lab, but
returns to mainstream academic classes. A part—time job during the last
semester of high school is also provided, along with assistance in identifying
either permanent employment upon graduation or a post—graduate education

program.

As currently structured, the ten Academies are supported by $50,000/year
state grants, through the 1986—87 school—year. These grants require full
matching amounts from both the school district and cooperating businesses.
Thus the state is part of a three—way partnership supporting the programs.
The support of business is crucial, ensuring the utility of the training and
the currency of the program to changing labor market conditions. In each
locale, program management decisions are made jointly by school staff and

cooperating companies.

The Evaluation Design

The Peninsula Academies, the model for these ten programs, has been
'evaluated since its inception in 1981 by a private research firm (the American
Institutes for Research, in Palo Alto), through a grant from the William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation. This proved useful from both the standpoint of
providing feedback to program.managers to inform refinements in the program,
and establishing program credibility once student outcome data became
available. For these reasons, the Hewlett Foundation appropriated funds to

permit evaluation of the ten replications as well.

Two broad categories of data have been gathered as part of the present
evaluation: process and outcome. The first assesses whether programs have
been implemented as designed and provides feedback to program managers regard—
ing first-year strengths and weaknesses. The outcome evaluation measures
changes in student performance that can be traced to program activities,

answering the question: "Are the programs working?"

Process data included here stem from several sources. These include
questionnaires administered in each site to program teachers and administra—
tors, and to a small sample of parents and employers. Information also comes
from observations made during visits to each of the sites during the planning
period and first program year and discussions with program administrators and

teachers.

The outcome evaluation includes five indicators of student performance:
attendance, retention in school, credits earned toward graduation, and grade
point averages. In addition, a student questionnaire was administered to
program participants at their point of entry in the fall of 1985, and at the
end of the 1985-86 school~year. Certain types of pre—tofpost changes in

student attitudes can be determined from these.

In order to have a means of comparing Academy students' performance
against some specific backdrop, data were also collected from the previous
school—year. Six of the sites elected to select a comparison group of
students matched to those in the Academy (on the basis of school, grade level,
sex, race, and past academic performance), and to assess both Academy and
comparison group students during the year. Thus both historical and

comparison group contrasts are presented in this report.

The evaluation originally designed for these programs was not fully
implemented during this past year. Four of the programs elected not to have
comparison groups (an option they were given), meaning results from those
sites are less conclusive. Even in most of those sites where comparison
groups were identified and followed, their comparability with the program
students is not complete. And due to logistical problems some categories of
data included in the evaluation design were not collected in a number of
sites. Steps have been taken to address these shortcomings for the 1986—87
school—year, so that more complete and reliable evaluation information should
be available a year from now. Meanwhile we present what information we have

at this point, and urge that it be regarded cautiously.

Overview of the Report

Academies are three-year programs, only the first year of which has been
implemented to date. Host evaluators feel it is premature to judge the even-
tual impact of any program after just one year. Thus this report must be
viewed as a preliminary assessment of these programs. It has two foci. The
first is the quality of implementation of the programs in each of the sites.
The second is evidence to date of measurable impact on students. At this
stage, the first of these is probably more important, but as we gathered out—
come data as well, even though they are imperfect as yet, they are presented

here.

This report is organized so that cross—site summaries of the data,
analyses, and recommendations follow the ten individual Academy site reports.
The reader interested in an overview of the impact of the Peninsula Academy
Replication Program is directed to Chapters II and III. Those seeking a more
in-depth understanding of the workings of the program should read the separate

site reports in Chapter I.

Each of the site reports in Chapter I includes:

0 A capsule description of the program.

0 A summary of the program impact on participants (enrollments,
retention, attendance, credits, and grades).

0 Student Questionnaire responses.
0 Teacher, Parent, and Employer Questionnaire responses (numbers
of respondents in these categories are small, and the feedback

is not intended to be statistically reliable).

0 Summary and recommendations.

Chapter II provides cross—site summaries of the data.

Chapter III provides a discussion and analysis of the data, and draws
conclusions accordingly. Recommendations and questions for further research

are also included.

An Appendix provides an explanation of the statistical procedures used,

and other technical matters.

A separate evaluation report on the Peninsula Academies replications has
been prepared by the Program Evaluation and Research Division of the
California State Department of Education. It is based on the participant
response information derived from site visits and interviews with Academy
participants, and is focused on the elements and characteristics of the
Academy model that are thought to be successful in promoting changes in

student attitudes and acquisition of skills.

The model for these programs, the Peninsula Academies operated by the
Sequoia Union High School District in Redwood City, California, has also been
evaluated throughout its five-year history. Reports on these evaluations are

available from the American Institutes for Research in Palo Alto, California.

CHAPTER I
SITE REPORTS

This chapter consists of separate reports for each of the ten Peninsula
Academies replication sites. Each report consists of a program description,
followed by sections on the program's impact on students, responses to the
Student and School Personnel Questionnaires, parent participation and reaction,
responses to the Private Sector Questionnaire, and a brief summary. An expla—
nation of the data sources, categories, and analyses used in these reports is

given in the Technical Notes Appendix to this report.

HEALTH CAREERS ACADEMY, EAST BAKERSFIELD HIGH SCHOOL
(Kern High School District, Bakersfield)

Description and Implementation

The Health Careers Academy (HCA) is located in a comprehensive, grade
9—12 institution that has been a fixture in the city of Bakersfield since the
late 1930's. Set in a suburban middle and lower—middle class neighborhood,
East High School has a high proportion of minorities among its 1735 students.

It is one of ten high schools (and five continuation schools) in the district.

Forty-nine students were selected for the program and entered the HCA in
September 1985. At the same time, a comparison group of 48 students was
identified from among the applicants to the program who could not be contacted

about their acceptance before the start of the school year.

Three teachers constituted the primary HCA instructional staff: a
2/5—time English teacher, 2/5—time science teacher, and 3/5-time math/health
laboratory teacher. There was also an instructional aide who worked with the
math/health teacher. The program director was a special projects administrator
for the district. The students took an average of 3.7 Academy classes each
semester. The HCA had access to a well-equipped laboratory classroom where
the health care lab was taught, but the facility was not "dedicated" to the
Academy. Thus, the HCA had no "headquarters" classroom or office at the
school site this year, nor were the Academy classrooms located near to one
another at the high school. The HCA teachers did not have the common prepara—

tion period recommended by the Academies model.

The local Private Industry Council is working with the HCA to arrange for
summer jobs for Academy students. Among the community health facilities that
have assisted the program are Mercy Hospital, Bakersfield Memorial Hospital,
Hall's Ambulance Service, Kern Medical Center, and the Kern County Health

Department.

Program Impact

Comparability of Academy and comparison students. The Academy group was
48% female, and the comparison group was 33% female. The ethnic compositions

of the two groups were:

Ethnicity Academy Comparison
White 33% 35%
Hispanic 51% 56%
Black 16% 8%

The following table shows the performance of the future Academy and comparison
group students during the 1984-85 school year, before the HCA program began.
The differences between the groups were small; in no case were these differ-

ences statistically significant.

Attendance, Credits, and GPA, 1984—85 School Year
Academy and Comparison Students

 

% Days Number of
Group N Attended Credits Earned GPA
Academy 47 81.5% 46.47 1.89
Comparison 48 78.2% 45.49 2.25

Enrollment and retention. The following graph shows the percent of
students retained in the Academy program, retained in school (including those
who dropped out of the Academy but remained in school), and the percent bf

comparison students retained in school.

Retention Rates, 1985-86 School Year
Academy and Comparison Students

100%

79% 79%

 

 

Academy: Academy: Compan'son:
Retained in Retained in Retained in
Academy School School

Attendance. The attendance rates for Academy students are compared to
the students' own attendance in ninth grade (1984—85) and to the attendance of

the comparison students this school year (1985-86).

Attendance
(Percent Days Attended)

 

. School

1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985-86 Year

Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change

Academy 81.50% 90.45% 85.56% 87.71% + 6.21
N (43) (48) (43) (43)

Comparison 78.20% 90.75% 67.67% 81.38% + 3.18
N (48) (47) (41) (40)

Difference + 3.30 - .30 + 17.89 + 6.33 + 3.03

Credits. Here again, comparisons are made between the credits earned by
the Academy students last year and this, and by the Academy and comparison
students this year. The typical student at East Bakersfield High must earn

50 credits per year to stay on track for graduation.

a

10

Credits A
(Average NUmber of Credits)

 

School

1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985-86 Year

Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change

Academy 47.91 24.21 25.00 49.96 + 2.05
N (40) (43) (40) (39)

Comparison 45.49 22.38 24.67 49.20 + 3.71
N (48) (46) (38) (38)

Difference + 2.42 + 1.83 + 1.33 + .76 - 1.66

Grade Point Average. Again, the grades of Academy students last year and

this are compared, as well as those of the Academy and comparison students

 

this year.
Grades
(Average GPA)

School
1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985-86 Year
Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
Academy 1.93 1.88 2.04 2.00 + .07

N (40) (43) (40) (40)
Comparison 2.15 1.77 1.84 1.91 - .24

N (48) (46) (38) (38)
Difference — .22 + .11 + .20 + .09 + .17

Responses to Student Questionnaire

A comparison of student responses to the incoming and year—end student
questionnaires provides an indication of the influence of the Academy on
career planning, attitudes toward school, and self-esteem. These responses
are reported in this section, along with the students' ratings of some of the

Academy's specific components and of the overall program.

11

Career planning. Four questionnaire items measured the students'

progress in making career plans:

0 Have a definite plan for what to do the first two years after
high school graduation: pretest, 14%; posttest, 25%.

0 Have a long—term career goal: pretest, 57%; posttest, 68%.

0 Agree that it is important to gain job skills while in high
school: pretest, 96%; posttest, 93%.

0 Agree that becoming a success is not mainly a matter of luck, but
is dependent on hard work: pretest, 62%; posttest, 72%.

Attitudes toward school. Incoming Academy students rated how well they
had liked school the previous year, and then at the end of this school year,

they rated how well they liked their year in the Academy.

0 Found school "usually" or "very" interesting/liked school "quite
a bit" or "very much": pretest, 39%; posttest, 47%.

o The teaching staff estimated that 71% of the students showed
increased interest in school and learning this year, 8% showed
decreased interest, and 21% showed no change in attitude toward
school.

Attitudes toward self. At the end of the school year, the students were
asked to estimate the change in their attitudes toward themselves, taking into

consideration confidence about their abilities in school and in making friends.

0 75% of the students said they felt "much better" or "a little
better" about themselves; 21% said there was no difference; and
4% said they felt "much worse“ about themselves after a year in
the Academy program.

0 Agree that they would like to be someone different from
themselves: pretest, 33%; posttest, 11%.

o The teaching staff estimated that 80% of the students had
increased their self—confidence and esteem, 2% had decreased, and
the rest had shown no change. One teacher commented that many of
the Academy students had been "loners" who now felt that "they
belong."

Student ratings of the Academy program. On the year-end questionnaire,

students rated their contacts with the private sector, the Academy‘s equipment

12

and instructional materials, extra help received with schoolwork, and the

overall

Guest

Field

program.

Contacts with private sector. The students reported an average
of 11 guest speakers this school year and 6 field trips to
medical facilities and other health career work sites. They
rated these experiences as follows:

 

Very Somewhat Not Very A Waste
Helpful Helpful 0K Helpful of Time
speakers 41% 37% 19% 4% —-

trips 43% ‘ 39% 11% -- 7%

Equipment and materials. Students rated the quality of the
equipment in their health laboratory classroom and of the books,
kits, films, and other instructional materials in their academic
and technical classrooms. Responses were as follows:

Excellent ‘ Good Average Poor Terrible

Equipment 11% 36% 39% 7% 7%

Materials 12% 58% 23% 4% 4%

Extra help. An Academy should be designed to provide for special
individualized assistance with academic problems.

- At the end of the school year, 50% of the students reported
that they "always" or "usually" received the extra help they
needed; 29% said "sometimes," and 22% said they "occasionally"
or "never" received this help.

— The students reported that the most frequent sources of extra
help were: the teacher of the class where the problem arose
(75%), another student (50%), another Academy teacher (46%),
and parents (43%).

Overall rating of program. At the end of the school year,
students rated how well they liked the Academy compared to the
regular school program. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Much
Better and 5 = Much Worse, they gave an average rating of 2.07.
The ratings were distributed as follows: ‘

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Much Better Slightly Better Same Slightly Worse Much Horse

33% 44% 11% 4% 7%

13

Most students reported no serious problems with the Academy this year,
and the problems that were mentioned on the year—end questionnaire were mainly
of a personal nature, such as not being able to get to class on time or not
getting along with certain teachers. The students reported that their most
positive experiences in the HCA this year were learning about human develop—
ment, anatomy, and health (mentioned by 21%) and going on educational field
trips (21%).

Responses to School Personnel Questionnaire

At the end of the school year, the three Academy teachers and the aide
completed a questionnaire in which they commented on the program and rated
various aspects of its implementation. They rated the equipment, books, and
instructional materials as "average" to "good," and the curriculum in the
technical and academic clases as "good." They noted that for the most part,

. the technical and academic curricula were not inter—related. Once the school
year began, there were no formal staff orientations or in—service meetings to

develop teamwork or reinforce the Academy philosophy and goals.

The teachers commented that the small class size was a plus in allowing
them to provide extra help needed by students. They rated the program
planning and management as "good," and the counseling program as well.
However, they gave mixed responses regarding the degree of support for the
program from school administrators and school counselors not directly involved

in the Academy.

The teachers were not entirely satisfied with the student selection
procedure used in 1985, but felt that the procedures had been improved for the
selection of the students for the 1986—87 school year. They also said that
the Academy had not yet established criteria for dropping students from the

program who were disruptive and non—responsive.

According to the teachers, the weakest aspect of the HCA implementation
was the lack of preparation and coordination time for teachers. The greatest

strengths of the program were the dedication of the staff and the camaraderie

I

14

among the students—~their positive attitudes and sense of identity within the

larger school.

On a scale where 1 = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the staff rated the
Academy as follows:
Academy concept: 6.75
Implementation at HCA: 3.88

Parent Participation and Reaction

According to the Academy teaching staff questionnaire responses, most of
the parents supported their children's efforst in the HCA, even though they

did not visit the school and were frequently difficult for teachers to contact.

Two sets of parents were asked to complete an evaluation form at the end
of the school year. They rated the HCA as "good" to "excellent." Both
parents noted that their children had become much more interested in school
and in planning for the future as a result of the program. They said they had
been kept only "moderately well" informed about Academy activities. According
to these parents, the weakest aspects of the program were that it was not
sufficiently difficult and that not enough teachers were involved. The aspect
they liked best was the extra opportunity for students to prepare for careers
in health.

Responses to Private Sector Questionnaire

No one from the supporting institutions completed the year-end private
sector evaluation form. The Academy teachers commented that the guest
speakers were outstanding. They also said that the health industry employees
were very willing to cooperate, but that the HCA had not fully explored this

resource .

15

Summary

The Kern High School District implemented an Academy program that closely
followed the Peninsula Academies model in many respects. Its main shortcomings

were 2

0 Lack of a common preparation period for teachers;
0 Absence of a "headquarters" or lab dedicated to the HCA;

0 Lack of inter—relationship between technical and academic
curricula;

0 Absence of private sector involvement at the policy—making
level (e.g., steering committee meetings), although there
was a strong involvement in providing guest speakers and
field trip opportunities.

Both the participating students and the staff gave generally favorable
ratings to the Academy program, and there appear to be some improvements in
the students' attitudes and self-image as measured by the self—report
questionnaire. However, no statistically significant differences between
program and comparison group students were found on the key measures of

attendance, retention, credits earned, and GPA.

16

EDISON FINANCIAL ACADEMY, EDISON HIGH SCHOOL
(Stockton Unified School District, Stockton)

Description and Implementation

The Edison Financial Academy (EFA) is located at Edison High School, an
older facility in a low; and lower—middle income neighborhood of the city of
Stockton. Edison High has an ethnically mixed student population of 2200:
38% Hispanic, 26% Asian/Pacific Islander, 21% Black, and 15% White. The two
Academies which started in 1985 in the Stockton District (the EFA and the
Franklin Food Service and Hospitality Academy) were separately administered,

with no central district coordination.

Thirty tenth grade students entered the EFA in September 1985. No
comparison group was identified. The EFA operated in tandem with the Edison
Enterprise Project, a program serving students in grades 9, 11, and 12, funded
by a state grant and the Industry Education Council. Both the EFA and
Enterprise shared the goal of teaching business skills to underachieving,
at-risk students. The school planned to gradually subsume the Enterprise

program into the EFA over the next four years.

Two teachers were assigned full—time to teach business and mathematics in
the EFA/Enterprise programs, and two others were assigned 3/5 time to teach
English and social studies. The four teachers did not have an extra release
period for Academy coordination. Their four adjacent classrooms were located
in a remodeled wing of the high school. One of the school's vice principals

acted as EFA director.

The Academy students were not block scheduled, so that all the Academy
teachers had non—program as well as EFA students, and Academy students took
many of their academic classes outside the program. (The Academy students
took an average of 1.5 EFA classes each semester, usually Academy business

and/or mathematics.)

17

The career focus of the EPA was on business and finance. The sponsoring
financial institutions made suggestions for the curriculum, which included
training in work attitudes and business orientation as well as in computing,
record—keeping, and other technical skills. The major company sponsors were
Great American First Savings Bank, American Savings and Loan Association,
Union Safe Deposit Bank, Stockton Savings and Loan Association, Bank of
America, the San Joaquin County Affirmative Action Office, and the City of

Stockton.

Program Impact

Student profile. Forty—three percent of the EFA students were female.

The ethnic composition of the group was as follows:

Ethnicity Percent
White 3%
Hispanic 37%
Black 50%
Asian 10%

The following table shows the school performance of the Academy students

during the 1984-85 school year, before they joined the EPA.

Attendance, Credits, and GPA, 1984—85 School Year
(Academy Students, N=28)

 

% Days No. Credits
Attended Earned GPA
89.43% 35.89 1.33

Enrollment and retention. The following graph shows the percent of
students retained in the Academy program and the percent retained in school,

including those who dropped out of the Academy during the school year.

18

Retention Rates, 1985-86 School Year
Academy Students "

100%

60%

 

0%

 

   

Host of the students who left the Academy (67%) did so because they were
dropped by the school for non—attendance or expelled. The Academy planned to

re—admit them to the program if and when they returned to school.

Attendance. The attendance rates for Academy students are compared to
the students' own performance last year (1984—85). The attendance of those

students who were present both fall and spring is also compared for the two

 

semesters.
Attendance
(Percent Days Attended)

School

1984-85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year

School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
90.89% 91.85% 80.12% 87.03% ~ 3.86*

N (19) (20) (20) (19)

 

* significant at the .05 level.

19

Credits. A comparison is made between the number of credits earned by
the Academy students last year and this. The typical student at Edison High

School must earn 60 credits per school year to stay on track for graduation.

Credits
(Average Number of Earned)

 

School
1984-85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year
School Year Semester Semester School Year Difference
39.72 22.63 19.21 43.61 + 3.89

N (18) (19) (19) (18)

Grades. Here again, the students' performance last year and this is

 

compared.
Grades
(Average GPA)

, School

1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year
School Year Semester Semester School Year Change

1.42 1.47 1.21 1.41 - .01

N (18) (19) (19) (18)

Responses to Student Questionnaire

A comparison of student responses to the incoming and year-end student
questionnaires provides an indication of the influence of the Academy on
career planning, attitudes toward school, and self—esteem. These responses
are reported in this section, along with the students' ratings of some of the

Academy‘s specific components and of the overall program.

Career planning. Four questionnaire items measured the students'

progress in career planning. A summary of responses follows.

0 Have a definite plan for what to do the first two years
after high school graduation: pretest, 28%; posttest, 33%.

0 Have a long—term career goal: pretest, 48%; posttest, 67%.

20

0 Agree that it is important to gain job skills while in high
school: pretest, 100%; posttest, 100%.

0 Agree that becoming a success is not mainly a matter of
luck, but is dependent on hard work: pretest, 48%;
posttest, 58%.

Attitudes toward school. Incoming Academy students rated how well they
had liked school the previous year, and then at the end of this school year,

they rated how well they liked their year in the Academy.

0 Found school "usually" or “very" interesting/liked school "quite
a bit" or "very much“: pretest, 40%; posttest, 58%.

o The school personnel associated with the EFA estimated that 30%
of the students increased their interest in school and learning
this year, 7% decreased interest, and 63% showed no change.

Attitudes toward self. At the end of the school year, the students were
asked to estimate the change in their attitudes toward themselves, taking into

consideration confidence about their abilities in school and in making friends.

0 66% of the students said they felt "much better" or "a little
better" about themselves; 25% said there was no difference; and
8% said they felt "much worse“ about themselves after a year in
the Academy program.

0 Agree that they would like to be someone different from
themselves: pretest, 32%; posttest, 25%.

o The teachers estimated that about 39% of the students had
increased their self—confidence and esteem during their year in
the Academy; they could not estimate the percent who showed no
change or decreased in self—esteem.

Student ratings of the Academy program. On the year—end questionnaire,
students rated their contacts with the private sector, the Academy's equipment

and instructional materials, extra help received with schoolwork, and the

overall program.

0 Contacts with private sector. The students reported they had one
guest speaker and no field trips. The nine students who
remembered hearing a guest speaker rated the experience as
follows: Very helpful, 22%; Somewhat helpful, 44%; O.K., 22%;
Not very helpful, 11%.

21

0 Equipment and materials. Students rated the quality of equipment
in their business classroom and of the books, films, and other
instructional materials in their other Academy class(es).
Responses were as follows:

 

Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
Equipment 8% 42% 42% 8% —-
Materials 18% 36% 27% 18% -—

0 Extra help. An Academy should be designed to provide for special
individualized assistance for students with academic problems.

— At the end of the school year, 41% of the students reported
that they “always" or "usually" received the extra help they
needed; 17% said "sometimes," and 41% said they "occasionally"
or "never“ received this help.

— The students reported that the most frequent sources of extra
help were: the teacher of the class where the problem arose
(42%), another student or friend (42%), and parents (33%).

0 Overall rating of program. At the end of the school year,
students rated how well they liked the Academy compared to the
regular school program. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Much
Better and 5 = Much Worse, they gave an average rating of 2.64.
The ratings were distributed as follows:

 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Much Better Slightly Better Same Slightly Worse Much Horse
18% 18% 55% -— 9%

Comments on the student questionnaires indicated that many students were
uncertain as to what the Academy was about or whether they were actually in
such a program. One wrote "I don't have any Academy classes," and others
wrote, "They need to improve how the system is run," and "It was confusing.“
The students' positive experiences in EFA were mainly related to acquiring job

search skills and appropriate workplace behavior and skills (mentioned by 42%).
Responses to School Personnel Questionnaire
At the end of the school year, four teachers and the Academy Director

completed a questionnaire in which they commented on the program and rated

various aspects of its implementation.

22

The teachers gave positive ratings ("excellent" to "good") to the class—
room facilities, equipment, materials, and curriculum for the REA. They noted
that there was some interrelationship between the business and mathematics
classes, but that for the most part, the academic and business curricula were

not integrated.

Planning and management of the program were rated as "poor." The
respondents noted that the EPA Director was involved with other responsi-
bilities and was not close enough to the program's day—to—day problems. The
promise of an Academy structure, where students were scheduled into Academy-l
only classes and where teachers had time for cooperative planning, was never
kept. Orientation to the program's philosophy and inservice training were
rated as "poor," but the teachers noted that since most classes had mixed
enrollments of Academy and non—Academy students (and sometimes the teachers
were not sure which were which), it would have been difficult to implement

special teaching strategies in any event.

The teachers rated the school administrators as "supportive" of the
Academy, but the other teachers and school counselors as "non-supportive" or
even "hostile." They rated the program's efforts to provide individual
tutoring and extra help as only "fair," and the counseling for Academy

students as "inadequate," except for that given informally by the teachers.

The teachers found the Academy‘s criteria and procedures for selecting
students and its policy of not dropping unresponsive students unsatisfactory.
They noted that too many students with serious discipline problems had been
admitted, and they felt that this, combined with a policy of not dropping any
students unless they were dropped by the school for poor attendance, led to

disrupted classes and low morale.

The teachers were also critical of the components of the program that
were to have provided motivational contacts with the private sector. They
rated the cooperation of the local businesses as "somewhat effective," and
noted that the Academy staff did not often call upon them. Only one speaker

was scheduled and there were no field trips.

23

The school personnel said the primary problems or the EPA this year were:

0 Lack of cohesiveness, unity, or sense of purpose, due to absence
of a full program of academic and technical classes;

0 Lack of communication between program participants——teachers,
administration, school counselors, and parents;

0 A student selection process that resulted in an inappropriate
group.

Despite the incompleteness of the EFA program, the teachers found the following

positive aspects:

0 Small class size;

0 A business class that gave students a goal and good career
preparation.

Parent Participation and Reaction ~

According to the Academy teaching staff questionnaire responses, over
half of the parents were not interested in the program and the others were
only "somewhat supportive and interested.” The teachers noted that they had

not had much contact with the parents this year.

The parents of three Academy students completed a year—end evaluation
questionnaire. Two rated the EFA as "good" to "excellent" and the third gave
no rating. One parent said that his/her child was much more interested in
school and learning since joining the Academy, and the other two were "not
sure.“ However, all three felt their child made good progress in making
career plans for after high school. Two parents said they had been kept
"moderately well" informed both about their own child‘s progress and about the
Academy program itself; the third parent did not respond to these items.

These parents found the best feature of the program to be the job—related

business curriculum.

24

Responses to Private Sector Questionnaire

Two private sector supporters of the EPA responded to the year-end
evaluation questionnaire. They had participated by providing sample job
applications, holding mock job interviews, serving as the classroom speaker,
helping to design the business classroom, and serving on the advisory

committee.

Both respondents indicated that they felt the Academy's curriculum would
prepare students with skills needed by local businesses. They rated the guest
speaker program as "somewhat useful" and "not useful" and noted that they
hoped that the future would hold more in the way of field trips and staff

development for the Academy instructors.

The private sector respondents noted the following weaknesses in the

program:

0 The small size of the program (possibly the result of under-
funding) limited its effectiveness;

0 The policy of non—dismissal of problem students led to poor
motivation and to students not feeling accountable for their
behavior.

They commented that, theoretically, the strength of the program would be in
the mutual commitment of the school faculty and the community to teaching
practical work skills along with basic academic skills. No ratings of the

program's implementation were given.

Summagy

This program was plagued with problems. Students were confused about the
nature and even the existence of the program. The staff felt that most
students did not improve their interest in school, rated the planning and
management of the program as poor, felt that other teachers and counselors
were nonsupportive or hostile, criticized the non—block scheduling of the
students, felt that too many problem students were admitted to the program,

and were cool toward the private sector components of the program;

25

It is, therefore, not surprising that this general lack of a coherent
program failed to produce any beneficial effects on the outcome measures of
attendance, retention, credits earned, and GPA. Not only was the percent of
students retained (60%) low in comparison to other Academies, those who
remained in the program had a statistically significant lower rate of

attendance than during the previous year.

Clearly this program requires dramatic changes to succeed. It remains
for the school and district administrators to focus on the specific short—

comings identified in this evaluation;

0 Absence of block—scheduling of Academy students in the special
academic classes;

0 Lack of cohesiveness between Academy teachers, administration,
and students;

0 Near absence of contact between students and the business
community; '

0 Lack of support from other teachers and counselors at the school;

0 Infrequent and unstructured contact between Academy, staff, and
parents.

26

FRANKLIN FOOD SERVICES AND HOSPITALITY ACADEMY,
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN HIGH SCHOOL
(Stockton Unified School District, Stockton)

Description and Implementation

The Food Services and Hospitality Academy (FSHA) is housed at a large
comprehensive high school on the southern edge of the city of Stockton. The
area is semi-rural, and the school serves a largely loweincome community. 0f
the approximately 2100 students at Franklin High School, about one—third are
Hispanic, one—third are White, and one—third are other minorities, mainly

Blacks, Asians, and Pacific Islanders.

Thirty—six students entered the Academy in September 1985. Although
about half of the group were academically ninth graders (not having earned
enough credits last year), all but three were chronologically tenth graders.
A comparison group of 20 students was identified from among the pool of

eligible applicants to the program.

The Academy had one full—time teacher who taught a class in food service
and restaurant management. She was assisted by a 2/3-time aide, and there was
one teacher/administrator assigned one period daily to serve as the Academy
director. The students attended one double-period Academy class each
semester, and the rest of their classes were either in the school's regular
program or in the Franklin Attendance Review Board (FARE), which operates a
school—within—a—school for students with chronic attendance problems. The
Academy and FARB were closely associated administratively. The Academy foods
class was taught in a kitchen—laboratory classroom which was remodeled
especially for the FSHA, with industry input. For most of the year, the
students operated a restaurant, the A—l Cafe, where they served lunch and

snacks to Franklin students and faculty.
The main industry sponsors for the program were Ramada Inns, Stockton

Hilton Hotel, Holiday Inn, Bunn's Catering, Alder Market Catering, and

Giovannetti Catering. The catering companies were more involved than the

27

hotels this year, as the curriculum focused on food preparation and serving

and will not include hotel management and operations until next year.

Program Impact

Comparability of Academy and comparison students. The Academy's

recruitment and selection process identified about 70 students at Franklin who
were suitable for the Academy program. Forty were randomly selected to enter
the program, and the rest were assigned to the comparison group. By the time
school started in September, there were 36 Academy students and 20 comparison
students. The Academy group was 47% female, and the comparison 39% female.

The ethnic compositions of the two groups were:

Ethnicity Academy Comparison
White 39% . 33%
Hispanic 31% 50%
Black - 19% 6%
Asian 3% 6%
other minority 8% 6%

The following table shows the performance of the future Academy and comparison
group students during the 1984-85 school year, before the FSHA program began.

The differences between the groups were not statistically significant.

Attendance, Credits, and GPA, 1984—85 School Year
Academy and Comparison Students

 

% Days Number of
Group N Attended Credits Earned GPA
Academy 36 71.22% 33.79 1.15
Comparison 20 80.65% 36.25 1.37
Difference — 9.43 — 2.46 — .22

Enrollment and retention. The following graph shows the percent of
students retained in the Academy program, retained in school (including those
who dropped out of the Academy but remained in school), and the percent of

comparison students retained in school.

28

Retention Rates, 1985-86 School Year
Academy and Comparison Students

100%

 

 

0%
.Nmmmy: Ammmw: - Cbnmmfimx
Retained in Retained in Retained in
Academy School School

Attendance. The attendance rates for Academy students are compared to
the students' own attendance in ninth grade (1984—85) and to the attendance of

the comparison students this school year (1985-86).

Attendance
(Percent Days Attended)

 

School

1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985-86 Year

Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change

Academy 76.04% 73.78% 70.13% 78.11% + 2.07
N (23) (36) (25) ‘ (23)

Comparison 80.65% 87.22% 77.71% 82.46% + 1.81
N (20) (18) (16) (16)

Difference — 4.61 - 13.44 — 7.58 — 4.35 + .26

(The full 1985-86 school year average rate is higher than that for either
semester because it includes only those students present both semesters. See

Technical Notes at the end of this report.)

29

Credits. Here again, comparisons are made between the credits earned by

the Academy students last year and this, and by the Academy and comparison

students this year. The typical student at Franklin High School must earn

60 credits per year to stay on track for graduation.

Credits
(Average Number of Credits)

 

School
1984-85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985-86 Year

Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change

Academy 36.60 23.10 27.87 52.10 + 15.50
N (25) (29) (27) (25)

Comparison 36.25 ' 22.19 16.84 40.25 + 4.00
N (20) (16) (19) (16)

+ 11.50*

Difference + .35 + .91 + 11.03 + 11.85

Grades. Again, the grades of Academy students last year and this are

compared, as well as those of the Academy and comparison students this year.

Grades
(Average GPA)

 

School
1984-85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year
Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
Academy 1.26 1.70 1.73 1.76 '+ .50
N (25) . (29) (27) (25)
Comparison 1.37 1.59 1.36 1.54 + .17
N (20) (16) (19) (16)
Difference — .11 + .11 + .37 + .22 + .33

Responses to Student Questionnaire

A comparison of student responses to the incoming and year—end student

questionnaires provides an indication of the influence of the Academy on

career planning, attitudes toward school, and self—esteem. These responses

 

* Significant at the .01 level.

30

are reported in this section, along with the students' ratings of some of the

Academy's specific components and of the overall program.

Career planning. Four questionnaire items measured the students'

progress in making career plans:

0 Have a definite plan for what to do the first two years after
high school graduation: pretest, 22%; posttest, 24%.

0 Have a long—term career goal: pretest, 67%; posttest, 60%.

0 Agree that it is important to gain job skills while in high
school: pretest, 96%; posttest, 95%.

0 Agree that becoming a success is not mainly a matter of luck, but
is dependent on hard work: pretest, 75%; posttest, 80%.

Attitudes toward school. Incoming Academy students rated how well they
had liked school the previous year, and then at the end of this school year,

they rated how well they liked their year in the Academy.

0 Found school ”usually" or "very" interesting/liked school "quite
a bit" or "very much": pretest, 13%; posttest, 62%.

o The school personnel who completed a questionnaire estimated that
70% of the Academy students increased their interest in school
and learning this year, 11% showed decreased interest, and 19%
showed no change. ’

Attitudes toward self. At the end of the school year, the students-were
asked to estimate the change in their attitudes toward themselves, taking into
consideration confidence about their abilities to make friends and to succeed

in school.

0 75% of the students said they felt "much better" or "a little
better" about themselves; 5% said they felt worse; 20% said there
was no difference.

0 Agree that they would like to be someone different from
themselves: pretest, 35%; posttest, 30%.

o The school personnel estimated that 78% of the students had

increased their self—confidence and esteem, 7% had decreased, and
the rest had shown no change.

31

Student ratings of the Academy program. On the year—end questionnaire,

students rated their contacts with the private sector, the Academy's equipment

and instructional materials, extra help received with schoolwork, and the

overall

Guest

Field

program.

Contacts with private sector. The students reported an average
of 11 guest speakers and l or 2 field trips this school year.
They rated these experiences as follows:

 

Very Somewhat Not Very A Waste

Helpful Helpful OK Helpful of Time
speakers 40% 30% 25% —- ——
trips 24% 47% 29% -— ——

Equipment and materials. Students rated the quality of the
equipment in their Academy kitchen/laboratory classroom and of
the books, films, and other instructional materials. Their
ratings were as follows:

 

Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
Equipment 33% 24% 33% 10% ——
Materials 20% 40% 35% 5% -—

Extra help. An Academy should be structured to provide special
individualized assistance for students with academic problems.

The students were asked the extent to which this had been true

for them.

— At the end of the school year, 55% of the students reported
that they "always" or "usually“ received the extra help they
needed; 15% said "sometimes," and 30% said they "occasionally"
or "never" received this help.

— The students reported that the most frequent sources of extra
help were: the teacher of the class where the problem arose
(43%), parents (33%), another student (29%), and another
Academy teacher (29%).

Overall rating of program. At the end of the school year,
students rated how well they liked the Academy compared to the
regular school program. On a scale of 1 to 5, where l = Much
Better and 5 = Much Worse, they gave an average rating of 1.57.
The ratings were distributed as follows:

32

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Much Better Slightly Better Same Slightly Worse Much Worse

57% 29% 14% —— ~—

The main complaint the students expressed about the Academy was that the space
for the kitchen—classroom—restaurant was too small and crowded, a problem that
was mentioned by 24% of the students. They reported that the things they
liked best about the Academy program were learning to prepare new kinds of
food (38%), working in the Academy restaurant, and generally improving in
school (14%). '

Responses to School Personnel Questionnaire

At the end of the school year, two teachers from the regular school
program, a counselor, the career center coordinator, and the principal of
Franklin High completed questionnaires in which they commented on the program
and rated various aspects of its implementation. Their responses are

summarized in this section.

The food services equipment, instructional materials, facilities, and
curriculum were rated as "good," but it was noted that more input from the
private sector would be desirable regarding course content. Cooperation and
interactions with the private sector were called "somewhat" effective by four

of the five respondents.

The Academy's planning and management were also rated as "good," and the
school administrators were rated as “very supportive" of the program. The
respondents noted that the non-Academy teachers and counselors were "somewhat"
supportive, and that more effort needs to be made to inform the faculty of the

goals and strategies of the FSHA.

According to the respondents, the weakest aspects of the Academy program

this year were:

0 Lack of an integrated core curriculum that included mathematics,
English, and special tutoring among the Academy offerings;

33

o Cramped space for the foods classroom/restaurant.

The strengths of the program were the personal attention for the students and

the high quality and commitment of those associated with the Academy.

On a scale where l = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the school personnel
rated the Academy as follows:
Academy concept:

Implementation at FSHA: 5.6

Parent Participation and Reaction

According to the principal, counselor, and one teacher who responded to
the school personnel questionnaire, the parents of Academy students were

“somewhat" supportive and interested in the Academy.

The parents of four Academy students completed an evaluation form at the
end of the school year. Three of them rated the FSHA as "excellent" and said
their children had become “much" or "a little" more interested in school since
joining the Academy. (The fourth parent was not sure or did not know how to
respond to these items.) Two parents commented that the renewed interest in
school applied only to the Academy class, not to the regular school program.
Two also responded that their child was making good progress in planning for a
future career or education, but one said this was not the case, and one didn't
know. Three parents said they had been kept “very well" informed by the
Academy staff about their child's performance in school; they had been kept

"very" to "moderately" well informed about Academy activities.

The parents said that the main weakness of the program was that it did
not include classes in English, math, or history, and they suggested that it
should be expanded to do so. They also suggested that the Academy set up a

system for receiving suggestions from parents and students.
The parents said that the best features of the program were the encourage-

ment from the foods teacher, who awakened the students' interest, promoted

self-assurance, and helped students "find their identity and confidence."

34

Responses to Private Sector Questionnaire

Four employees, representing four private sector supporters in the
catering business, responded to the evaluation questionnaire. They had been
involved this year as classroom speakers/demonstrators, field trip hosts, and
members of the advisory board. Some of their responses to the questionnaire

are summarized here.

0 Ratings of field trips and guest speaker program. 75% rated the
field trips and guest speaker program as "highly useful“; 25%
rated the speakers as "somewhat" useful.

0 Curriculum. One respondent said the curriculum would provide
students with the skills needed by local private business; one
said that it was "only a start," and the other two respondents
were not knowledgeable about the curriculum.

0 Attitudes and communications. None of the respondents had
experienced a change of attitude toward the public schools as a
result of involvement with the program. They rated the quality
of communications between the Academy staff and the private
sector supporters as ”average" and commented that the advisory
board had gotten off to a late, mid—year start and had not met
frequently enough.

0 Program weaknesses. The respondents noted that the Academy needs
more involvement with business, more integration of the technical
class with the academic classes, and a larger classroom space.

0 Program strengths. The strong points of the FSHA were identified
as the effective food services teacher and the interest of the
business community.

On a scale where 1 = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the private sector
respondents rated the Academy as follows:
Academy concept: 6.0
Implementation at FSHA: 5.3

35

Summary

The Academy model was only partially implemented at Franklin High this
year. The one Academy class was taught with the individualized, supportive
approach recommended by the model, but a true Academy depends on a full aca-
demic and technical program to build an integrated, effective school—within—a
school. The same two weaknesses of the Academy were pointed out by each of

the groups responding to the evaluation questionnaires. They were:

0 Absence of an academic component—-Eng1ish, math, or science
classes to augment and reinforce the technical class;

0 Insufficient space in the "lab" classroom/kitchen.

The students who participated in this program gave it generally favorable
ratings, as did the staff members who assessed it. But it had little effect
on the students' career planning or on the outcomes of retention, attendance,
and GPA. It did appear to have favorably affected the number of credits
earned where the Academy students substantially outstripped the comparison

group.

36

EAST SIDE ELECTRONICS ACADEHIES, INDEPENDENCE HIGH SCHOOL
(East Side Union High School District, San Jose)

Description and Implementation

The Academy at Independence High School is one of the two operated by the
East Side District, which is located on the edge of the city of San Jose.
Independence serves a multi—ethnic, middle class community. The student
population is about 40% Hispanic, 30% White, 8% Black, and 22% Asian and other
minorities. The school accommodates 4,000 students in four semi—autonomous

"villas," each of which has its own principal.

The East Side Electronics Academies (ESEA) program is the largest of the
Academy replications and the only one to start with ninth instead of tenth
graders (a four-year program is planned). At Independence, 118 students
enrolled in the Academy in September 1985. Because of the large size of this
class, no new students will enter the ESEA until the 1987—88 school year. No
comparison group was identified because nearly all eligible and interested

students at Independence were enrolled in the ESEA.

The goal of the ESEA is to prepare students for entry—level careers in
electronics technology, assembly, and other areas of electronics and computer
manufacture. The program was centrally coordinated at the district level,
where the ESEA director and industry liaison coordinator were located. At
Independence, there were four full—time Academy teachers, each of whom taught
four classes and had two preparation periods. Another teacher was assigned
two periods to serve as Academy counselor and department chair. All the
students took Academy mathematics, science, English, and electronics each
semester, plus their regular program classes. The ESEA academic classrooms
were located around a small patio, and the electronics laborabory was in an

adjacent building.

The ESEA had numerous sponsoring companies, the most active of which were
IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Versatec, Heasurex, Altos Computer Systems, Activision,
and Advanced Micro Devices. A cooperative business—school operating committee

met monthly, and a curriculum advisory group worked with the teachers. The

37

sponsoring industries donated furniture and electronics equipment, but their

major contribution was employee time.

Program Impact

Student profile. Forty percent of the entering students were female.

The ethnic composition of the group was:

Ethnicity Academy
White 36%
Hispanic 40%
Black 10%
Asian 10%
other minority 3%

The following table shows the performance of the future Academy students

during the 1984-85 school year, when they were in eighth grade.

Credits and GPA, 1984—85 School Year'

 

(N=98)
Estimated
Credits garned* cpg_
57.76 2.59

(*Credits were reported for one semester only; this figure represents double
the reported credits.)

Enrollment and retention. The following graph shows the percent of
students retained in the Academy program and the percent who were retained in

school, including those who dropped out of the program during the year.

38

Retention Rates, 1985-86 School Year .
Academy Students

100%

95% 95%

 

0%

 

 

Attendance. Attendance data on the Academy students for the 1984—85
school year were not reported because it was not possible to collect
comparable data from the ten junior high schools, located in three different
school districts, from which the Academy students came. Therefore (and in the
absence of a comparison group), there is no standard by which to gauge whether
or not the ESEA made an impact on student attendance. The attendance rates

for the 1985—86 school year were as follows:

 

Attendance
(Percent Days Attended)
(N=109)
Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86
Semester Semester School Year
96.07% 91.93% 94.02%

Credits. Comparisons are made between the credits earned by the Academy
students last year and this, and between credits earned during fall and spring
semesters this year. It should be kept in mind that the comparison between
achievement in junior high and senior high school may not be a valid one and

may tend to undervalue high school achievement.

39

Credits .
(Average NUmber of Credits)

 

School

1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year
School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
57.76* 28.51 26.80 56.79 - .97*'

N (98) (111) (111) (98)

(*Credits were reported for one semester only; this figure represents double
the reported credits.)

Grades. Again, comparisons are made between the grades of the Academy
students last year and this, and between their grades in the fall and spring

semesters of this school year.

Grades
(Average GPA)

 

School

1984-85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985-86 Year
School Year Semester Semester School Year‘ Change
2.60 2.25 2.16 2.20 — .40*

N (96) (111) (111) (96)

Responses to Student Questionnaire

A comparison of student responses to the incoming and year—end student
questionnaires provides an indication of the influence of the Academy on'
career planning, attitudes toward school, and self—esteem. These responses
are reported in this section, along with the students' ratings of some of the

Academy's specific components and of the overall program.

Career planning. Four questionnaire items measured the students'

progress in making career plans. A summary of responses follows:

0 Have a definite plan for what to do the first two years after
high school graduation: pretest, 38%; posttest, 19%.

0 Have a long—term career goal: pretest, 72%; posttest, 58%.

 

* Significant at the .01 level.

40

0 Agree that it is important to gain job skills while in high
school: pretest, 95%; posttest, 99%.

0 Agree that becoming a success is not mainly a matter of luck,
but is dependent on hard work: pretest, 88%; posttest, 78%.

Attitudes toward school. Incoming Academy students rated how well they

 

had liked school the previous year, and then at the end of this school year,

they rated how well they liked their year in the Academy.

0 Found school "usually" or "very" interesting/liked school "quite
a bit“ or "very much": pretest, 36%; posttest, 67%.

o The teaching staff estimated that about 57% of the students
increased their interest in school and learning this year, 9% had
decreased interest, and 34% showed no change.

Attitudes toward self. At the end of the school year, the students were
asked to estimate the change in their attitudes toward themselves, taking into

consideration confidence about their abilities in school and in making friends.

0 80% of the students said they felt "much better" or "a little
better" about themselves; 2% said they felt "much worse"; and 18%
said they felt no differently.

0 Agree that they would like to be someone different from
themselves: pretest, 33%; posttest, 34%.

o The teaching staff estimated that 54% of the students had
increased their self—confidence and esteem, and the remaining 38%
had shown no change.

student ratings of the Academy program. On the year—end questionnaire,
students rated their contacts with the private sector, the Academy's equipment
and instructional materials, extra help received with schoolwork, and the

overall program.

0 Contacts with private sector. The students reported an average
of 12 guest speakers and 8 or 9 field trips to local companies
this school year. They rated these experiences as follows:

 

Very Somewhat Not Very A Waste

Helpful Helpful OK Helpful of Time
Guest speakers 38% 46% 17% -— ——
Field trips 48% 33% 18% 1% .» —-

41

0 Equipment and materials. Students rated the quality of the

, equipment in their electronics laboratory classroom and of the
books, kits, films, and other instructional materials in their
academic and technical classrooms. Responses were as follows:

 

gxcellent Good Average Poor Terrible
Equipment 24% 61% 13% 13% 2%
Materials 34% 54% 10% 2%. ——

0 Extra help. An Academy should be designed to provide for special
individualized assistance for students with academic problems.

At the end of the school year, 43% of the students reported that
they "always“ or "usually" received the extra help they needed;
34% said "sometimes," and 23% said they "occasionally” or "never"
received this help.

The students reported that their most frequent sources of extra
help were: another student or friend (59%), the teacher of the
class where the problem arose (57%), parents (57%), and another
Academy teacher (18%).

0 Overall rating of program. At the end of the school year,
students rated how well they liked the Academy compared to the
regular school program. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Much
Better and 5 = Much Worse, they gave an average rating of 1.49,
The ratings were distributed as follows:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Much Better Slightly Better Same Slightly Worse Much Worse

64% 24% 11% 1% ——

The main problems students reported having during their year in the Academy
involved poor study habits and poor grades (18%) and difficulties getting used
to the Academy schedule and structure (15%). Their best experiences were the
field trips and guest speakers (33%), learning more and getting better grades
(18%), experiencing personal growth in the area of self-confidence and social

relationships (17%), and learning electronics (15%).
Responses to School Personnel Questionnaire
At the end of the school year, ten people completed the school personnel

questionnaire-—the four Academy teachers, the Academy counselor/department

chair, two non—Academy teachers, one school counselor, one instructional aide,

42

and the associate principal. They commented on the program and rated various

aspects of its implementation. Their responses are summarized here.

The classroom facilities were rated as "excellent," and the equipment as
"good," although a need was noted for a larger and better equipped science
laboratory and more sophisticated electronics equipment and computer
software. The respondents rated the curriculum, technical and academic, as
"good" to "excellent," but all agreed that few units were integrated and that
curriculum development work was needed. Opinion was divided on whether
students received the extra help and tutoring they needed, but there was

agreement that the counseling program was "excellent."

The school personnel rated the planning and management of the ESEA as
"good," or about "average" for a new program. However, they noted that there
had been no staff orientation to the Academy philosophy nor opportunity to
work on motivational strategies. The communications between the district and
the school ESEA staff also needed improvement. The teachers were satisfied
with the Academy's student selection procedures, but not with the procedures

for dropping students from the program.

The involvement and cooperation of the private sector were rated as
"effective" and the field trips, speakers, and other aspects of the career

information component were rated as "very useful" by all the respondents.

There was no consensus among these respondents regarding the major
problems of the Independence Academy this year. A variety of concerns were
raised, including the lack of an integrated academic-technical curriculum, not
enough tutoring, and not having social studies as part of the program. The
strengths of the program were seen as: the four—period block schedule which
allowed for flexibility in curriculum and scheduling, the enthusiasm of most

of the students, and the commitment and cooperation of the teachers.

On a scale where 1 = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the staff rated the
Academy as follows:
Academy concept: 6.63

Implementation at
ESEA, Independence: 5.50

43

Parent Participation and Reaction

According to the Independence school personnel, most parents of Academy
students were "very supportive" and interested in the program. Teachers felt

they had an "open dialogue" with the parents, which worked well.

The parents of 43 Academy students completed an evaluation form at the
end of the school year. Forty—two percent rated the program as "excellent,"
49% as "good," 5% as "average," and 5% did not know. Seventy—four percent
said they had noted a change in their child's attitude toward school during
the year, and all of these said the child was "much" or "a little more
interested" in school than before. Regarding career planning, 58% of the
parents said their child was making good progress and 16% said this was not
the case. The rest were not sure. The parents were very pleased with the
extent of information they received from the Academy staff. Ninety—three
percent said they were "very well" or "moderately well" informed about their
own child's progress (and 7% responded "poorly" or "not at all"), and 97% were

"very" or "moderately“ well informed about the Academy's special activities.

Indicative of their interest in the program, this group of parents had a

number of suggestions and comments to make. Among them were:

0 Arrange for more frequent progress reports and parent
conferences, especially for the average student who is not having
problems; '

0 Include more study time and extra tutoring;

0 Consider rotating the teaching staff, so that students don't have
the same four teachers for four years;

0 Work on improving the reputation of the ESEA on campus, so that
students are not labeled as remedial or potential dropouts.

The aspects of the Academy that the parents liked best were: the small-school
environment where teachers and students know and help one another and where
creativity is fostered through personalized instruction (47%); the practical,
career focus, including the field trips and speakers, and eventual summer jobs
(30%).

44

Responses to Private Sector Questionnaire

The private Sector Questionnaire was completed by 13 individuals from six
different supporting companies (Altos Computer Systems, Hewlett—Packard, IBM,
Advanced Micro Devices, Heasurex, and Versatec). Their involvement included
serving on the steering committee; coordinating tours; providing guest speak—
ers; donating equipment, materials, and furniture; advising on curriculum;
providing opportunities for teachers to "shadow" employees during the summer;
providing staff development training for teachers; recruiting mentors for the
1986—87 school year; designing and printing a brochure for the ESEA; and

loaning rooms for meetings.

The private sector respondents rated and reacted to various components of
the ESEA both at Independence and Silver Creek High Schools and rated the

overall program. Their responses are summarized here.

0 Ratings of field trips and guest speaker program. The field
trips were rated as "highly useful" and the school presentations
as "somewhat" to “highly“ useful.

0 Curriculum. All the respondents said that they believed that the
curriculum of the ESEA would provide students with the skills
needed by local busineses, but they qualified this response by
noting that the curriculum is still developing and that most
students will need some postsecondary training to meet industry's
changing needs in the field of electronics.

0 Communications. School—business communications were rated as
"good" to "excellent." These respondents would like to continue
to receive feedback on what the schools need from industry,
including which classroom materials were most useful and well
received. They would also like to receive letters directly from
students and teachers regarding the students' performance.

According to these company supporters, the main weaknesses of the ESEA
were that the program attempted to serve too many students, that more
resources were needed, and more personal contacts were needed from industry.
They also noted that strategies should be developed to motivate the low-
achieving students and build esprit de corps among teachers and students.
They named as the program's strengths the dedicated staff at all levels, the
good working relationship with industry, and motivation for students that

comes from tying in schoolwork with "real life."

45

On a scale where 1 = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the private sector

representatives rated the ESEA (at Silver creek as well as Independence) as

follows:
Academy concept: 5.8
Implementation at ESEA: 5.2
Summary

The ESEA followed the Academy model closely in terms of class schedule,
teacher release time, and industry involvement. It differed sharply from the
model in its large size and in serving ninth instead of tenth graders in the

first year. The main shortcomings of the ESEA at Independence were:

0 The large number of students led to difficulties for industry in
supplying needed resources;

0 Not enough extra help and tutoring for students;

0 Need for more integration of academic and technical.curriculum.

The impact of the program on student performance was difficult to measure
because the pre—treatment data were from the junior high school system, which
may have different standards from the high school. The Independence ESEA
students earned statistically significant fewer credits and lower grades than
they did in eighth grade. There was a high retention rate in the Academy and
also a high daily attendance rate that compared favorably with the other
Academy replications. (See Chapter II.) The students earned enough credits

to stay on track for graduation.

Despite the active program of guest speakers, field trips, and other
contacts with industry, the Academy students did not show improvement in
career planning. This may be because the incoming students had unrealistic
career goals (one student wrote on the pretest that her goal was to become a
"long—haul truck driver, doctor, or veterinarian"), which they reevaluated
during this year of exposure to the real working world and serious career

planning.

46

The commitment and cooperation of the ESEA Independence staff and their
good communications with parents brought about a positive, small—school
atmosphere in the Academy. The result was an improvement in the students'

attitudes toward school and self.

47

COHPUTECH ACADEMY, MOUNTAIN VIEW HIGH SCHOOL

(Mountain VieweLos Altos Union High School District, Mountain View)
Description and Implementation

The Computech Academy is located in a large suburban high school and
draws on students from the two comprehensive high schools in the district.

Minority students make up about 26% of the district's student population.

The Academy's career emphasis is on computer operations and repair, and
it admitted 26 tenth graders in September 1985. No comparison group was

identified.

Computech students were block scheduled into their four Academy courses
(students took an average of 3.8 Academy classes each semester), which were
taught by the following staff: a 2/S-time math and science teacher, a
1/4-time English teacher, and a 2/5—time computer literacy teacher who also
acted as program coordinator. All four Academy classes were held in the same
room. There was no extra release period for teachers beyond their regular

preparation period, due largely to the parttime status of the Academy teachers.

Private sector cooperation was coordinated through the Stanford
Mid—Peninsula Urban Coalition, one of the originators of the Peninsula
Academies program. Among the industries supporting the Computech Academy were
Hewlett-Packard Company; Lockheed Missiles and Space Company; Coherent, Inc.;

Raytheon, Inc.; Tamtron; and GTE Government Systems.

Program Impact

Studentgprofile. Twenty—three percent of the entering sophomore
Computech class was female; 69% of the students were White, 19% Black, 8%

Hispanic, and 4% were Asian.

The following table shows the performance of the future Academy students

in the 1984—85 school year, before the Computech Academy began.

48

Attendance, Credits, and Grades, 1984—83 school Year

 

(N = 27)
% Days Number of
Attended Credits Earned GPA
95.17% 38.43 1.67

Enrollment and retention. The following figure shows the percent of
students retained in the Academy program this year and the percent who were

retained in school, including those who dropped out of the Academy.

Retention Rates, 1985-86 School Year
Academy Students

100%

78%

 

 

mwmmdm_ Rmfimfiha
Aafimmy Sdunl

Attendance. The attendance rates for Academy students are compared to

their own attendance in ninth grade (1984—85) in the table that follows.

Attendance
(Percent Days Attended)

 

School

1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year
School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
96.17% 96.01% 96.13% 96.08% - .09

N (18) (18) (18) (18)

49

Credits. Here again, comparisons are made between the credits earned by
the Academy students last year and this. The typical student at Mountain View

High must earn 52 to 54 credits per year to stay on track for graduation.

Credits
(Average Number of Earned)

 

School

1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985-86 Year
School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
43.72 27.64 25.97 53.61 + 9.89*

N (18) (18) (18) (18)

Grades. Again, the grades of Academy students last year and this are

 

compared.
Grades
(Average GPA)

School

1984-85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year

School Year Semester Semester School Year Change

1.79 2.97 2.66 2.86 + 1.07*

N (16) (18) (18) (16)

Responses to Student Questionnaire

A comparison of student responses to the incoming and year-end student
questionnaires provides an indication of the influence of the Academy on
career planning, attitudes toward school, and self—esteem. Unfortunately, due
to a clerical error, only half of the student post—program questionnaire was
administered at Computech. Nevertheless, some of the student's responses are
reported in this section, including their ratings of some of the components of

the program. Their rating of the overall program is missing.

 

* Significant at the .01 level.

50

Career planning. Two items were completed that measured student progress

 

in career planning:

0 «Have a definite plan for what to do the first two years after
high school graduation: pretest, 18%; posttest, 44%.

0 Have a long-term career goal: pretest, 52%; posttest, 56%.

Attitudes toward school. Unfortunately, the post—prOgram questionnaire
items dealing with attitude toward school were not administered. On the
pretest, 49% said they liked school "very little" or "not very much" the
previous year, and only 22% said they liked school "quite a bit." The three
school personnel who completed the year—end evaluation questionnaire estimated
that about 85% of the Academy students increased their interest in school and

learning this year, and the rest showed no change.

Attitudes toward self. The relevant post—program questionnaire items
were not administered. The school personnel estimated that about 65% of the
students increased their self—esteem through the influence Of the Academy, 5%

decreased in self—esteem, and the rest showed no change.

Student ratings of the Academy program. On the year-end questionnaire,
students were to have rated contacts with the private sector, equipment,
materials, and facilities of the Academy, and the overall Academy program.
However, only the questionnaire items regarding guest speakers were

administered.

0 Guest speakers. Students reported hearing an average of 7 or 8
guest speakers during the school year. They rated the helpfulness
of the speakers as follows:

 

Very Somewhat Not Very A Waste
Helpful Helpful OK Helpful of Time
56% 28% 11% -— 6%

Responses to School Personnel Questionnaire

Two Computech teachers and one school administrator completed the year—

end questionnaire on the program, rating various aspects of its implementation.

51

They rated the facilities and equipment as "average" to "good," but noted that
more microcomputers and more space were needed. Instructional materials were
rated as "good" to "excellent," as was the curriculum. They noted that the
philosophy of the program was reinforced in all the classes, but that more work

was needed to develop a truly integrated academic and technical curriculum.

The respondents were most concerned about the management of the program,
which they said suffered because of lack of time for effective planning. They
also noted that the school administration was not strongly supportive of the
program, and that the Academy did not receive much help this year from the
private sector, either. (Private sector interaction and cooperation was rated
as "somewhat effective" by one respondent, "not very effective" by another,
and the third did not comment.)

The Computech efforts at providing individual tutoring were considered
satisfactory, as was the counseling program. The respondents also approved of
the current criteria and procedures for selecting students and for dropping
those who are not responsive. (The policy at Computech was not to drop any

students from the program unless they requested to leave it.)

The school personnel mentioned the following as the main weakness of

Computech:

0 Absence of the extra preparation period needed for effective
planning by teachers;

9 Insufficient support and assistance at the management level;
0 Insufficient industry involvement.
The strengths of the program were the high quality teachers, their

cooperation with one another, and the esprit de corps that developed among the

students.

Using a scale where 1 = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the school
personnel rated the Academy as follows:
Academy concept: 5.33
Implementation at Computech: 4.67

52

Parent Participation and Reaction

According to the Academy teachers, about 75% of the parents were very
supportive of the program, 10% showed no interest at all, and the rest were in

between.

The parents of two Computech students completed an evaluation form. They
rated the program as "excellent," and both noted that their children had become
"much more interested in school" since joining the program. One also said the
student had made progress in planning for the future, but the other was not
sure. Both parents said they had been kept "moderately well" informed about
their children's school performance and about the Academy activities. They
mentioned no problem areas, and noted that the best features of the program
were that it motivated an interest in learning, and that students were allowed

to work at their own pace, which built self-confidence.
Responses to Private Sector Questionnaire

One private sector representative from Coherent, Inc., and the Director
of Educational Programs at the Stanford Hid-Peninsula Urban Coalition who
coordinated private sector involvement for Computech, completed the end—of-year
questionnaire. The private sector employee had served as a member of the
curriculum advisory committee, and Coherent had provided microcomputer equip—
ment to the Academy. The comments of these two respondents are summarized

here.

0 Private sector involvement at classroom level. This year most
interaction was through the Urban Coalition; next year, when the
mentor program begins, there will be more contact with the school.
The field trips and guest speakers this year were rated as
"highly useful."

0 Curriculum. The private sector provided input on the curriculum,
but these respondents felt the program was too new to judge its
effectiveness. One noted that the Academy approach was to
concentrate first on basic skills, and later on technical skills.

0 Program weaknesses were named as: lack of involvement on the

part of the school administrators; insufficient support at the
district level; a technical curriculum has not yet been

53

developed; teachers did not have sufficient planning time;
uncertain industry support.

0 The greatest strengths of the Academy program were the rapport
between the students and the teachers that resulted from small
class size, block scheduling, and the commitment of the teachers.

On a scale where 1 = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the two respondents
representing the private sector rated the Academy as follows:
Academy concept: 6.0

Implementation at Computech: 5.0
Summar

The Computech Academy followed the Academy model closely, with the
exception of providing teachers an additional preparation period, a feature
made difficult by their parttime status. The main shortcomings of the program

were i

0 Insufficient time for teachers to coordinate their activities;
0 Uncertainty about level of administrative and industry support;
0 A shortage of microcomputers in the classroom;

0 Under—developed technical curriculum.

The impact of the program was difficult to measure, given the small
number of students, and the absence of a comparison group and of student»
post—treatment questionnaire data. Attrition from the program, due mainly to
students moving away or requesting to transfer out of the Academy, was quite
high compared to the other Academy replication sites (see Chapter II).
Students"attendance was good, although it was not significantly different
from their pre—Academy attendance. The students did make impressive gains in
the number of credits earned and GPA. The Academy had an active guest speaker

program, and the students appeared to have made gains in their career planning.
These results are encouraging, but any firm conclusions will have to

await a future evaluation with more participants, a comparison group, and the

collection of full pre- post-questionnaire data.

54

THE HEALTH ACADEMY, OAKLAND TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL
(Oakland Unified School District, Oakland)

Description and Implementation

The Health Academy (HA) is located at Oakland Technical High School, a
recently remodeled inner—city school with approximately 1550 students. Over
96% of the students are from minority groups, and most come from loweincome

families.

Forty—one students were admitted to the program in September 1985. Seven
of these students were high—achieving students interested in health careers,
who were selected to serve as "academic mentors" or role models to the remain—
ing 34 Academy students, who were "at risk" academically. A comparison group
of 41 students was also identified on the basis of counselor recommendations

and standardized test scores.

The Academy focus is on health science skills, including personal health
education, first aid, and CPR, leading to careers in medical and laboratory
technology, nursing, and emergency health services. All the students, except
for the "academic mentors," took four Academy classes each semester. The
staff consisted of one full—time English teacher, who also served as program
director, and three parttime teachers who taught mathematics, science, and the
health laboratory. Renovations were begun on a large classroom to serve as
the Academy laboratory classroom, but the room was not completed for occupancy

during the school year, so that the HA had no "headquarters" or central office.

The HA's major sponsors from the community included Herritt-Peralta
Hospital, the Children's Hospital Medical Center, Oakland Kaiser Permanente
Medical Center, Alta Bates Hospital, and the University of California Cowell

Hospital.

Program Impact

Comparability of Academy and commarison students. The Academy student

body, including the group of "academic mentors," was 66% female, and the

SS

comparison group was 63% female. The ethnic compositions of the two groups

were:
Ethnicity Academy Comparison
White 12% 0
Hispanic 0 2%
Black 68% 84%
Asian 17% 0
other minority 2% 2%
Unknown 0 12%

The following table shows the performance of the future Academy and comparison
grOup students during the 1984—85 school year, before the HA program began.
The designation "Academy A" refers to the entire group of Academy students,

including the "academic mentors," and "Academy B" excludes these students.

Attendance, Credits, and GPA, 1984—85 School Year
Academy and Comparison Students

 

% Days Number of
Group/N Attended Credits Earned ‘ GPA
Academy A 91.00% 5.48 2.01
N (22) (41) (41)
Academy B 91.00% 5.37 1.75
N (22) (34) (34)
Comparison 93.04% 5.55 2.11
N (23) (38) (38)

There were no significant differences between the comparison students and the
Academy A group including student "mentors." Without these good students,
however, the Academy B group's average GPA was significantly lower than that
of the comparison group (p < .01) Preliminary analyses of program impact
showed no significant differences between the achievement of the Academy
students in 1985—86 with and without the "academic mentors." Therefore, in
the analyses that follow, all the comparisons are made using the entire

Academy group.

Enrollment and retention. The following figure shows the percent of

students retained in the Academy program, retained in school (including those

56

who dropped out of the Academy but remained in school), and the percent of

"comparison students retained in school.

Retention Rates, 1985-86 School Year
Academy and Comparison Students

 

  

 

 

100%
95%
93%
0% , ,_ ., M
Academy Academy: Comparison:
Retained 1n Retained in Retained in
Academy School School V
A2322Q§222~

The attendance rates for Academy students are compared to

the students' own attendance in ninth grade (1984—85) and to the attendance of
the comparison students this school year (1985—86).

Attendance
(Percent Days Attended)

 

School
1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year
Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
Academy 91.58% 95.98% 96.39%? 96.45% + 4.87
N (19) (41) (40) (38)
Comparison 93.04% 90.51% 82.19% 87.29% - 5.75
N (23) (37) (35) (34)
Difference - 1.46 + 5.47 + 14.20 + 9.16 + 10.62*
Credits.

Here again, comparisons are made between the credits earned by

the Academy students last year and this, and by the Academy and comparison

 

I

* Significant at the .01 level.

57

students this year. The typical student at Oakland Technical High must earn

5 credits per year to stay on track for graduation.

Credits
(Average Number of Credits)

 

School
1984-85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 _ 1985-86 Year
Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
Academy 5.47 3.23 3.23 6.50 + 1.03
N (31) (39) (40) (38)
Comparison 5.55 1.74 1.67 3.49 — 2.06
N (38) (38) (35) (35)
Difference - .08 + 1.49 + 1.56 + 3.01 + 3.09*

Grades. Again, the grades of Academy students last year and this are

compared, as well as those of the Academy and comparison students this year.

Grades
(Average GPA)

 

School
1984-85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985-86 Year
Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
Academy 1.81 2.36 2.44 2.40 + .59
N (31) _ (39) (40) (38)
Comparison 2.11 1.00 0.97 1.01 4 1.10
N (38) (38) (35) (35)
Difference — .30 + 1.36 + 1.47 + 1.39 + 1.69*

Responses to Student Questionnaire

A comparison of student responses to the incoming and year—end student
questionnaires provides an indication of the influence of the Academy on
career planning, attitudes toward school, and self—esteem. These responses
are reported in this section, along with the students' ratings of some of the

Academy's specific components and of the overall program.

 

* Significant at the .01 level.

58

Career planning. Four questionnaire items measured the students'
progress in career planning. Their responses were as follows:

0 Have a definite plan for what to do the first two years after
high school graduation: pretest, 48%; posttest, 36%.

0 Have a long—term career goal: pretest, 85%; posttest, 71%.

0 Agree that it is important to gain job skills while in high
school: pretest, 96%; posttest, 96%.

0 Agree that becoming a success is not mainly a matter of luck, but
is dependent on hard work: pretest, 88%; posttest, 76%.

Attitudes toward school. Incoming Academy students rated how well they
had liked school the previous year, and then at the end of this school year,

they rated how well they liked their year in the Academy.

0 Found school "usually" or "very" interesting/liked school "quite
a bit" or "very much": fpretest, 56%; posttest, 92%.

o The school personnel estimated that 86% of the Academy students
showed increased interest in school and learning this year, and
the remaining 14% showed no change. '

Attitudes toward self. At the end of the school year, the students were
asked to estimate the change in their attitudes toward themselves, taking into
consideration their confidence about their abilities in school and in making

friends.

0 83% of the students said they felt "much better" or "a little
better" about themselves; 17% said they felt no differently.

0 Agree that they would like to be someone different from
themselves: pretest, 29%; posttest, 27%.

o The school personnel estimated that 97% of the Academy students
had increased their self—confidence and esteem, and the remaining
3% had shown no change.

Student ratings of the Academy program. On the year—end questionnaire,
students rated their contacts with the private sector, the Academy's equipment

and instructional materials, extra help received with schoolwork, and the

overall program.

59

0 Contacts with private sector. The students reported an average
of about 35 guest speakers this school year and 5 or 6 field
trips. They rated these experiences as follows:

 

Very Somewhat Not Very A Waste

Helpful Helpful 0K Helpful of Time
Guest speakers 52% 36% 12% —— -—
Field trips 72% 16% 12% -— —-

0 Equipment and materials. Students rated the quality of the
equipment in their health laboratory classroom and of the books,
kits, films, and other instructional materials in their academic
and technical classrooms. Responses were as follows:

 

Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
Equipment 24% 56% 16% 4% --
Materials 28% . 527. 20% ' ' —— ——

0 Extra help. An Academy should be designed to provide for special
individualized assistance with academic problems.

— At the end of the school year, 70% of the students reported
that they “always" or "usually" received the extra help they
needed; 17% said "sometimes," and 13% said "occasionally."

— The students reported that the most frequent sources of extra
help with schoolwork were: the teacher of the class where the
problem arose (83%), another Academy teacher (83%), another
student or friend (42%),and parents (25%).

0 Overall rating of program. .At the end of the school year,
students rated how well they liked the Academy compared to the
regular school program. On a scale of 1 to S, where 1 = Much
Better and 5 = Much Worse, they gave an average rating of 1.23.
The ratings were distributed as follows:

 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Much Better Slightly Better Same Slightly Worse Much Worse
82% 14% 5% -- ——

About half the students at the Health Academy mentioned one major problem
with the program this year: not having the special classroom they were
promised. Few other problems were mentioned on the post—program questionnaire.

The aspects of the program that the students said they liked the best were:

60

the help and encouragement they received from the teachers (23%); the guest

speakers and field trips (18% each); and getting better grades (18%).
Responses to School Personnel Questionnaire

At the end of the school year, two Academy teachers, one counselor, and
the school principal completed a questionnaire in which they commented on the

program and rated various aspects of its implementation.

The teachers rated the equipment, instructional materials, and the
classroom facilities as "excellent" to "good," although they noted that it was
a handicap having to share the health laboratory classroom with another
program. The curriculum, too, was rated as "excellent" to "good," and most of

the units in the academic and technical classes were said to be interrelated.

The teachers met regularly to discuss the students' progress, but there
was little extra time for planning during the school year or for meeting
before the year began to clarify the Academy's guidelines and objectives.
However, the school personnel rated the Academy's planning and management as
"excellent." Teachers, counselors, and administrators in the regular program

at Oakland Tech were “very supportive" of the HA.

All respondents agreed that the students received the extra help they
needed with school work and also that the counseling program for the Academy
was "excellent." They were also satisfied with the program's criteria for

selecting students and for dropping non—responsive students.

The school personnel listed the following as the main weaknesses of the

program:

0 Lack of sufficient time for meeting and planning;

0 Lack of a "home" classroom at the school.
They named as the greatest strengths of the program:

0 Student—teacher rapport and student camaraderie;

61

0 Personal attention and motivation teachers offer to students;

0 The community contacts which raised the students' awareness of
career opportunities.

Parent Participation and Reaction

No year-end parent questionnaires were submitted. The school personnel

rated the parents as "very supportive and interested" in the Academy.
Responses to Private Sector Questionnaire

No year—end questionnaires were received from the private sector
supporters. The school personnel rated the cooperation and interaction
between the private sector and the Academy as "very effective." Many guest
'speakers and demonstrations were arranged, and teachers rated these

experiences, as well as the field trips, as "very useful" to students.

Summary

Oakland Technical High School implemented an Academy that followed the
Peninsula Academies model in nearly all respects. The Health Academy
presented a cohesive academic and technical program that provided individual

attention and motivation for its students. The principal deficiencies were:

0 Not having a health laboratory "dedicated" to the Academy (The
remodeling of the special Academy classroom was to be completed
before the start of the 1986—87 school year.)

0 A shortage of time for teacher inservice training and planning.

While there are differences between the program and comparison group
students, particularly on ethnicity and pre—program grades, the statistically
and educationally significant gains by the Academy group on attendance,
credits, and grades suggest that the Health Academy is having a real and
substantial effect on these outcomes. In the attitudinal area there were
apparent declines in career planning, but the other ratings of the various
aspects of the program by the students, staff, and private sector officials

were generally favorable.

62

FOOTHILL COMPUTER ACADEMY, OAK RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL
(El Dorado Union High School District, Diamond Springs)

Description and Implementation

The Foothill Computer Academy (FCA) is located at Oak Ridge High School,
a comprehensive school with approximately 900 students. The school serves a
predominantly non—minority population of students in a suburban area east of

Sacramento.

Twenty—four students were selected for the program and entered the FCA as
tenth graders in September 1985. Thirty—three students were identified as a

comparison group.

The FCA operated with a part—time director (a teacher at another district
high school) and one full-time teacher who taught all the Academy classes-—
English, mathematics, computer operations, and a remedial tutorial. The
Academy schedule required students to have an extra class period every morning
before the regular first period hour. The students spent four periods per day
(for an average of 3.5 class periods per semester) with the Academy teacher in
one classroom. There was no separate classroom for the computer laboratory.

Class size (24 students) was about average for the high school.

Private sector support came primarily from Blue Shield of Placerville,
whose employees served as mentors, curriculum advisers, and field trip hosts.
The FCA is working to develop commitments from Intel, PG&E, and several small

businesses in the Diamond Springs area.

Program Impact

Comparability of Academy and cgmparison students. The Academy group was
35% female and the comparison group 36% female. All students in both groups

were white. Data on attendance, credits, and grades of the comparison group
for the 1984—85 school year were not reported. The comparison students were
selected from among the approximately 60 students originally identified by the

district as eligible for the Academy on the basis of standardized achievement

63

test scores, absence and tardy rates, grades, and disciplinary referrals.
However, about half of the comparison students were students who were not
selected for the Academy either because they did not follow through on the
application process or because they were deemed unsuitable. Therefore, the

comparison group must be considered a somewhat biased one.

The following table shows the performance of the Foothill Academy
students during the 1984—85 school year, before the FCA began.

Attendance, Credits, and GPA, 1984—85 School Year

 

(N=3 3)
‘1. Days Number of
Attended Credits Earned GPA
92.567. 49.20 1.96

Enrollment and retention. The following figure shows the percent of
students retained in the Academy program, retained in school (including those
who dropped out of the Academy but remained in school), and the percent of

comparison students retained in school.

Retention Rates, 1985-86 School Year
Academy and Comparison Students

 

 

 

100%
92%
0%
Academy: Academy: Comparison;
Retained in Retained in Retained in
Academy School School

64

Attendance.

The attendance rates for Academy students are compared to

the students' own attendance in ninth grade (1984-85) and to the attendance of

the comparison students this school year (1985—86).

Attendance
(Percent Days Attended)

 

School
1984-85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985-86 Year
Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
Academy 91.97% 95.62% 93.54% 94.40% + 2.43*
N (20) (24) (22) (22)
Comparison —- 88.60% 92.84% 90.58% --
N (24) (23) (23)
Difference -— + 7.02 + .70 + 3.82 --
Credits. Here again, comparisons are made between the credits earned by

the Academy students last year and this, and by the Academy and comparison

students this year.

credits per year to graduate in four years.

Credits

(Average Number of Credits)

The typical student at Oak Ridge High must earn 50 to 60

 

School
1984-85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year
Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
Academy 50.28 30.40 31.00 61.73 + 11.45*
N (18) (24) (20) (20)
Comparison —— 24.02 25.91 50.25 --
N (24) (22) (22)
Difference -- + 7.02 + .70 + 3.82 -—
Grades. The grades of Academy students last year and this are compared,

as well as those of the Academy and comparison students this year.

 

* Significant at the .01 level.

65

Grades
(Average GPA)

 

School
1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year
Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
Academy 1.94 2.19 2.38 2.33 + .39*
N (18) (24) (20) (20)
Comparison —— 1.91 1.95 1.95 --
N (24) (22) (22)
Difference —- + .28 + .43 + .38 ——

Responses to Student Questionnaire

A comparison of student responses to the incoming and year—end question—
naires provides an indication of the influence of the Academy on career plan—
ning, attitudes toward school, and self—esteem. Unfortunately, due to a
clerical error, half of the post_program questionnaire was_not administered,
so that pre—post comparisons are not possible for several indicators. However,
in this section are reported the student reactions to several aspects of the

program, along with their overall rating of the Academy.

Careergplanning. Two questionnaire items were available to measure the

students' progress in career planning.

0 Have a definite plan for what to do the first two years after
high school graduation: pretest, 30%; posttest, 43%.

0 Have a long—term career goal: pretest, 60%; posttest, 64%.

Attitude toward school. FCA students did not complete the questionnaire
item tapping attitude toward school. However, the school administrators who
completed a year—end evaluation estimated that 90% of the Academy students
showed increased interest in school and learning this school year; 1% showed

decreased interest; and the remainder showed no change.

 

* Significant at the .01 level.

66

Attitude toward self. FCA students did not complete the questionnaire
items tapping self-esteem. The school administrators estimated that virtually
all (99%) of the Academy students demonstrated improved self—concept this
year. One commented that there were fewer discipline and attendance problems

among these students than expected.

Student rating of the Academy program. On the year—end questionnaire,
students rated the quality of their contacts with the private sector, and also

rated the overall program, commenting on their likes and dislikes.

0 Contacts with private sector. The students reported they had an
average of 8 to 9 guest speakers from industry during the school
year. Ninety-three percent of the students had mentors during
the spring semester. They rated these contacts with the private
~sector as follows:

 

Very _ Somewhat Not Very A Waste

Helpful Helpful OK Helpful of Time
Guest speakers 217. 36% 297. —- 147.
Mentor program 8% 23% 38% 23% 8%

0 Overall rating of the program. Students rated how well they
liked the Academy compared to the regular school program. On a
scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Much Better and S = Much Worse, they
gave an average rating of 2.0. The ratings were distributed as

 

follows:
(1) (2) (3) <4) (5)'
Much Better Slightly Better Same Slightly Worse Much Worse
36% 36% 21% 7% -—

Among the problems mentioned by students at the end of the year were:
being treated as "different" by others at the school; and adjusting to the
special Academy schedule——early morning period, tutorial period, and having
the same teacher for several classes. They reported that their most positive
experiences in the FCA were: getting better grades (29%); making a class trip
to the Ashland Shakespeare Festival (29%); and the pleasant atmosphere in the
Academy (14%). Although on the pre-questionnaire, 38% said they expected
their favorite part of the program to be working with computers, no one

mentioned this on the year-end questionnaire.

67

Responses to School Personnel Questionnaire

The school principal and assistant principal completed the year—end
questionnaire, commenting on various aspects of the program's implementation.
They rated the equipment and facilities as "good." The suggestion was made
that the computers be placed in a separate computer laboratory and that a
separate group study area be designated outside the Academy classroom. The
curriculum, materials, counseling, and overall planning and management of the
program were approved by these two respondents. They noted that other
teachers, counselors, and administrators at the school were "somewhat"

supportive of the program.

According to the two administrators, the main weaknesses of the Academy

were:
0 The program was too demanding to be managed by just one teacher;
0 Parent involvement was not systematically organized.

They nevertheless noted that the FCA teacher was effective and the program

seemed to work for "at-risk" students.

On a scale where 1 = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the staff rated the
Academy as follows:
Academy concept: 6.5

Implementation at FCA: 6.5
Parent Participation and Reactions

According to the school administrators, the Academy students' parents

were supportive of the program, although no regular parent meetings were held.

The parents of four students completed an evaluation form at the end of
the school year. Three of the four rated the program as "excellent" and the
other as "good." All said their children had become more interested in school

since joining the program. However, two parents said their children had not

68

made progress in career planning, while the others said they were not sure
about this.

The parents noted they had been kept "very well" informed about their
children's performance and "very" to "moderately well" informed about the
Academy's special activities. They noted that the weakest aspects of the

Academy were:

0 Inadequacies in the mentor program: more clarification needed on
the role of the mentors; more activities with mentors are needed

0 Insufficient information for parents: need regular parent
meetings, weekly progress reports from non—Academy as well as
Academy teachers, and more information on curriculum objectives.

They found the strongest aspects of the program to be the commitment of the
teacher and the individual consideration given to students. They expected
their children to benefit from the program by demonstrating increased self—
discipline, better self-image, more enthusiasm for education, and better

school performance.
Responses to Private Sector Questionnaire

Eight employees of the FCA's primary private sector supporter (Blue
Shield) responded to the evaluation questionnaire. Seven of them had served

as mentors. Their responses are summarized here

0 Ratings of field trips and guest speaker program. 33% rated the

field trips and guest speakers as "highly useful" and 66% as
"somewhat useful."

0 Ratings of mentor program. 63% rated the mentor program as
"highly useful" and 37% rated it "somewhat useful." Ratings of
the management of the mentor program ranged from "excellent"
(25%) to "poor" (12%). It was noted that mentors need more
guidance and communication from the program administrators.
Expectations should be clarified and more structured activities
organized.

0 Ratings of curriculum. 75% responded that the curriculum, if
implemented as designed, would provide students with the skills
needed by local business.

69

o Attitudes. 63% said their attitudes toward the public schools
had improved through their involvement with the Academy program.
They were pleased that the schools showed an interest in teaching
about the business world.

The private sector respondents named the following program strengths:

0 Close teacher—student relationships;

0 Motivation for students to stay in school and prepare for jobs.
Summary

The selection procedures for the comparison group (e.g., unsuitability
for the Academy group), and the absence of pre-program attendance, credits,
and GPA data on this group, make it difficult to draw clear conclusions about

program effects.

Nevertheless, statistically and educationally significant pre—post gains
by the Academy group on the key outcome measures of attendance, credits
earned, and GPA suggest that the FCA is having important effects on its
students. These preliminary indications need to be confirmed in the future
with fuller data.

Career planning was not substantially improved as a result of the Academy
experience, and the ratings of the program by students, staff, and private

sector representatives were generally fair to good.

Specific shortcomings identified were:

0 Only one company from the private sector was actively involved.

0 Parental involvement was unstructured.

70

RIO CAZADERO ACADEMY, RIO CAZADERO HIGH SCHOOL

(Elk Grove Unified School District, Sacramento)

The Rio Cazadero Academy (RCA) is located at one of the Elk Grove School
District's four "alternative" high schools, each of which has an enrollment of
fewer than 250 students in grades 10 through 12. The emphasis at the high
school is on vocational and technical training, and the Rio Cazadero Academy
itself focuses on computer—related careers. The high school is located in a
suburban area on the southern edge of Sacramento and serves a predominantly

white population of students.

Forty—three students were selected for the Academy, all from ninth
graders at Elk Grove High School, a four-year comprehensive school. A

comparison group of equal size was identified at Elk Grove High School.

The primary RCA instructional staff consisted of five teachers, one of
whom also served as program coordinator or director. The Academy offered
instruction in English, science, history, mathematics (on individual contract),
and computers. The students took an average of 4.7 Academy classes each
semester. The technical curriculum was in the developmental stage; the RCA
expects to expand in years two and three to include electronics as applicable
to computer repair. For the most part this year, the Academy's academic and

technical curricula were not highly integrated.

Business involvement was actively pursued, largely by the school's
principal, who took a strong interest in the Academy. Some of the companies
involved included PG&E, GTE, Citizen's Utility, New England Mutual Life,
German Engineering, Valley High Video, and Johnson's Bookkeeping Company. The
involvement of the private sector focused on program planning, rather than on

working with the students themselves.

Program Impact

ggmparability of Academy and comparison students. Both the Academy group
and the comparison group were 46% female. The ethnic compositions of the two

groups were:

71

Ethnicit Academ Co arison
________l ______1 __EE______

White 74% 77%
Hispanic 12% 14%
Black 9% 9%
Asian 5% ——

The comparison group was selected from a pool of students who met the Academy
eligibility criteria but who were not involved in the Academy application

process.

The following table shows the performance of the future Academy and
comparison group students during the 1984—85 school year, before the RCA

program began.

Attendance, Credits, and GPA, 1984—85 School Year
Academy and Comparison Students

% Days _ No. Credits

 

Group/N Attended Earned GPA
Academy 76.53% 32.08 1.09
N (38) (42) (42)
Comparison 89.70% 40.44 1.41
N (43) (43) (43)
Difference — 13.17 - 8.36 — .32

The performance of the comparison group students in ninth grade was
significantly better than that of the future Academy students on all three
indicators (p < .01 for attendance and credits and p < .05 for GPA).

Thus, while the comparison group was selected in an unbiased manner, the
school performance of the Academy group was notably poorer prior to their

entering the program.

Enrollment and retention. The following graph shows the percent of
students retained in the Academy program, retained in school (including those
who dropped out of the Academy but remained in school), and the percent of

comparison students retained in school.

72

Retention Rates, 1985-86 School Year
Academy and Comparison Students

100%

93%

 

 

Academy; Academy: Comparison:
Retained 1n Retained in Retained in
Academy School School

Attendance. The attendance rates for Academy students are compared to
the students' own attendance in ninth grade (1984—85) and to the attendance of

the comparison students this school year (1985-86).

Attendance
(Percent Days Attended)

 

School

1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985-86 Year

Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Gain

Academy 78.30% 94.46% 92.53% 93.49% + 15.19
N (33) (35) (40) (35)

Comparison 89.70% 84.49% 87.39% 86.59% — 3.11
N (43) (43) (40) (40)

Difference — 11.40 + 9.97 + 8.14 + 6.90 + 18.30*

Credits. Here again, comparisons are made between the credits earned by
the Academy students last year and this, and by the Academy and comparison
students this year. A student at Rio Cazadero High School is expected to

complete 60 units per year to stay on track for graduation in four years.

 

* Significant at the .01 level.

73

Credits
(Average Number of Credits)

 

School
1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year
Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
Academy 30.54 32.90 32.20 65.38 + 34.84
N (37) (38) (40) (37)
Comparison 40.44 22.14 20.46 43.60 + 3.16
N (43) (43) (40) (40)
Difference - 9.90 + 10.76 + 11.74 + 21.78 + 31.68*

Grades. The grades of Academy students from last year and this are

compared, as well as those of the Academy and comparison students this year.

Grades
(Average GPA)

 

‘ School
1984-85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year
Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
Academy 1.05 2.83 2.92 2.88 + 1.83
N (37) (38) (40) (37)
Comparison 1.41 1.59 1.31 1.49 + .08
N (43) (43) (40) (40)
Difference - .36 + 1.24 + 1.61 + 1.39 + 1.75*

Responses to Student Questionnaire

A comparison of student responses to the incoming and year-end student
questionnaires provides an indication of the influence of the Academy on career
planning, attitudes toward school, and self—esteem. These responses are
reported in this section, along with the students' ratings of some of the

Academy's specific components and of the overall program.

 

* Significant at the .01 level.

74

Career planning. Four questionnaire items measured the students progress

in career planning. A summary of responses follows.

0 Have a definite plan for what to do the first two years after
high school graduation: pretest, 20%; posttest, 30%.

0 Have a long—term career goal: pretest, 49%; posttest, 40%.

0 Agree that it is important to gain job skills while in high
school: pretest, 84%; posttest, 97%.

0 Agree that becoming a success is not mainly a matter of luck, but
is dependent on hard work: pretest, 81%; posttest, 74%.

Attitudes toward school. Incoming Academy students rated how well they
had liked school the previous year, and then at the end of this school year,

they rated how well they liked their year in the Academy.

0 Found school ”usually" or “very" interesting/liked school "quite
a bit" or "very much": pretest, 13%; posttest, 60%.

o The school personnel involved in the RCA estimated that 94% of
the students showed increased interest in school and learning
this year, 1% showed decreased interest, and 5% showed no change
in attitude toward school.

Attitudes toward self. At the end of the school year, the students were
asked to estimate the change in their attitudes toward themselves, taking into
consideration confidence about school, their academic abilities, and about

their ability to make friends.

0 87% of the students said they felt "much better" or "a little
better" about themselves and 13% said there was no difference in
the way they felt about themselves after a year in the Academy.

0 Agree that they would like to be someone different from
themselves: pretest, 29%; posttest, 21%

o The school personnel estimated that 92% of the Academy students

had increased their self-confidence and esteem, 1% had decreased,
and the rest had shown no change.

Student ratings of the Academy program. On the year—end questionnaire,

students rated their contacts with the private sector, the Academy's equipment

75

and instructional materials, extra help received with schoolwork, and the

overall program.

Guest

Field

Contacts with private sector. The students reported an average
of 3 to 4 guest speakers and 1 or 2 field trips during this
school year They rated these experiences as follows:

Very Somewhat Not Very A Waste
Helpful Helpful 0K Helpful of Time

speakers 25% 39% 25% -- 11%
trips 30% 17% 43% 9% -—
Equipment and materials. Students rated the quality of the
computer equipment and of the books, software, films, and other
instructional materials in their academic and technical

classrooms. Responses were as follows:

Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible

Equipment 7% 70% 23% —— ——

Materials 17% 47% 37% —— _-

Extra help. An Academy should be structured to provide for
special individualized assistance for students with academic
problems.

- At the end of the school year, 64% of the RCA students
reported that they "always" or "usually" received the extra
help they needed, 17% said "sometimes," and 20% said they
"occasionally" received this help.

— The students repOrted that the most frequent sources of extra
help were: the teacher of the class where the problem arose
(83%), another student (33%), parents (27%), and another
Academy teacher (23%).

Overall rating of program. At the end of the school year,
students rated how well they liked the Academy compared to the
regular school program. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Much
Better and 5 = Much Worse, they gave an average ratingiof 1.33.
The ratings were distributed as follows:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Much Better Slightly Better Same Slightly Worse Huch Worse

77% 17% 3% 3% , --

76

The problems most commonly mentioned by the students on the end-of—the—
year questionnaire related to the Academy schedule——having the same schedule
for the full school year. A variety of positive experiences were mentioned,
including having better grades and attendance (34%), working with the comput—

ers (28%), having helpful teachers (19%), and generally learning more (16%).
Responses to School Personnel Questionnaire

Six educators at Rio Cazadero High School completed the end—of—year
questionnaire: four teachers (including the Academy director), the school
work experience counselor, and the principal. They commented on the program

and rated various aspects of its implementation.

The computer equipment was rated as "good," but a need for a more varied
assortment of computers was expressed. Facilities and instructional materials
were rated as a little better than the average for the school. The respond-
ents noted that on the whole the curriculum was ”good," but that more work was
needed to integrate the academic and technical content, incorporate input from
the private sector, and clarify the curriculum goals. They noted that indi—
vidualized instruction and special help were made available to students, and

that the counseling component had been "good."

Regarding the private sector involvement, the staff commented that this
had been only "somewhat" useful and that this aspect of the Academy model had
not been fully implemented.

Respondents noted that the other, non-Academy teachers, counselors, and
school administrators were generally supportive of the RCA, although there had
been some division of opinion about the Academy among non—program teachers.
Dissatisfaction was registered regarding the criteria and procedures both for
selecting Academy students and for dropping unresponsive students from the

program.

According to these six respondents, the main weaknesses of the RCA this

year were 3

77

0 Lack of clearly stated goals and policies for students and
parents;

0 A cumbersome selection process that resulted in too many
unsuitable students;

0 Isolation of students from the rest of the school program.

Despite these criticisms, the school personnel found that the Academy teachers
and students worked well together toward a common goal, which made the
students feel special and brought about improvements in their academic and

technical skills.

On a scale where 1 = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the staff rated the
Academy as follows:
Academy concept: 6.75
Implementation at RCA: 4.17

Parent Participation and Reaction

According to the school personnel, the majority of the Academy students'
parents were "very supportive and interested" in the program. Parents of 32
students completed the year-end evaluation form. Some of their responses are
summarized here:

0 59% rated the overall quality of the program as "excellent," and

38% as “good."

0 78% noted that their children had become "much more interested in

school" this year and the remaining 22% "a little more

interested." Several parents commented on this:

"Last year my son didn't go to school; this year he hates to
miss a day."

"Attitude and attendance improved tremendously."
"100% turnaround in attitude."
0 91% said the Academy staff kept them "very well" or "moderately

well“ informed about their child's progress, and 9% said they
were informed "poorly" or "not at all."

78

o 88% said they were kept "very well" or "moderately well" informed
about the Academy's special activities, and 12% said "poorly" or
"not at all."

According to these parents, the weakest aspects of the program were that
it was not sufficiently difficult or demanding (12.5%) and that bus

transportation to the school was unsatisfactory (12.5%).

They said that the best features of the program were: good teachers, who
cared about students and motivated them (32%); individual attention (22%); and

the program related to real life and taught useful computer skills (22%).
Responses to Private Sector Questionnaire

Three employees, representing three different sponsoring companies,
completed the evaluation questionnaire. They had served as council members,
classroom speakers, and program consultants. A summary of their responses

follows:

0 Ratings of field trips and guest speaker program. Two of the
three respondents rated the speaker program as "highly useful,"
but none of the three felt well enough informed to comment on the
usefulness of the field trips.

0 Curriculum. Two of the three respondents noted that the
curriculum would help students acquire skills needed for
employment, and one was not familiar with the curriculum.

0 Attitudes. The three respondents said their attitudes to the
schools had improved this year and that the site council meetings
had been very informative.

These three individuals said that the strengths of the RCA were its solid
leadership and staff, committed to giving young people direction and hope.
They commented that the Academy has a need for improved public relations and

for more "time, space, and money."

On a scale where l = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the private sector
rated the Academy as follows:
Academy concept: 6.75
Implementation at RCA: 3.88

79

Summary

The Rio Cazadero Academy closely followed the Academy program model in

nearly all respects. Its main weaknesses were:

0 Lack of integration between the technical and academic curricula;
0 Lack of clearly and fully stated goals and policies;

0 Low level of private sector presence in the students' lives——
e.g., few speakers or field trips.

Despite these areas where work is needed, and despite the teachers' own self—
critical evaluation, the RCA made a dramatic difference in the achievement and
attitudes of its students. On every indicator except retention, which was
high for both groups, the students showed highly significant growth over last
year and dramatically better performance than the comparison group this year.
Remarkably large gains were registered on grades, credits, and attitudes
toward school and self. The one attitude where the students showed little
change was in career planning, a finding which ties in with the low level of

interaction with the private sector supporters.

Both parents and students were enthusiastic about the Academy. The
students' general excitement about the program was expressed by one girl who
wrote on her questionnaire: "I found out that I have knowledge to
succeed...1 My attendance has improved tremendously, along with my outlook on

school and life."

80

JOHNSON CORPORATE ACADEMY, HIRAH JOHNSON HIGH SCHOOL

(Sacramento City Unified School District, Sacramento)
Description and Implementation

The Johnson Corporate Academy (JCA) is located at a large, urban high
school with about 3000 students of diverse ethnic backgrounds, including
Black, Hispanic, and Asian, as well as White. Their socioeconomic backgrounds

are also varied.

Sixty—nine students were enrolled in the Academy at the beginning of the
1985-86 school year, and a comparison group was identified, comprising the 118
students who expressed interest in the Academy but did not follow through on
their applications. Both ninth and tenth graders were accepted into the
Academy—-14 ninth and 55 tenth graders. The comparison group had 79 ninth and

39 tenth graders.

The focus of the Johnson Corporate Academy is on business applications of
the computer. There were four full-time Academy teachers, providing classes
in English, mathematics, social science, and computer technology; students
took an average of four Academy classes each semester. Each teacher taught
four periods and had an extra preparation period for planning and coordination.

Class size was smaller than average for the school.

Business involvement in the JCA was initiated through the Sacramento
Chamber of Commerce and included support from PG&E, Bank of America, IBM, the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, McClellan Air Force Base, and a

Sacramento Bankers Association.
Program Impact

Comparability of Academy and comparison students. The Academy group was
48% female, and their ethnic composition was 32% White, 19% Hispanic, 33%

Black, and 16% Asian. The comparison group was 42% female; no information on
their ethnicity was available. Due to the selection procedure in which the

more motivated students were selected for the Academy, the comparison group

81

for the JCA may not be well—matched. Unfortunately, no data on attendance,
credits, or grades were available for the comparison students for the 1984r85
(pre—Academy) school year. All the following comparisons of retention,

attendance, credits, and grades should be cautiously interpreted.

Enrollment and retention. The following graph shows the percentage of
students retained in the Academy, retained in school (including those who
dropped out of the Academy but stayed in school), and the percent of

comparison students retained in school.

Retention Rates, 1985-86 School Year
Academy and Comparison Students

HW%

 

 

0%
Amdmy: [makmy Cmmnmmm
Rmfimflm Rafimdm Rammnm
Aummy .5kmml Sdmd

Attendance. No attendance data for the pre—Academy school year were
reported, so changes in attendance rates cannot be reported. Further,
attendance rates for neither the Academy nor the comparison students were
available for the 1985 fall semester. Therefore, the only comparison possible
is between the Academy and comparison students' attendance for the spring 1986

semester:

82

Attendance
(Percent Periods Attended)

 

Group/N Spring 1986 Semester
Academy 86.39%

N (63)
Comparison 74.38%

N (38)
Difference + 12.01

Credits. Comparisons are made here between the credits earned by the
Academy students last year and this, and by the Academy and comparison
students this year. The typical student at Hiram Johnson High School must

earn 50 credits per year to stay on track for graduation.

Credits
(Average Number of Credits)

 

, School
1984-85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year
Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
Academy 53.03 28.82 26.35 55.85 + 2.82*
N (63) (69) (63) (63)
Comparison -- 11.76 19.47 39.07 ——
N (74) (37) (37)
Difference —- + 17.06 + 6.88 + 16.78 ——

grades. Grades of the Academy students last year and this are compared,

as well as those of the Academy and comparison groups this year.

 

* Significant at the .01 level.

83

Grades
(Average GPA)

 

School
1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985-86 Year
Group/N School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
Academy 1.68 2.09 1.89 2.02 + .34*
N (63) (69) (63) (63)
Comparison -- 0.86 1.47 1.50 —-
N (74) (37) (37)
Difference -- + 1.23 + .42 + .52 —-

Responses to Student Questionnaire

A comparison of student responses to the incoming and year-end student
questionnaires provides an indication of the influence of the Academy on
career planning, attitudes toward school, and self-esteem. These responses
are reported in this section, along with the students' ratings of some of the

Academy's specific components and of the overall program.

Career planning. Four questionnaire items measured the students'

progress in career planning. A summary of responses follows.

0 Have a definite plan for what to do the first two years after
high school graduation: pretest, 35%; posttest, 24%.

0 Have a long—term career goal: pretest, 71%; posttest, 44%.

0 Agree that it is important to gain job skills while in high
school: pretest, 98%; posttest, 100%.

0 Agree that becoming a success is not mainly a matter of luck, but
is dependent upon hard work: pretest, arm; posttest, 83%.

Attitudes toward school. Incoming Academy students rated how well they
liked school the previous year, and then at the end of this school year, they

rated how well they liked their year in the Academy.

0 Found school "usually" or "very" interesting/liked school "quite
a bit" or “very much": pretest, 25%; posttest, 62%.

 

* Significant at the .01 level.
84

o 'Thé teaching staff estimated that 75% of the students showed
increased interest in school and learning this year, 6% showed

decreased interest, and 19% showed no change in attitude.

Attitudes toward self. At the end of the school year, the students were
asked to estimate the change in their attitudes toward themselves, taking into

consideration their confidence in school and in making friends.

0 90% of the students said they felt "much better" or "a little
better" about themselves; 2% said they felt "a little worse;" and
7% said there was no difference.

0 Agree that they would like to be someone different from
themselves: pretest, 34%; posttest, 27%.

o The teachers estimated that 66% of the students had increased
their self-confidence and esteem, 5% had decreased, and the rest
had shown no change.

Student.ratings of the Academy program. On the year—end questionnaire,
students rated their contacts with the private sector, the Academy's equipment
and instructional materials, extra help received with schoolwork, and the

overall program.

0 Contacts with private sector. The students reported an average
of 3 guest speakers this school year and 4 or 5 field trips to
businesses in the Sacramento area. They rated these experiences
as follows:

 

Very Somewhat Not Very A Waste

Helpful Helpful 0K Helpful of Time
Guest speakers 24% 48% 26% 2% —-
Field trips 36% 40% 21% 2% --

0 Equipment and materials. Students rated the quality of the
equipment in their computer laboratory classroom and of the
books, kits, software, films, and other instructional materials
in their academic and technical classes. Responses were as
follows:

85

Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
Equipment 33% 64% 2% —— ——
Materials 24% 52% 24% —— ——

0 Extra help. An Academy should be designed to provide for special
individualized assistance with academic problems.

- At the end of the school year, 61% of the students reported
that they "always" or "usually" received the extra help they
needed; 24% said "sometimes," and 15% said they "occasionally"
received this help.

- The students reported that the most frequent sources of extra
help were: the teacher of the class where the problem arose
(66%), another Academy teacher (46%), and parents (20%).

0 Overall rating of program. At the end of the school year,
students rated how well they liked the Academy compared to the
regular school program. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Much
Better and 5 = Much Worse, they gave an average rating of 1.33.
The ratings were distributed as follows:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Much Better Slightly Better Same Slightly Worse Much Worse

71% 24% 5% —- --

Although on the pretest about 25% of the students expected to experience
problems in the Academy with "too much work" and too high expectations from
the teachers regarding promptness, attendance, etc., by the time of the
posttest, only 12% said they had actually experienced problems in these.
areas. The most frequently named problem at the end of the year was that the
teachers were not strict enough with the non-serious students. What students
reported liking best about the Academy were the field trips (21%), feeling
positive about school and themselves (21%), learning about computers (14%),

and the special attention and motivation they got from the teachers (14%).
Responses to the School Personnel Questionnaire
At the end of the school year, the four JCA teachers completed a question—

naire in which they commented on the program and rated various aspects of its

implementation. Their responses are summarized here.

86

They rated the classroom facilities and instructional materials as "good"
to "average," and the computer lab equipment as "excellent." They also rated
the curriculum as "good" to excellent" and noted that many units in the
academic classes were interrelated with those in the technical class. The
teachers commented, however, that they needed more work on the curriculum with

consultation from the private sector.

These respondents rated the school administrators as "very supportive" of
the JCA, and other teachers in the school as "somewhat supportive." They felt
that the regular school counselors were "slightly" supportive, at best. They
also rated the career and school—related counseling received by the Academy
students as "inadequate," as provided by school counselors, but "good" as

provided informally by the Academy staff.

The orientation to the new program for the Academy teachers was rated as
"good" although not all the teachers had participated. The four teachers
agreed that the JCA's criteria and procedures for selecting students and for

dropping unresponsive students were satisfactory.

The teachers rated the cooperation from the private sector as "somewhat"
to "very effective," and they agreed that the field trips and guest speakers
had been "highly useful."

According to the teachers, the biggest problem facing the JCA was the
possibility that the district udght not continue to afford the program's
smaller class sizes and extra planning/preparation period for teachers. But
these very factors—~small classes and more preparation time, which led to
increased, high-quality interactions between teachers and students—-were named

by the teachers as the program's strongest components.

On a scale where 1 = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the teachers rated
the Academy as follows:
Academy concept: 6.75
Implementation at JCA: 5.75

87

Parent Participation and Reaction

According to the four JCA teachers, the parents of Academy students were

very supportive and interested in the program.

Five parents completed a year-end evaluation for the program. They rated
the overall quality of the Academy as "good“ to "excellent," and all noted
that their children had become more interested in school and learning since
joining the program. Four out of the five also said their child was making

good progress in planning for the future.

Although three out of the five parents said they had been kept very well
informed about Academy activities and their child's progress, the other two
parents felt that communications between school and home needed improvement,
specifically notification about_attendance and information on how parents
could be helpful to the JCA. This was the only program weakness noted by the
responding parents. The aspect of the JCA that these parents most appreciated
was the close monitoring of the students' progress, including weekly progress
reports. They also liked the small class size, close supervision, hands—on
experience, and field trips afforded to Academy students, all of which

contributed to building in the students a sense of responsibility.
Responses to Private Sector Questionnaire

No questionnaires were completed by the private sector supporters of this

Academy.

Summary

The Johnson Corporate Academy closely followed the Peninsula Academies
model, offering four Academy periods, small classes, an interrelated technical
and academic curriculum, and an extra preparation period for teachers. Its
shortcomings were primarily in the area of private sector involvement. More
input on curriculum and a more active program of guest speakers would
strengthen the program. In addition, the JCA needs to develop support among

the school counseling staff.

88

The most dramatic data came from the high retention rate for the program
students, compared with the comparison group. Attendance also was substan-
tially higher for the program group during the spring semester. Unfortunately
the questions regarding the comparability of the two groups and the absence of
pre—program comparison group data make it impossible to draw firm conclusions.
No significant change occurred on credits earned. The GPA of the Academy
group did improve appreciably, but again, lack of dependable comparison group

data makes this change ambiguous.

On attitudinal measures, program students demonstrated no gains in career
planning. They did improve in attitude toward school and in self-esteem. And
95% of the Academy students said they liked the JCA better than the regular
school program. The majority said they usually received extra help from the
Academy teachers, and they were enthusiastic about the special attention and

activities offered by the JCA.

89

EAST SIDE ELECTRONICS ACADEHIES, SILVER CREEK HIGH SCHOOL
(East Side Union High School District, San Jose)

Description and Implementation

The Academy at Silver Creek High School is one of two operated by the
East Side District, which is located on the edge of the city of San Jose.
Silver Creek draws most of its students from a lower—middle income community
and has an enrollment of 2300 students, of whom approximately 49% are

Hispanic, 30% White, 20% Black, and 10% Asian or Pacific Islander.

The East Side Electronics Academies (ESEA) program is the largest of the
Academy replications and the only one to start with ninth instead of tenth
graders (a four-year program is planned). At Silver Creek, 102 students
enrolled in the Academy in September 1985. Because of the large size of this
class, no new students will enter the Academy until the 1987-88 school year.
No comparison group was identified, because nearly all eligible students at
Silver Creek were enrolled in the ESEA, and those that were not were served by

another special program (Project Esteem).

The ESEA's goal is to prepare students for entry—level careers in
electronics technology, assembly, and other areas of electronics and computer
manufacture. The program was centrally coordinated at the district level,
where the ESEA director and industry liaison coordinator were located. At
Silver Creek, there were four full—time Academy teachers, each of whom taught
four classes and had two preparation periods. One of the teachers also acted
as the Academy department chairperson. All the students took Academy
mathematics, science, English, and electronics each semester, plus their
regular program courses. The ESEA classrooms at Silver Creek were not

adjacent to one another, but there was a small office dedicated to the program.

The ESEA had numerous sponsoring companies, the most active of which were
IBH, Hewlett—Packard, Versatec, Heasurex, Altos Computer Systems, Activision,
and Advanced Micro Devices. A cooperative business-school operating committee

met monthly, and a curriculum advisory group worked with the teachers. The

90

sponsoring industries donated furniture and electronics equipment, but their
major contribution was employee time—-hosting field trips, serving as class—

room speakers, and working on committees.

Program Impact

Student profile. Thirty-six percent of the entering class was female.

the ethnic composition of the group was:

Ethnic itx Percent
White 287.
Hispanic ' 457.
Black 247.
As ian 27.
Other Minority 2‘7.

The following table shows the performance of the future Academy students

during the 1984—85 school year, when they were in eighth grade.

Credits and GPA, 1984-85 School Year

(N=87)
Numer of
Credits Earned GPA
55 . 17 2 . O

Retention Rates, 1985—86 School Year
Academy Students

100%

 

0%

 

 

 

91

Enrollment and retention. The following graph shows the percent of
students retained in the Academy program and the percent who were retained in

school, including those who dropped out of the program during the year.

Attendance. Attendance data on the Academy students for the 1984—85
school year were not reported because it was not possible to collect
comparable data from the ten junior high schools, located in three different
school districts, from which the Academy students came. Therefore (and in the
absence of a comparison group), there is no standard by which to gauge whether
or not the ESEA made an impact on student attendance. The attendance rates

for the 1985—86 school year were as follows:

 

Attendance
(Percent Days Attended)
(N=87)
Fall 1985 ‘Spring 1986 1985—86
Semester Semester School Year
93.80% 91.06% 92.45%

While attendance averaged over 92% for the school year, there was a statisti-
cally significant drop in the daily rate between the fall and spring semesters
(p < .01).

Credits. Comparisons are made between the credits earned by the Academy
students last year and this, and between credits earned during fall and spring
semesters this year. It should be kept in mind that the comparison between
achievement in junior high and senior high school may not be a valid one and

may tend to undervalue high school achievement.

Credits
(Average Number of Credits)

 

School

1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985—86 Year
School Year Semester Semester School Year Change
55.49 22.95 20.57 44.41 - 11.08

N _ (82) (87) (87) (82)

92

Comparing the same students last year and this and both semesters, we find a
large drop in the number of credits earned (significant at p < .01). The
average student at Silver Creek High School must earn approximately 50 credits
per school year to stay on track for graduation, and the Academy students fell

short of this goal.

Grades. Again, comparisons are made between the grades of the Academy
students last year and this, and between their grades in the fall and spring

semesters of this school year.

Grades
(Average GPA)

 

School

1984—85 Fall 1985 Spring 1986 1985-86 Year
School Year Semester Semester‘ School Year Change
1.99 1.74 ‘ 1.45 1.65 — .34

N (81) (86) (86) (81)

The group as a whole earned significantly lower GPAs this year than last, and
their grades also dropped between the fall and spring semesters (p < .01).

Academy standards in junior and senior high schools may not be comparable.

Responses to Student Questionnaire

A comparison of student responses to the incoming and year-end student
questionnaires provides an indication of the influence of the Academy on
career planning, attitudes toward school, and self-esteem. These responses
are reported in this section, along with the students' ratings of some of the

Academy's specific components and of the overall program.

Career planning. Four questionnaire items measured the students'

progress in making career plans. A summary of responses follows:

0 Have a definite plan for what to do the first two years after
high school graduation: pretest, 24%; posttest, 33%.

0 Have a long-term career goal: pretest, 48%; posttest, 55%.

93

0 Agree that it is important to gain job skills while in high
school: pretest, 94%; posttest, 96%.

0 Agree that becoming a success is not mainly a matter of luck, but
is dependent on hard work: pretest, 68%; posttest, 71%.

Attitudes toward school. Incoming Academy students rated how well they
had liked school the previous year, and then at the end of this school year,

they rated how well they liked their year in the Academy.

0 Found school "usually" or "very" interesting/liked school "quite
a bit" or "very much": pretest, 26%; posttest, 48%.

o The teaching staff estimated that about 37% of the students
increased their interest in school and learning this year, 23%
had decreased interest, and 33% showed no change.

Attitudes toward self. At the end of the school year, the students were
asked to estimate the change in their attitudes toward themselves, taking into

consideration confidence about their abilities in school and in making friends.

0 78% of the students said they felt "much better" or'"a little
better" about themselves; 19% said there was no difference; and
3% said they felt "a little worse" about themselves after a year
in the Academy program.

0 Agree that they would like to be someone different from
themselves: pretest, 37%; posttest, 27%.

o The teaching staff estimated that 68% of the students had
increased their self-confidence and esteem, and the remaining 32%
had shown no change.

Student ratings of the Academy program. On the year—end questionnaire,
students rated their contacts with the private sector, the Academy's equipment
and instructional materials, extra help received with schoolwork, and the

overall program.

0 Contacts with private sector. The students reported an average
of 10 guest speakers this school year and 6 field trips to local
companies. They rated these experiences as follows:

94

Very Somewhat Not Very A Waste

 

Helpful Helpful 0K Helpful of Time
Guest speakers 40% 39% 21% —- --
Field trips 45% 30% 23% 2% --

0 Equipment and materials. Students rated the quality of the
equipment in their electronics laboratory classroom and of the
books, kits, films, and other instructional materials in their
academic and technical classrooms. Responses were as follows:

 

Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
Equipment 21% 62% 16% 1% —-
Materials 18% 54% 24% ' 4% --

0 Extra help. An Academy should be designed to provide for special
individualized assistance with academic problems.

At the end of the school year, 46% of the students reported that
they "always" or "usually"~received the extra help they needed;
35% said “sometimes," and 20% said they "occasionally" or "never"
received this help.

The students reported that their most frequent sources of extra
help were: the teacher of the class where the problem arose
(75%), parents (39%), another Academy teacher (22%).

0 Overall rating of program. At the end of the school year,
students rated how well they liked the Academy compared to the
regular school program. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Much
Better and 5 = Much Worse, they gave an average rating of 1.55.
The ratings were distributed as follows:

 

(l) (2) (3) (4) (5) .
Much Better Slightly Better Same Slightly Worse Much Worse
64% 0' 237. 97. -- 37.

The majority of students reported having no problems with the Academy
program this year. However, 13% mentioned having problems in their academic
classes, and another 7% had difficulties with electronics. Among the "most
positive experiences" mentioned by the students were: going on field trips
(25%); having helpful teachers (11%); the friendly, congenial atmosphere
(11%); and generally learning more (8%).

95

Responses to School Personnel Questionnaire

At the end of the school year, the four Academy teachers completed a
questionnaire in which they commented on the program and rated various aspects

of its implementation. Their responses are summarized here.

They rated the equipment, books, and instructional materials as "good."
The technical curriculum was rated as "good" to "excellent," and academic
curriculum as "good" to "average." The teachers all noted that few academic
and technical units of instruction were interrelated and that curriculum

development work was needed.

The classroom facilities were rated as "podr" to “average." The main
problems in this area were that the Academy classrooms were not in close

proximity and that the Academy had to share classrooms with other teachers.

The teachers noted that the other teachers, counselors, and administrators
at Silver Creek were generally supportive of the Academy program. They rated
the overall program planning and management for the Academy as about "average,"
but commented that while the coordination of the program at the district level
was good, the teachers at the Silver Creek site had poor teamwork skills.

They noted that the one staff orientation meeting was held too late in the
semester, and that although the teachers met frequently, they still had

. problems working as a unit.

Class size at the ESEA was generally about 26 students, compared to a
school average of about 34 students. The teachers felt, however, that the
Academy's efforts to provide extra instructional assistance to students were
only "fair." All four teachers agreed that the students' need for individual
tutoring had not been met satisfactorily. Tutoring sessions were held, but
according to the teachers, the students who most needed the help did not ask

for it. The Academy's counseling program was rated as "good."

The responding teachers criticized the ESEA's criteria and procedures for
selecting students, noting that many were not interested in electronics. They

mentioned the difficulty of recruiting appropriate students in a school that

96

was already served by another program (ESteem), which drew from the same
population. According to the teachers, the result was an Academy student body
that had lower academic skills than desirable. The teachers also noted that
the Academy had developed no consistent policies for dropping students from

the program.

The teachers responded very positively to the role of industry in the
Academy. They agreed that the cooperation and interactions between private
sector representatives and the school had been "very effective" and that the
field trips, speakers, and the like had been "very useful." Two teachers
noted that as a result of their involvement with the Academy, their attitudes
toward the business community had improved. One noted that she was impressed

with the way the "private sector strives for excellence."

According to the Academy teachers, the weakest aspects of the ESEA at
Silver Creek were: lack of teamwork on the part of the teachers; lack of
integration between the academic and technical curricula; poorly defined goals

and discipline policies; and location of classrooms.

The program's greatest strengths were: administrative support for the
program; the contacts and assistance from industry; and the caring attitudes

of the teachers.

On a scale where 1 = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the staff rated the
Academy as follows:
Academy concept: 6.5

Implementation at
ESEA, Silver Creek: 4.0

Parent Participation and Reaction

According to the Academy teaching staff questionnaire responses, the
parents of Academy students were generally unsupportive and uninterested in
the program. Many parents worked and had no time for the program or for

monitoring the progress of their children's schoolwork.

97

The parents of 20 Academy students completed an evaluation form at the
end of the school year. Twenty percent rated the program as "excellent," 55%
as "good," 20% as "average," and 5% did not know. Sixty percent said they had
noticed a change in their child's attitude toward school during this school
year; of these, 85% said they were "much" or "a little more interested in
school," and 15% said their children had become "much less" interested.
Fifty—five percent of the parents said their child was making good progress in

career planning, but 30% said this was not the case, and 15% were not sure.

The parents were generally satisfied with the information they received
from the Academy: 85% said the staff kept them "very well" or "moderately
well" informed about the Academy special activities, and 15% said they were
kept "poorly" informed. Regarding communications from the Academy staff about
their child's progress or performance in school, 75% said they were kept "very
well" or "moderately well" informed and 20% "poorly" informed. (Five percent

did not answer.)

The parents named as the weakest aspects of the program: communications
with parents; lack of sufficient discipline in some of the classes; and the
isolation of the Academy from others at the high school, including the
students from other students, and Academy teachers from those in the regular
program, What parents liked best about the ESEA were its career-oriented
approach; the students' exposure to the work environment; and the small
classes and helpful teachers, who built the students' confidence and improved

their academic performance.
Responses to Private Sector Questionnaire

Thirteen private sector supporters completed year—end questionnaires on
the ESEA. Their responses are summarized in the site report for the ESEA,

Independence High School.

To summarize briefly, the private sector respondents said main weaknesses
of the ESEA were that the program attempted to serve too many students, that
more resources were needed, and more personal contacts were needed between

industry employees and teachers. They also noted that strategies should be

98

developed to motivate students and to build esprit de corps among teachers and

students.

They named as the program's strengths the dedicated staff at all levels,

and the good working relationship with and strong support from industry.

On a scale where 1 = Very Weak and 7 = Very Strong, the private sector

representatives rated the ESEA (at Independence as well as Silver Creek) as

follows:
Academy concept:
Implementation at ESEA: 5.2
Summa y

The ESEA followed the Academy model closely in terms of class schedule,
teacher release time, and industry involvement. It differed sharply from the
model in its large size and in serving ninth instead of tenth graders in the

first year. The main deficiencies of the ESEA at silver Creek included:

0 Many students lacked interest in electronics;

0 There was difficulty recruiting appropriate students in a school
that was already served by a competing program (Esteem);

0 There was a lack of unity, both physically (in terms of classroom
location) and psychologically (in terms of teacher teamwork and
student spirit);

0 Programs of extra help for students with academic problems were
ineffective;

0 There was a low level of parental involvement.

The impact of the program on student performance was difficult to measure
due to the lack of a comparison group and the fact that the pre—treatment data
were from junior high school, a system whose standards of credits and grading
may be different from those of the high school. The Academy students'
attendance and level of school retention were good, as compared with other
Academy replication sites (see Chapter II). During the year, however,

attendance dropped. Both credits earned and GPA were down from the previous

99

year. Also, students did not earn the number of credits during the year

needed to stay on track for graduation.

There did seem to be improvements in students' attitudes toward school
and self. Students seemed to like the program. Private sector support was
good, as was school administrative support. However, there is little evidence
of positive program impact as yet. This will have to await another round of

evaluation.

100

CHAPTER II
CROSS-SITE SUMMARY

.This chapter provides a summary of the data sets collected from the
various sites. In some cases, districts have varying systems for recording
data, making it difficult to make valid comparisons across sites. However,

some comparisons are possible.

Data on the comparison groups are not presented in this chapter because
of the questionable comparability of some of these groups and their presence

in only six of the sites.

Enrollments by Site, Sex, and Ethnicity

 

 

§g§ ‘ Ethnicity Egtgl

High School gale Female Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Bakersfield 25 24 —— 8 25 ‘ 16 —— 49
Edison 17 13 3 15 11 1 -- 30
Franklin 19 17 1 7 11 14 3 36
Independence 71 47 12 12 47 43 4 118
Mountain View 20 6 1 '5 2 18 -— 26
Oakland Tech 14 28 7 29 -— s 1 I 42
Oak Ridge 14 9 —— '—- -- 4 23 -— 23
Rio Cazadero 23 20 2 4 5 r 32 —- 43
Hiram Johnson 36 33 11 23 13 22 —— 69
Silver Creek 65 37 2 24 45 28 3 102
Total 304 234 39 127 159 202 11 538
Percent 57 43 7 24 30 38 2 100

101

Program Retention

Retention is the opposite of dropouts. It is the percent of students who
are retained in the program or high school. The graph below displays the
program retention rate for the 1985—86 school year. This is the percent of
Academy students who stayed in the program during the year. Those who left
may have either returned to the regular school program, moved away, or dropped
out. An average across the ten sites is provided, as well as the retention

rate for each site.

 

 

............................................ .‘o.-.-.----.-‘-.-....
u a

Program Retention

0
I

 

-----.--.--...-.--.-. . .....--‘.

Percent Of Students Retained

“I! an mm m h.“- manna UUCI HOE. I.“ ELM m

High Schools

 

 

 

102

High School Retention

High school retention refers to the percent of students who remained in
school throughout the 1985-86 school year. The graph below gives a picture of
this for the Academy students in each of the ten high schools where programs

operated.

 

High School Retention

 

Percent of Students Retained

“I“ an Ma m u.“- “If“ “I. com [al- ULN m

 

 

High Schools

 

103

Attendance

The graph below compares attendance levels for Academy students in the
year prior to their entry into the program (1984—85) with the first program
year (1985—86).

Data were not available from.Hiram Johnson High School in Sacramento,
because of the way attendance records are maintained. In addition, it was
impossible to obtain 1984—85 attendance data for the two San Jose East Side
Union District high schools, Independence and Silver Creek. This was because
students entered the program at the ninth grade in these two schools, and
their eighth grade records came from several different junior high schools,

making them either impossible to obtain or inconsistent.

 

 

§§§§§Svntcsanurmur

academy Students’ Rttendance mm. scum-7w

Percent of Days Rttended

 

W a- mu m .1“ um .I. nous-o CLO. ”

High Schools

 

 

 

104

Credits Earned

The graph below presents credits earned by Academy students for both the
year prior to their entry into the Academy (1984—85) and their first program
year (1985—86). While all ten sites are included in this graph, the data from
the two San Jose East Side Union School District high schools, Independence
and Silver Creek, are somewhat misleading. Here students entered the Academy
in ninth grade, so that the 1984—85 data are from eighth grade. The system of
credits in junior high school is somewhat different, giving the misappearance

of a decline in credits earned during the past year.

 

 

........

academy Students’ Credits Earned m1MWN

 

 

.....

Credits Earned Toward Graduation

m _uu mm m min. ”T. In. «mum It... N.

High Schools

 

 

 

105

Grade Point Average

The graph below presents the Academy students' mean grade point averages
for both the year prior to their entry into the program (1984-85)
and for their first program year (1985—86). The grading system is the standard
4.0 system, where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and F=O.

While all ten sites are included in this graph, the data from the two San
Jose East Side Union School DiStrict high schools, Independence and Silver
Creek, are somewhat misleading. Here students entered the Academy in ninth
grade, so that the 1984—85 data are from eighth grade. The system of grading
in junior high school is somewhat different, giving the misappearance of a

decline in grades earned during the past year.

 

 

Roadeny Students’ Grade Point average mm::: :13:

4

 

" Y

     

 

Grade Point average

m a- Ml. mama-nun: an. com-alu- ILO‘ N.

High Schools

 

 

 

106

Students' Liking of School

The graph below presents Academy students' responses to a questionnaire
administered at the end of the 1985-86 school year. One of the items on this
questionnaire asked students: "How well did you like school in the past year?"
Responses were across five options, ranging from "It was always boring" to "It

was very interesting."

An earlier version of this questionnaire had been administered to the
Academy students early in the fall 1985 semester, just after their entry into
the program. Their response to this same question at that time gives a picture
of their liking of school during the 1984—85 school year, before they entered

the Academy. Both sets of ratings are presented in the graph.

Data are missing from two high schools, Mountain View and Oak Ridge,

which failed to administer the full questionnaire, omitting this item.

 

 

1” “PM

v v I v v y Y V
o I o v o n a o o
o v o I c

granary Students‘ Liking of School (1-Lou. S-Hign) Wan-a sum-«r

 

 

A

Student‘Rating
(A)

 

”I.“ Ell” "mil W um:- um ll. cum I. m 5". an: m

High Schools

 

 

 

107

Students' Self—esteem

The graph below presents Academy students' responses to a questionnaire
administered at the end of the 1985—86 school year. One of the items on this
questionnaire asked students: "How do you feel about yourself after the past
year?" Responses were across five options, ranging from "Very bad" to "Very

good."

An earlier version of this questionnaire had been administered to the
Academy students early in the fall 1985 semester, just after their entry into
the program. Their response to a similar question at that time gives a picture
of their self—esteem after the 1984—85 school year, before they entered the

Academy. Both sets of ratings are included in the graph.

Data are missing from two high schools, Mountain View and Oak Ridge,

which failed to administer the full questionnaire, omitting this item.

 

 

.flcaderly Students’ Self-Esteem (l-Lou. S-Hign) Wan-a seam-n:

1“ “PM

5

h

Self-Rated’Self—Esteen
(A)

 

mum aun- lel m Ill“ I‘ll K30 cum I. w SH. mu m

High Schools

 

 

 

108

Student Ratings of the Academies

The graph below presents the ratings students gave the Academies at the

end of the 1985—86 school year.

administered to program students at that time asked:

One of the items on a questionnaire

"Overall, compared to

the regular school program, how well do you like the Academy program?"

Responses ranged across five options, from "Much worse" to "Much better.

'0

Data are missing from one of the high schools, Mountain View, which

failed to administer the full questionnaire, omitting this item.

(Note:

rating scale in this graph is reversed.from that reported in the individual

site summaries.)

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
  

 
    

 

 

 
   
  

 

 
  

 

 
 

    

  

   
   
  
      
       

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

     
   

 

 

  
  

 

    

the

 

_ - _
Student Rat: ngs of academy (1 Ho. st, 5 Best)
5"”"Y : Y T : 7 V ‘ * *
z : l I I O . . . :
: : g : ‘ , : E S E :
: : : E 2’17378 3 ,I., . ' : :
: : : 19/???" - f 771’” 1 i
: . ..,.-,',;..,;., - :...:/.A/‘.'. - : 7.;7.;-,:,7_...'. . :
: E .53???” 7.:/. {7/4 - : {77/77 7.747.. ' '
, , . .774: 45: .7 '7 77.. ' 9777.771; ., , . .
: : . 7777777774: 727777777: 5 '77777 . 77' 23:772.
4 L ‘ 7:57/4'57/7/7‘ ... //////._7’: .. "7/7777// '75 .. ' ... -71..7/-"///.7/I .. ’/’ /."-
U) ,~ , , -,- - . : - 9777777779. . 7.7777777. I777. {777/777, 7...... .77.... :.:;..::-.':’I.: "
no ._'.I7._'7.I././.'I- : .:.///7"/7.’/7 77.7777/7777.I I.'-.’ 7.77.2.2.“ 77/757757
c VIII/(7.7707 : .7L7..‘<I/7'/.'.7 .:...:/.7/.:5. 7277-4777171}: '.'.. 27.27/1-
’_ 375:77/777 : 777.7777 ..:._: ' ... ”II/77.. 745:777-7 I. ;.:7/7.‘I .’
37 32/4/17}; : 2/4222" - ‘ ‘ ;Z/I;I///7‘1-7 01-7/5” 7-3 3: .‘,_'./_.’7.,4/.l
H4 ’7 7/4177. ' 5752/2775: 7.7.7."! .-'.5— 5.257777 .-.-. 4/1177:
(U 747777 7:7; 9777777724: 77/77/7777. 777777 . :.;-._7.7... . " 3"
K :‘,'.:////7/,;",'/. ’l/II7/1/lll’t '-‘-‘-' [II/A7172 Iz’l’I/flf/l— 2/77 77’1127 '7 - ., -//,5 17:? -- ' -. [77.7.1 I
3_ 77/7/7777; 777777777 .. 777777777 937777777. , 7777777777 . , 7:97.77, 7,777. . 277,777.
7777717.... 777777777. 777777.77 27.7777 77: 77-. 7777.777. ' ’75. 27.7.77. ' ' ‘ 777.77 '
44 777747.771. I.'/I//.//77/'-'7. 77/7/7/7/77. 37152-777. .. 7. "7.7.7777. 157757. 7. 7,. 5:;z..-. ’47.; .7. .. ~. 7.;2
c 777 .7277”: 7277777777. 77777777.; 7.7777777 7.77.7.7... ;.- 27.777... -. 4-77.27 4/7777
0 7557/ 744/ 745574714 -:/.'- 777/432; .7./ 251779 '2'75.5/ /7’/7-:; 77-:7':,’/ .2577.- " . 1777.174.
U :7////1;'1;.7/ {filly/”A12 /.'/7/// 1:1; /7’:/-// ///-." . 7"] Z-.I V/II/l1 . L7. ./,1,‘.{.’. 5.1,. -/,'.//:
3 Z7jl‘a7/l /7» .,I7.///////,/, ul'4/7/l, 517? ///1,‘1"1,.‘,’/j/,Z\.’,._'- I. .;.,.,..'/,‘,' 71.53377”.
7777774777.. 7I7/7/77777'I. 774777 77777077. 23.35:... '
4.) 'I.'.;-;//.»_.:j7/I.- 7/7/7777 I7. :’I7I7//I7. 77.;//7'/...'/, '
g) 2__7 77/777 _, :7/7 37/77, - __ 72.77/77.- . 77777777.
I. . 7.7 ....; I777/ .7777. 4- ...777.. -.-. " ' ’
2/ //7///////-:- afl/fl/fltf? /;’/l;r/;III 13.13/07. // If,
I./'I/////./ . 7/. .’I 'I/..: 27.9.
.. VII/g7; 15;. 77.7.
5 /.////7.-'-; 15.47.77 :7
Will/76’6". .7-///’/
- 7../I.’:7’ ,'~. ’ 977.774}- ‘ f
:l 7/ I '1 I471 ' ’ll”/// // :3 ’ 1.7777555 "- '1 l/ [/71 '7 7"!11‘; I, ‘.
1d ./’//’/'/7-:" ’71’7”‘X”'7. /’.'IZI.5_ 7 . ;Z;.' 7.7/75: 7,—7, .7102: .2 .'.'/.’//7.'7.
mu an mm m M MI I a. lo m ll. m

 

 

 

109

 

        

 

1 W: mm: a? 2m. maawmmxa gm ' 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

CHAPTER III
ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter provides a discussion of the findings across sites. Topics
include first-year implementation, a cost analysis, conclusions regarding

student impact, and recommendations.
First—Year Implementation

Programs require a start-up period during which they are still being
organized and not yet operating at peak effectiveness.. The Academy model is
complex, requiring substantial variations from ordinary high school operations
and the involvment of the private sector. The original Peninsula Academies
were not fully operational until after three years, when all classes were in
place and all components of the program tested. Thus, the past year was a

Shakedown period for the ten replications.

There were start-up problems in most of the sites ranging from the
trivial to the critical. All are still building the program in some ways.
A What are the most important factors that affected implementation? There were
two central deviations from the Academy model, each of which occurred in a
given district, and several components that require more attention in a number

of sites.

0 In one district, the two Academies failed to establish the
team of teachers, and the coordinated set of academic
classes, intended to accompany the technical lab. In these
two schools, students had a career—oriented technical class.
However, the lack of related Academy academic classes
eliminated much of the school—within—a—school structure and
related student and teacher support intended.

o In a second district, the choice was made to select
approximately 100 ninth grade students, rather than the
smaller number of tenth graders specified by the model, with
the intent of operating the program for four years. This
structure places a strain on program resources, as all the
program's outside contributions (mentors, jobs) occur at
once, a problem with which these programs are now struggling.

111

In addition, the following implementation issues played a role in a number of

the sites:

0 The degree of private sector involvement varied considerably
from site to site. Where such involvement was weak, there
was a negative effect upon the intended joint
decision-making and program of guest speakers and field
trips this first year. Strengtening this component will
become even more important with the mentor and summer job
components intended for the second year.

c The degree of coordination between the academic and
vocational curriculum also varied this first year. This is
a component that generally develops over time, but further
attention to this facet of the model is needed in many sites.

0 Several of the sites failed to provide the intended extra
common planning period for program teachers. The original
Peninsula Academies teachers'found this to be essential if
the needed program coordination is to take place.

9 The degree of administrative support within each high school
and district also varied.‘ While this is something that
generally develops over time in sites where administrative
support was weak, there were problems that should be
addressed. ‘

o The student selection procedure is another important
implementation issue, as program staff develop a sense for
what students can best benefit from the program.
Modifications in these procedures are needed in several
sites.

0 Another factor that probably contributes to program success
is the degree of parental involvement. Again, this varied
from site to site this first year.

The quality of implementation in each of the sites and the degree to
which the Academy model was followed seems to be closely related to initial
program success. In those sites where the model was carefully followed and
implemented, success in terms of student outcomes has been greatest. Where
this has been less the case, weaker outcomes seem to have resulted. This
argues for a consistent adherence to the Academy model, and for developing
those components now weak or lacking in the sites where such is the case. The
individual case studies in Chapter I provide specific recommendations in this

regard for each site.

112

Cost Analysis

It was not possible at this stage to develop a useful benefit—cost
analyses of these programs. They are too early in their development, their
impact is as yet too unclear, and the data are simply too sketchy. Thus, what
is presented here is information on Academy costs, along with analyses of
dropout prevention and employment preparation program benefits performed by

other researchers.

The social benefits of such a program are most easily stated in terms of
the social costs avoided when students complete school, rather than drop out.
A number of attempts have been made to estimate the cost to society of youth
who drop out of school and become unemployed. None of these provide precise
measures of these variables, but we present them with the hope imprecise
information is better than none. The approach is generally to gauge both the
direct costs of social services directed to such unemployed youth and the lost
taxes from their not working. One analysis, entitled "Youth Unemployment in
New York City: The Cost of Doing Nothing," (Interface, 1983) made such an
attempt for that city. It concluded that:

...for every one thousand 20 year olds put to work, the city
would regain $163,702 in income and sales tax revenues. Add
that to the direct cost of AFDC benefits for those one thousand
youths and their children, and you have $1,216,452 added to the
city coffers in the first year of their employment or more than
$1,200 per youth....

Another analysis done in New York City, entitled "The Value of Youth
Work," (Interface, 1984) analyzes the benefits over ten years of providing a
$10,000/youth one—year training program to 1,000 unemployed youth. This
analysis assumes a 47% placement rate and 1984 wages in that city. Given the
reduced welfare costs and increased city income and sales tax revenues, "For
every dollar in public expenditures on this project, the city would realize
$1.21 in benefits." The additional benefits in state and federal taxes were

not calculated, since the analysis was focused on just New York City.

A study done for Los Angeles along the same lines, entitled "On the
Social Costs of Dropping Out of School," (Catterall, 1985), examines the

113

lifetime effects on earnings, lost taxes, and added societal costs for those
who fail to graduate from high school. Averaging these figures for males and

females (Catterall computes them separately) gives the following picture for a

dropout:
Lost income (over a lifetime) $154,500
Lost taxes (all levels) 46,350
Additional societal costs 24,400

The "additional societal costs" he lists include police and crime—related
services, employment services, welfare services, and health services. While
the lost income should probably be viewed as a personal cost of dropping out,
the other two categories are clearly societal costs, and total $70,750 per

youth. Again, these should be viewed as rough estimates.

What does an Academy program cost? Each Academy receives a $50,000
annual grant from the state. The legislation requires a match of this amount
from both the district and cooperating businesses. While this match is
largely in terms of in—kind services, the state allotment nevertheless
leverages a considerable contribution from these other sources, and in the
case of the business contribution, this is support that would not otherwise go

toward the education of youth.

What is the per-student cost of an Academy over and above each district's
regular per—pupil expenditure? This of course varies from site to site, since
varying numbers of students were served in different sites. Across the ten
programs, 538 students were enrolled in the Academies. Given the total state

budget of $500,000 for the ten grants in 1985—86, this averages $929/student.

This figure is somewhat misleading on the eventual per—pupil cost of the
program, since students enter each year at the tenth grade and move up, and
this first year only tenth graders were in place. Thus, approximately twice
as many students will be served during 1986—87 as were in 1985-86, and even
more in 1987—88 (although attrition will probably reduce this increase
somewhat). Perhaps a fair estimate of the eventual cost of the program to the
state, under the current funding formula, is approximately $500 per student

per year. To this must be added approximately $1,000 per student in largely

114

.. .w—W .

~. \ anuvffsw "NW” - ~nA-J '

in—kind contributions from the matching district and business support. Across
the three years of the program for a given student, this totals $1,500 in
state costs and $3,000 in matching support, for a total of $4,500. (This is
over and above each district's regular per pupil expenditure.) These figures,
too, are estimates. Data reflecting actual program income and expenditures

will be collected during the next two years.

Student Impact

There are four categories of information examined here in terms of the

Academies on students. They are:

0 School-related outcomes, including retention in high school,
attendance, credits earned toward graduation, and grade point
averages_

0 Students' career planning
0 Students' attitudes toward school and themselves

0 Student ratings of the programs and the relationships between
these ratings and factors that seem to explain them.

School Related Outcomes. 0f the various indicators of program
effectiveness, the school related outcomes——attendance, retention, credits
earned for graduation, and grade point average——are the most important. They
provide concrete evidence of educationally important changes in the program

participants.

To be able to conclude with full confidence that the programs did,
indeed, affect these key outcomes requires a robust evaluation design, which
is fully implemented. Such a design is required, of course, in order to rule
out other factors and explanations that could account for changes in the

program participants during the time they were in the Academies.

Unfortunately, due largely to a variety of logistical problems, such an
evaluation was not possible in many of the sites, with the result that those
data which were collected on attendance, retention, credits, and GPA are often

ambiguous. Thus, in most of the ten sites it is not possible to determine

115

from the data which were collected on these outcome measures whether or not
the programs had an impact. That determination, as an overall judgment across
the ten sites, will have to await the next round of evaluation, where it is

hoped the planned improvements in the evaluation will allow this.

The principal evaluation deficiencies which occurred in varying degrees

of seriousness across the sites were three:

0 The lack of comparison groups. Four of the sites opted not
to have such a group.

0 The non—comparability of comparison groups. Even the sites
where comparison groups were set up, their frequent lack of
comparability to the Academy population on one or more of
the matching variables (which included sex, race/ethnicity,
and past attendance, credits, and grades) made it difficult
to use the data from these groups to estimate the effects of
non—treatment.

0 Failure to collect the necessary data on attendance,
retention, credits, and grades on a pre-post basis for both
the treatment and comparison groups, which was due in most
cases either to the unavailability of such data, or lack of
staff to perform the collection.
Plans are in place to correct these problems, to the degree possible, in the

next round of evaluation.

Despite the fact that these evaluation shortcomings were present to some
degree in most sites, there is, nevertheless, highly encouraging data from one
site, and more tentative but also encouraging evidence from two others, that
the Academy programs are having positive impact on attendance, retention,
credits, and grades. The importance of this is that it demonstrates that the

Academy concept can work.

Students' career planning. The second category of information examined
here is the effect of the Academies on students' career planning. This
information comes from the pre—post student questionnaires, which were
administered early in the fall 1985 semester, prior to any significant program

impact, and again at the end of 1986 spring semester.

116

Have the Academies had an effect on students' career planning? Three
questionnaire items speak to this question. The first asks students whether
they had made post—graduate plans. In the pre-test, the average response (on
a scale ranging from 1—-"I haven't thought about this," to S-—"I have a
definite plan and have begun to implement it") was 2.8 and on the post—test
2.9. This shows a slight but minimal improvement. The second item asks
students if they had a long-term career goal. On the pre-test 59.7% responded
positively and on the post—test 60.5% did so, again a very minimal increase.
The third item asks students how important it was to gain job skills in high
school (with responses ranging from 1——"Very important," to S--"Very
unimportant"). The mean pre—test score was 1.3, and the mean post—test score
was 1.3. Based on these three sources of information, the Academies seem not
to have had an effect on students' career planning. However, Academy staff
point out that 10th grade is still early for post-graduate plans to be set,

and that students are becoming more sophisticated about their Options.

Students' attitudes toward school and themselves. Have the Academies had
an effect on students' attitudes toward school? One questionnaire item speaks
to this question. It asks students how well they liked school in the past
year. The mean pre-test score (on a scale ranging from 1—-"It was always
interesting," to 5-—"It was always boring") was 2.9, and the mean post-test
score was 2.2. This is a statistically significant change (p < .01), and
suggests the Academies have had a positive effect on students' attitudes

toward school.

Have the Academies had an effect on students' attitudes toward themselves?
Two questionnaire items speak to this question. The first asks students how
they feel about themselves after the past year (e.g., in terms of school,
friends, and their future). The mean pre-test score (on a scale from 1—-"Very
good," to S-—"Very bad“) was 2.3 and on the post-test, 1.8. This is a statis—
tically significant change (p < .02). The second questionnaire item asks
students if they would prefer to be someone else.. On the pre—test, 32.6% say
yes, and on the post-test 25.2% do so. This is also a statiStically
significant change (p < .02). Based on these two items, the Academies seem

to have positively influenced students' self—perceptions.

117

Student ratings of the programs. Students were asked to rate how well
they liked the Academy, in comparison with the regular school program, on a
scale ranging from l--"Much better," to 5——"Much worse." The mean rating
across the sites was 1.7, which falls between the "Much better" and "Slightly

better" options.

We decided to examine correlations between this rating and other
factors. One such factor stood out. One questionnaire item asked whether
students felt they received "the help they needed with their school work or
home work" during the past year. A correlation of .83 between this and the
program rating was found. In short, a great deal of the variation in the

students' ratings of the Academy program derived from this.

We then decided to examine whether receiving this needed extra help
correlated with other variables. The correlation coefficient between this
factor and attendance was .51 and between this and GPA it was .73. This
-suggests that a key to the performance of students in the Academies is whether
they feel they receive the help they need with their school work. This
finding is consistent with the Academy attempt to provide a secure "home base"
in the high school and the extra support that at—risk students often need to

succeed.
Recommendations

Evidence from a few well implemented sites, suggests that while this
model has the potential to have a significant impact on student outcomes,
careful implementation and adherence to certain central features of the model
are necessary. Those sites that most fully followed the model and most
carefully implemented the program showed the best results. What are the

features of the model that appear critical to success?

0 A defined student selection process that results in the enrollment
of potentially successful, at—risk youth in the program;

118

0 That the full school—within—a—school structure be implemented, so
that Academy students have in common both a technical class and a
core set of academic courses, taught by teachers who have a
common preparation period during which they can coordinate their
activities and curriculum;

0 Strong private sector support, including: involvement in a
governing body so that decision—making is conducted jointly by
educators and employers; input into the technical curriculum; and
support for certain critical features of the program, including
business speakers, field trips, mentors, and work experience;

0 Strong district and school support, so that Academy teachers have
the necessary planning time to coordinate the program's
activities, school counselors and administrators support the
program, and the facilities, equipment, and curricular materials
are adequate.

In addition to these necessary core elements, feedback from the sites
during the last year suggests the following specific elements of the programs

need attention in a number of sites (and any future sites):

0 Full orientations to the Academy concept and structure, and staff
development training in areas where program staff may lack skills
to operate an Academy; ’

o Structuring the program's facilities so that there is a "home
base" classroom at each school dedicated exclusively to the
program;

0 Establishing a reasonably broad base of private sector
participation, so that too heavy a load does not fall on one or
two companies;

0 Communicating regularly with parents and giving them specific
avenues for participation;

0 Where possible, integrating not only the schedule and staffing
for the academic and technical courses, but the curriculum as
well;

0 Strengthening the career planning component of the program by
expanding contacts between students and private sector
representatives and including career planning as a specific
element of the curriculum.

The fact that not all these elements were present at a number of the
sites during the 1985—86 school-year raises the question of how to correct

this problem. While there is a case to be made for some flexibility in the

119

model, and the first year of most programs includes start—up problems, there
is also the need to enforce the core features of the model essential to its

success. The following represent recommendations in this regard:

a stricter administration of the grants by the State Department of
Education, including a mechanism for cutting off grants where
called for;

o Fuller training of site representatives in the model, prior to
and during its implementation;

0 Language in the legislation supporting the programs that includes
clearer and firmer guidelines for receipt of state money for
support of an Academy.

In addition, the weaknesses in the evaluation itself need to be corrected.
These-weaknesses include the lack of comparison groups in all sites, the need
for complete matching between program and comparison groups, and the collection
of all categories of data called for in the evaluation design. Fuller
information regarding program implementation also needs to be collected,
including data on income and expenditures. Resources were not available to
permit all of this during the past year, but have now been provided by two

private foundations.
Questions for Further Research

An additional two-year evaluation of the Peninsula Academy replications
is now planned, supported by private foundations. In addition to those

addressed in this report, we hope to answer the following questions:

0 What are the longer—term effects of the Academy replications in
terms of their implementation, cost, and impact on students?

0 What are the effects of the program on students' scores on
standardized achievement tests?

0 What is the relationship between student outcomes and student
characteristics, such as grade level, sex, race, and socio-

economic status?

0 Is the program as a whole, and the effective sites in particular,
cost beneficial?

120

In addition to these questions, we will address the larger issue of the
relationship of the Academies to other efforts aimed at motivating and helping
at—risk youths better to prepare for their future. The results of this

research should complement other state and national efforts in this realm.

121

 

REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

Interface. Youth Unemployment in New York City: The Cost of Doing Nothing.

New York: The New York Interface Development Project, Inc., 1983.

Interface. The Value of Youth Work. New York: The New York Interface
Development Project, Inc., 1984.

Catterall, James 8. On the Social Costs of Dropping Out of School.
Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, 1985.

In addition to this report, there is a complementary one on the Peninsula
Academies replications, prepared by the Program Evaluation and Research
Division of the California State Department of Education. It does not contain
data on student outcomes, or questionnaire feedback, but it does provide
insights into the factors influencing success of the Academies, based on site
visits and interviews with a cross-section of th6se associated with the

programs in each site.

There are also a number of evaluation reports on the Peninsula Academies
themselves, including yearly "Interim" reports from 1981-82 through 1985—86, a
three-year "Final Technical Evaluation Report" (December, 1984) that summarizes
data across the three previous years, and an "Interim Longitudinal Report"
(November, 1985) that‘summarizes the findings of a follow;up survey of
Peninsula Academies graduates. These reports were prepared by the American
Institutes for Research, P.O. Box 1113, Palo Alto, CA 94302.

123

~

:2,
.p; .
. ,

 

APPENDIX

TECHNICAL NOTES

Notes on Site Summary Reports—Data Sources,
Categories, Comparison Groups, and Analyses

Data Sources:

Data Categories:

Data on attendance, credits, and grades were collected by
local project staff. Questionnaires were developed by the
authors of this report and were administered by local
project staff. The Incoming Student Questionnaire was
administered within two weeks of the start of school in
fall, 1985, and the Year-End Student Questionnaire during
the last month of school in spring, 1986. The School
Personnel Questionnaires, Parent Questionnaires, and
Private Sector Questionnaires were also completed toward
the end of the school year. Academy teachers, adminis—
trators and others associated with the program were
instructed to complete the School Personnel instrument; in
some sites, non-Academy personnel also responded to this
questionnaire. Project directors were instructed to
select from four to six parents and about the same number
of private sector supporters to complete questionnaires.
No attempt was made to sample these groups statistically.

Attendance. Daily attendance rates for each student were
calculated by dividing the number of days attended (using
the school's method of determining attendance for ADA
purposes) by the number of days the student was enrolled
at the school during the semester in question.

Credits. This figure represents the number of course
credits earned during the reporting period.

Egg. The grade point average for each student was
calculated at each site, using the scale F=0, D=1, C=2,_
3:3, and A=4. All replication sites gave grades of F when
warranted. Incompletes were not counted. The GPA
includes grades from all courses, Academy and regular
program, taken by the student during the reporting period.

Retention in Academy. A student is considered to have
been retained in the program if he or she was enrolled in
the Academy through the end of the school year in June
1986.

Retention in School. A student was considered to have

been retained in school if he or she was enrolled in the
Academy's host high school through the end of the school
year. This figure includes students in the Academy and

125

Hatched Compari—
son Groups

Data Analysis:
(Attendance,
Credits, and
Grades)

those who left the program for any reason but stayed in
school. Those not retained in school include those who
left for legitimate reasons (for example, moving away) as
well as those who dropped out or were expelled or
suspended from school.

Attempts were made in each of the six sites electing to
have a comparison group to match members of this group
with the Academy students on the basis of high school and
grade level, as well as sex and ethnicity. In addition,
attempts were made to match on the basis of past attend—
ance, credits, and grade point average. Results of these
attempts are presented in each of the case studies in
Chapter I.

1984—85 Academy and Comparison Group Analyses. One-way
Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) for independent groups were
used as tests of significance. The analyses included all
students for whom 1984—85 data were reported.

1985—86 Academy and Comparison Group Analyses. One—way
ANOVA for independent groups were used as tests of
significance. The analyses included only those students
who had data from both semesters. That is, Academy
students who dropped out of the program and comparison
students who left school were not included, unless data
(e.g., attendance, credits, or grades) were reported for
them for each semester. It is for this reason that the Ns
for these analyses are usually smaller than those for
either the fall or spring semester analyses.

Fall 1985 and Spring 1986 Semester, Academy and Comparison
Group Analyses. One—way ANOVA for independent groups were
used as tests of significance. For each semester, the
analyses included all students for whom data were
available, including, in some cases, students who dropped
out of the program or out of school. (In some school
districts, records of dropped students are retained and
available, while in others they are not.)

1984—85 and 1985—86 Academy Student Only Analyses. Tests
of significance (t tests for two matched groups) were
conducted. The analyses included only those students for
whom data were reported for both school years. That is,
the analyses exclude those Academy students who left the
program and for whom data were missing for either the fall
or the spring semester of 1985—86, as well as Academy and
comparison students who left school. Thus, for these
analyses, the Ns for 1984—85 are smaller than those used
to compare the Academy and comparison groups during the
pre—treatment year.

126

Fall 1985 and Spring 1986 Semester Academy Student Only
Analyses. Tests of significance (t tests for two matched
groups) were conducted to see whether students improved
their performance in the Academy during the school year.
The analyses included only those students for whom data
were available for both semesters.

Notes on Cross—Site Analysis-School
Records and Questionnaire Data

Attendance,
Credits, and
Grades:

Student
Questionnaire
Responses:

T tests for two independent groups were used as the test of
significance for the total average attendance rates, number
of credits earned, and GPAs for the Academy and comparison
students at the six replication sites which had comparison
students. Thus the unit of analyses in these tests was
sites, not individual students, resulting in a conserva—
tive approach to finding significant differences.

T tests for independent groups were used as the test of
significance for the total average attendance rates,
number of credits earned, and GPAs for Academy students
during the 1984—85 and 1985-86 school year (pre— and
post—treatment). Sites without pre—treatment data on any
one measure (attendance, credits, grades) were excluded
for that analysis. '

T tests for two matched groups were used to analyze pre-post

differences in responses to questionnaire items tapping career

planning, attitudes toward school, and self—esteem.

Correlation and regression analyses were used to establish
relationships between the following pairs of posttest
questionnaire items: _

(a) attitude toward school/overall rating of Academy program

(b) frequency of receiving needed extra help with school work/

overall rating of Academy program

(c) frequency of receiving needed extra help with school work/

attendance rate

(d) frequency of receiving needed extra help with school work!

GPA
(e) GPA/overall rating of Academy program
(f) attendance/overall rating of Academy program

127

 

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE