Evaluation Plan ELFH 606
Rita Cron, Diana French, Amber Jaggers, and Julie Scoskie
Introduction: General Description of the Project
In Kentucky, state and community leaders were keenly aware something had to be done
to increase retention and educational attainment across the board in order to remain competitive
in the 21st century economy. The state called for a seamless, integrated system of adult education
and services that would result in greater numbers of adults receiving a General Educational
Development (GEDs), entering, and persisting in postsecondary education.
There were several very compelling reasons for change, including Kentucky’s low
national ranking in educational attainment, the high percentage of students entering community
college needing remediation, poor retention of lower-level students, and limited resources.
The K-12 adult education providers were in “competition” with the community college.
The funding for adult education is provided via a competitive process and these respective
institutions were frequently competing for the same grant funding. Leaders at Jefferson County
Public Schools Adult Education and at Jefferson Community and Technical (JCTC) collaborated
in developing a program to address the challenges faced by students. The mantra—Increasing
Educational Attainment from GEDs to Ph.D.’s—was adopted by key stakeholders in the
community. Joint marketing efforts included the slogan, “First your GED, then JCTC.”
Educational Enrichment Services (EES – pronounced “ease”) is a Jefferson County
Public Schools Transitions Program funded by Kentucky Adult Education in partnership with
Jefferson Community and Technical College (JCTC). EES offers free courses in reading,
writing, and math for those students entering college whose entrance exam scores fall below the
minimum. The goal of EES is to improve retention and academic success for remedial college
students. The program is designed to assist students whose college
entrance exam scores fall below a designated level. The partnership
has resulted in an annual savings to the students of approximately
$400,000 in tuition and higher student retention rates at the college
for students beginning their college experience as EES participants.
Classes are located at two JCTC campuses in Louisville, Kentucky. In addition to a review of
fundamentals, EES instructors embed college success navigation tools (study strategies, campus
resources, financial aid, and email) in the curricula. Students who complete EES have
demonstrated they are better prepared academically and personally for the transition into
developmental or credit courses at JCTC. Students eligible for EES classes score below 28 on
COMPASS math, below 21 on COMPASS writing, and below 51 on COMPASS reading.
COMPASS is an untimed, computerized test that helps evaluate an individual’s skills and place
them into appropriate courses.
The hypothesis of this program was that retention of students enrolled in the EES
program would be equal to JCTC’s one-year retention percentage.
The program results exceeded the expectations stated. In order to analyze discrepancies, a
concordance table was used to convert COMPASS to grade level scores. When a discrepancy
was uncovered between the TABE and COMPASS scores of more than one grade level, an
interview of the student was conducted by the teacher. If the teacher discovered that the student
did not put forth their “best effort” on COMPASS, the student was referred back to JCTC for
placement in a higher level course.
Detailed description of the EES program
A.
Purpose of the evaluation
The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if a partnership between JCPS Adult
Education and JCTC improved retention of basic skills deficient incoming college
freshmen. Retention would be tracked for course completion and retention at the college
one year after EES enrollment.
B.
Audiences for the evaluation included:




C.
Administrative leaders at JCTC and JCPS Adult Education
Instructors at JCTC and JCPS Adult Education.
Policy-makers at the state level including Kentucky Adult Education, the Council
on Postsecondary Education, and elected officials.
The Workforce Investment Board whose mission includes increasing education
attainment across the board from GED’s to Ph.D.’s.
Generic description of program components
It is a program partnership between JCTC and JCPS Adult Education providing a system
of student identification, referral and instructional delivery for incoming JCTC freshmen
in the areas of reading, writing, and math.
D.
Evaluation model that serves as a framework
The management-oriented evaluation model designed by Daniel Stufflebeam guided the
program evaluation. This model was selected due to the decisions that need to be made
to impact long-term sustainable program improvements. The model’s core components
are context, input, process, and product evaluation (CIPP) and applied to the EES
program as follows:
Contractual Agreements
The purpose of the program evaluation
determined if student retention improved as a
result of EES program and if students made
academic gains as measured by pre- and post-
TABE scores. Identified procedures checked
the accuracy of the scores by requiring both the
COMPASS and the TABE test. If
discrepancies emerged, trained staff evaluated
the individual cases. Quantitative analyses
assessed the program. A formal Memorandum
of Mutual Understanding assured the necessary
information needed to perform the evaluation
would be available to the internal evaluators.
The audience for the formative reports was
instructional leaders and support personnel.
Audiences for the summative reports at the
conclusion of one year were instructional
leaders and policy makers. Frequent informal
meetings and formal scheduled monthly
meetings with an agenda and meeting minutes
kept communication open and fluid.
Context Evaluation
The goal was to evaluate student retention and
academic gains. Trained data collection clerks
at JCPS adult education and JCTC monitored
and collected the demographic and assessment
results. Modified PeopleSoft registration
software at JCTC placed an identifier in the
database for EES students to track students as
long as they attended JCTC. Retention and test
scores were reported to instructional leaders at
the end of each semester.
Input Evaluation
The input evaluation would consists of: 1) the
number of people referred to EES and their
course completion 2) the difference in the preand post-test results 3) how many EES students
were retained one year after enrolling in EES
4) JCTC data on entering freshmen retention
not referred to EES one year after enrolling. It
was determined there were not existing
programs to serve as a model. Existing staff
were utilized for the program implementation
and evaluation. The evaluation report was
shared with instructional staff and leaders at
each respective institution for feedback and
approval prior to releasing the results to the
public.
Process Evaluation
The process of conducting the evaluation was
agreed upon including how the attendance and
scores would be monitored and recorded.
There were two lead evaluators (JCPS
Coordinator and JCTC Remedial Chairperson)
responsible for collecting, organizing, and
reporting the data. Progress was reported
monthly to instructional leaders and
adjustments were made based on the reports to
guide continuous program improvement.
Impact Evaluation
The program evaluation had to measure the
impact of EES on JCPS adult education, JCTC,
and the students enrolled in the program. Input
was solicited from community and business
leaders to learn their perspectives on the
program’s importance and the impact on our
community.
Effectiveness Evaluation
The quality, cost-effectiveness, and
significance of the program outcomes were
documented. The EES program retention
outperformed the college in a very costeffective manner. The funds used to provide
the instruction were reallocated from the JCPS
adult education budget. Retention outcomes of
EES students were higher than average for
adult education programs. The tuition saved
by students needing remediation assisted with
access and affordability issues faced by
students. Similar programs were not available
to use as a comparison. The unanticipated
consequence was the retention results were
stronger than the college’s retention rate even
though EES participants were the lowestfunctioning, most at-risk students.
Sustainability Evaluation
Due to the reallocation of existing resources,
the program’s prospects for long-term
sustainability were good. The effectiveness of
the program and the results indicated the
students were the real beneficiaries of the
program. The program assisted JCPS adult
education in qualifying for incentive dollars
which mitigated any cost of operating and
expanding the program. The sustainability
evaluation report calls for a follow-up study to
assess the long-term implementation results.
Transportability Evaluation
The EES program is transportable due to the
program relevance and need for to increase
educational attainment. EES documentation
and the alignment of institutional missions
facilitate the feasibility of program replication.
The program would require adaptation for
smaller programs with too few students to from
a separate class; however, program curricula
and strategies are appropriate regardless of the
size of the program
Metaevaluation
The EES program should be evaluated by an
independent evaluator and the findings used to
strengthen the program and evaluation.
Final reports were prepared based on the
intended audience: instructional leaders,
elected officials, and business/community
leaders. The program reports included details
on how the program was planned, conducted,
funded, staffed, and how it could be replicated.
It included obstacles faced in aligning curricula
and personnel issues and well as tables and
graphs to illustrate comparisons in
demographic and retention data between EES
and JCTC.
The Final Synthesis Report
.
The CIPP evaluation questions relative to the EES program evaluation are as follows:
QUESTION
1) What needs to be done?
2) How should it be done?
3) Is it being done?
4) Did it succeed?
AREAS OF CONCERN
Improved freshman student retention at JCTC
was the primary focus. JCTC’s retention rate
at the end of the first semester was only 53%.
Partner with adult education to combine
resources to meet the educational needs of the
lowest-functioning, most at-risk students
entering JCTC.
The course completion increased for the EES
students from 53% to 70%. Student retention
increased one year after EES enrollment from
45% to 56%.
Leaders and staff at JCTC and JCPS Adult
Education judged the extent to which the
students served stayed in the program and
made educational gains based on pre- and posttest scores on the national Test of Adult Basic
Education (TABE). Enabling eighty-eight
percent of students served to bypass one or
more developmental education course saving
those students both time and money.
The management-oriented evaluation model was used to guide leaders to partnership
stakeholders to data driven, informed decisions.
PROCESS EVALUATION: Implementation Questions/Objectives/ HOW IS IT BEING DONE?
A.
Description of the project's implementation objectives
1.
What you planned to do (services/interventions/training; duration and intensity of
service/intervention/training)
The EES Program serves adults functioning at or below the 8th grade-level equivalency
by concurrently enrolling them in JCPS Adult Education and JCTC classes. This program serves
as a model which could be replicated in other counties and states. JCPS Adult Education
rebranded the name of the program from Adult Basic Education/GED to Educational Enrichment
Services. The majority of the target audience holds a high school diploma; however, they
function below the 8th grade level. The program mirrors the classes offered by JCTC and
conducted twice a week, for 12 weeks, lasting for 75 minutes in both fall and spring semesters.
EES requirements include: a course syllabus, required attendance, and homework. PeopleSoft
registration enrolls students and it is entered into the Adult Education Aerin database. The major
challenge faced was securing the necessary resources to adequately fund the creation and
sustainability of the program. Money was needed to align curriculum, produce materials for
students, equip seven college classrooms, purchase computers and software, and hire instructors
to teach intensive courses to diverse learners.
2.
Whom you planned to administer program (staffing arrangements and
qualifications/characteristics of staff)
JCTC and JCPS Adult Education jointly taught the first semester. All staff had a
bachelor’s degree or higher. Some JCTC staff taught both for adult education and EES classes
when possible. JCPS assigned a staff member to coordinate the program. Key leadership met at
least monthly to informally evaluate the program. Staff at each respective institution aligned
curricula to ensure a smooth, successful transition of students to enter the next level at JCTC.
3.
Target population (intended characteristics and number of members of the target
population to be reached by each service/intervention/training effort and how you
planned to recruit participants)
The target population for the EES Program was 800 incoming JCTC freshman who
scored below a mandated score in reading and/or math on the COMPASS college entrance exam.
Students are referred by JCTC based on COMPASS scores. The cut scores are non-negotiable
and help JCTC staff remain objective and the referrals are easily understood. The referral cut
score, determined by JCTC, and negotiated with JCPS Adult Education prior to each semester, is
based on the changing needs of the students, partners, and policies.
A. Statement of evaluation questions (Were program implementation objectives
attained? If not, why not? What were the barriers/facilitators of attaining objectives?)





How many students enroll in the EES classes?
How many students complete the EES classes?
What is the pre-and post-test gain?
How many students enroll the next semester at JCTC?
How many students persist and are enrolled one year after taking EES?
EES objectives were attained. There were no barriers; however, the major challenge was
funding.
B.
Description of data collection methods and data collected for each evaluation question
1.
Description of sampling procedures

Demographic information is collected from the student on the student including
name, address, contact information, referral source, race, age, and educational
attainment on hand-written enrollment forms. Every student enrolled in EES was
included in the program evaluation.

COMPASS college entrance scores are converted to grade-level equivalency
scores as reported on the TABE




C.
Students are entered and enrolled in the JCTC and JCPS registration and data
management systems.
Students are given the TABE test and scores are analyzed and recorded.
Students are post-tested at the end of every semester and information is entered in
the data management system.
Semester data including enrollment, course completion, and gains are collected by
the EES coordinator and reported at the leadership meetings regularly and to other
stakeholder group annually
Description of data collected (instrumentation) and methodology of data collection
COMPASS and TABE pre- and post- test data is collected using a standard adult
education enrollment and separation forms. The testing procedures outlined in the testing
manuals are followed to ensure valid and reliable scores. Staff members administering the test
are trained by JCPS resource teachers in proper test administration procedures.
Students receive two different assessments; COMPASS and TABE. The COMPASS is
the college entrance exam. ACT has developed a concordance table that provides a TABE grade
level based on the COMPASS score. The COMPASS score is the assessment that generates the
referral to EES. Further, the TABE test is required by adult education and administered to the
student the first day of EES classes. If there is a discrepancy between the test results, further
discussion with the student provides referral guidance to the best class placement.
The COMPASS (ACT, 1997) is an adaptive computer-based assessment comprised of
reading, writing, mathematics, and English as a second language. The COMPASS is normed on
the entire population taking this assessment. The COMPASS validity is based on the ability to
place students in the most appropriate level of instruction and to assess the effectiveness of the
remedial education for revised placement. Equivalent form reliability for the COMPASS ranges
between .73-.90. The test/retest reliability data were not reported.
ACT offers a predictive validity system to measure a student’s predicted probability of
success in a standard course. Median correlations between COMPASS and course grades appear
adequate. Standard error measurements for each individual’s test score provide colleges with
confidence intervals for determining their localized cut scores for minimum student performance.
The COMPASS score determines the referral to the EES program. Each EES student
takes the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) before receiving instruction. Every EES
student enrolled in the fall semester (263 students) were included in the EES program evaluation.
The TABE design (CTB/McGraw-Hill, 2004) provides valid competency levels and measures a
student’s progress in the areas of reading, mathematics computation, applied mathematics, and
language. The test combines norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. Examinees are
ranked relative to a norm group. In addition, criterion-referenced information provides
instructional needs of examinees.
The TABE is normed on a sample of examinees enrolled in Adult Basic Education
programs. The TABE’s internal consistency reliability is rated as acceptable (.88-.95). The test
manual does not include reliability on test/retest or inter-rater reliability. The EES program
evaluation compared COMPASS scores with TABE scores using a crosswalk developed by
ACT.
JCPS and JCTC have a formal information sharing agreement outlined in the attached
Memorandum of Collaboration (MOC). The MOC facilitates the access to data providing
longitudinal information the student’s success in postsecondary education beyond EES.
PRODUCT EVALUATION: This answers the question, “Did it succeed?” Participant Outcome
Objectives:
A.
B.
C.
Description of participant outcome objectives:
1.
What changes were participants expected to exhibit as a result of
participation in each service/intervention/training component?
2.
What changes were participants expected to exhibit as a result of
participation in the project in general?
Statement of evaluation questions, evaluation design, and method for assessing
change for each question:
1.
Did retention rate increase for freshmen?
2.
Did intervention prove cost effective for students/JCTC?
3.
Did quantitative approach yield valid and reliable results for decision to
continue or discontinue intervention?
4.
Did using COMPASS and TABE provide valid and reliable data for
retention information?
Discussion of data collection methods (for each question)
1.
Description of sampling procedures:
Incoming freshman students selected.
2.
Description of data collected:
COMPASS and TABE test scores collected from incoming freshman
students.
3.
Description of methodology of data collection:
COMPASS and TABE embedded with student schedule. Student
performance data collected using PeopleSoft.
EES data collection and research was paramount. JCPSACE and JCTC worked together
to help Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS) create a system in
KCTCS’s database, PeopleSoft, to track EES students. This collaborative data collection had
many benefits. For the student, the EES class followed their class schedule along with their
other courses allowing it to blend with other coursework. Secondly, it allowed “flagging” EES
students tracking progress as they moved through college. Flexible writing allowed any adult
education provider in the state to use the system. It contained fields to store information about
college scores and activity, adult education TABE, Official GED Practice Test, and GED scores
as well.
For data collection, performance measures were used which “assess an individual’s ability
to perform on an achievement test, intelligence test, aptitude test, interest inventory, or
personality assessment inventory” (Creswell 161). The COMPASS and TABE as described
earlier determined program needs for each individual. The program methodology used a mixed
methods approach by examining test scores upon entrance (quantitative), monthly meetings
discussing program effectiveness, strengths, and weaknesses (quantitative and qualitative),
student reflections upon EES exit (qualitative), and student tracking through program and college
(quantitative).
Program Evaluation Standards
The standard was Met
M
The standard was Partially Met
P
The standard was Not Met
N
The standard was Not Applicable
NA
Utility Standards
Standards
Rating
Comments
U1
Stakeholder Identification
M
School and college leaders, instructional staff, students,
policymakers
U2
Evaluator Credibility
M
Internal evaluators, who also served as EES advocates, used
formative evaluations. The evaluators were knowledgeable
about the history and the structure of the EES program
model.
U3
Information and Scope
M
The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if a
partnership between JCPS Adult Education and JCTC
improved retention of basic skills deficient incoming
college freshmen.
U4
Values Identification
M
The value would be tracked and determined based on course
completion and college retention.
U5
Report Clarity
M
Oral feedback, technical reports documented student
retention, Aerin database, PeopleSoft
U6
Report Timeliness and
Dissemination
M
At conclusion of fall and spring 2003 and monthly
formative assessments guided decisions
U7
Evaluation Report
M
Program was continued and expanded
Feasibility Standards
Standards
Rating
Comments
F1
Practical Procedures
M
Economical and practical due to field setting and utilized
pre-collected data
F2
Political Viability
M
Contractual agreement between JCPS and JCTC,
developmental education faculty
F3
Cost Effectiveness
M
Conducted by internal evaluators and process was mitigated
by increased performance resulting in additional funding
Propriety Standards
Standards
Rating
Comments
P1
Service Orientation
M
Designed to meet the needs of struggling incoming college
freshmen
P2
Formal Agreements
M
Mutual understanding of collaboration (MUC) was signed
by JCPS and JCTC
P3
Rights of Human Subjects
M
Sharing and confidentiality to protect students’ rights to
privacy was stated in the MUC; aggregate reports protected
student identities in accordance with FERPA
P4
Human Interactions
M
Evaluation activities did not interrupt student work and
confidentiality was maintained
P5
Complete and Fair
Assessment
M
Aggregate reporting and MUC; strengths were retention,
data-driven decisions, student reflections, and class
completion; weaknesses were initial lack stakeholder
accountability and initial lack of performance outcomes
P6
Disclosure of Findings
M
Results given to all stakeholders except students
P7
Conflict of Interest
M
Internal evaluations could hold bias
P8
Fiscal Responsibility
M
Internal evaluators utilized reflecting sound accountability
procedures which prudent and ethically responsible; staff
time
Utility Standards
Standards
Rating
Comments
U1
Stakeholder Identification
M
School and college leaders, instructional staff, students,
policymakers
U2
Evaluator Credibility
M
Internal evaluators, who also served as EES advocates, used
formative evaluations. The evaluators were knowledgeable
about the history and the structure of the EES program
model.
U3
Information and Scope
M
The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if a
partnership between JCPS Adult Education and JCTC
improved retention of basic skills deficient incoming
college freshmen.
U4
Values Identification
M
The value would be tracked and determined based on course
completion and college retention.
U5
Report Clarity
M
Oral feedback, technical reports documented student
retention, Aerin database, PeopleSoft
U6
Report Timeliness and
Dissemination
M
At conclusion of fall and spring 2003 and monthly
formative assessments guided decisions
U7
Evaluation Report
M
Program was continued and expanded
Accuracy Standards
Standards
Rating
Comments
A1
Program Documentation
M
EES offers free courses in reading, writing, and math for
those students entering college whose entrance exam scores
fall below the minimum.
A2
Context Analysis
M
Remedial incoming freshmen need transition classes to
function successfully in society.
A3
Described Purposes and
Procedures
M
The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if a
partnership between JCPS Adult Education and JCTC
improved retention of basic skills deficient incoming
college freshmen monitored by management-oriented CIPP
model.
A4
Defensible Information
Sources
M
TABE and COMPASS administered to every EES student
which nationally normed and recognized.
A5
Valid Information
M
TABE and COMPASS test scores compared using the ACT
crosswalk. Any discrepancies were analyzed on individual
bases by trained staff.
A6
Reliable Information
M
TABE and COMPASS administration followed testing
protocol. JCPS insured accuracy of data input.
A7
Systemic Information
M
TABE and COMPASS ACT crosswalk insured accurate and
reliable test results and minimized error.
A8
Analysis of Quantitative
Information
M
Enrollment data compared with course completion data then
referenced to college completion. EES averaged 70%
course completion rate and 56% college retention rate.
A9
Analysis of Qualitative
Information
M
Students with discrepancies of TABE and COMPASS
results were interviewed to determine causative factors.
A10
Justified Conclusions
M
EES matriculates more students into postsecondary
education. EES averaged a 70% course completion rate
(compared with JCTC’s rate of 53%). EES maintains an
average of a 56% retention rate (compared with JCTC’s rate
of 45%). Over half of the students are academically
prepared to bypass one or more developmental courses
saving both time and money.
A11
Impartial Reporting
M
Internal evaluators had vested interest in reporting accurate
data.
A12
Metaevaluation
M
Program evaluation standards for Educational Programs by
the Joint Committee Standards for Educational Evaluation
were used to measure each component.
Appendix A- Mutual Understanding of Collaboration
Between Jefferson County Public Schools Adult and Continuing Education
and the Jefferson Community and Technical College District
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into as of the 1st day of September, 2009
by and between Jefferson County Public Schools Adult and Continuing Education (JCPSAE),
3332 Newburg Road, Louisville, Kentucky 40218, and the Jefferson Community and Technical
College District (JCTC), 109 East Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. The Jefferson
County Public Schools are a public and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
The Jefferson Community and Technical College District is a constituent part of the Kentucky
Community and Technical College System, 2760 Research Park Drive, Post Office Box 4092,
Lexington, Kentucky 40512.
Witnesseth:
Whereas, JCPS Adult and Continuing Education and the Jefferson Community and
Technical College District both have statutory missions which include the delivery of
educational services to adults in Metro Louisville, and
Whereas, both parties are committed to the enrollment and educational attainment goals
adopted by the Workforce Investment Board (KentuckianaWorks), the Department for Adult
Education and Literacy of the Workforce Development Cabinet, the Kentucky Community and
Technical College System (KCTCS), and the Council for Post-Secondary Education; and
Whereas, both parties, working in partnership, have complementary strengths
and resources in adult and developmental education and are committed to maximizing the use of
these strengths and resources for the good of the community; and
Whereas, both parties are committed to working together to meet the workforce needs of
current and future business and industry in the Metro Louisville area; and
Whereas, both parties have already established a working relationship which includes
cooperative efforts at Ahrens Adult Education Center, and JCTC locations;
Now therefore, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions
contained herein, the parties hereby enter into the following basic agreement:
1.
To continue with established concurrent enrollment opportunities for JCTC and
JCPSAE students.
2.
To continue to transition GED and English Language Learning (ELL) students
into post-secondary education.
3.
To continue the comprehensive “interagency referral system” which includes but
not be limited to an agreement on the referral and placement of incoming students
who are assessed in reading, mathematics and writing using TABE and/or
COMPASS. ELL students will be referred using the ESL COMPASS (See
Appendix A for details.)
4.
To continue with GED graduate recruitment initiatives that will include contacts
with GED graduates, identification of scholarship funds for selected GED
graduates and a presence at GED graduation ceremonies.
5.
To review and evaluate the assessment, referral, and placement procedures
utilized jointly by JCTC and JCPSAE.
6.
To promote the seamless transition into college by holding EES classes on the
college campus.
7.
To promote effective placement into EES classes. JCTC staff will advise and
schedule students into EES classes. JCPSAE will provide EES ESL orientations
and an ESL staff person during the late registration week with hours not to exceed
19.75 per registration period.
8.
To identify key research markers that will provide sufficient data to fully evaluate
student and program success. Internal and external data will be used.
9.
To utilize the results of the above-mentioned research to improve the policies,
procedures and instructional methodologies of this joint venture.
10.
To evaluate and strengthen the services provided by the GED Testing Center
located at JCTC.
11.
To continue with the joint steering committee and hold at least three meetings per
academic semester to evaluate the status of the relationship and determine any
necessary changes and improvements. The joint steering committee will be cochaired by the Director of the JCPSAE (or his/her designee) and the President and
CEO of JCTC (or his/her designee).The Chancellor of the KCTCS (or his/her
designee) will be an ex-officio member. In addition the committee will also
include but not be limited to the following people: JCTC Provost, JCTC
Academic Deans, JCTC Student Dean, JCTC Division Chair of Reading and
Academic Success, JCTC Department Head of ESL, JCTC Department Head of
Developmental Math, JCTC Department Head of Developmental English; JCTC
Coordinator of Developmental Education, JCPSAE Specialist and JCPSAE
Special Programs Coordinators for Adult Basic Education/ESL.
12.
To continue to explore ways to generate monies for GED test fees and college
tuition for GED graduates.
13.
To develop joint marketing strategies that will advance and enhance this initiative.
All marketing and promotion materials will be jointly approved.
14.
JCTC will provide data to JCPSAE on students
enrolled and attending JCTC with the following exceptions:



Student’s under the age of 18
Student’s enrolled at a correctional facility
Any student requesting privacy under FERPA.
Specific data provided on each student will include but not be limited to:








First, Middle, Last Name of Student
Date of Birth
Sex
Race
College Status (first time freshman, transfer student from 2 year or 4 year
institution, reverse transfer from U of L
Full-time/Part-time (number of credit hours/semester)
Major
GPA
The College will work with JCPS staff to facilitate the coordination of data
transfer between both entities.
`
JCPSAE agrees to the following:
A. JCPSAE shall not access or otherwise use JCTC student data except for the
purposes directly connected with the assessment and operation of the EES
Partnership and in accordance with JCTC statutes and regulations.
B. JCPSAE shall maintain all JCTC student information in a confidential manner in
accordance with all applicable JCTC regulations and state and federal law,
including, but not limited to the privacy and security regulations pursuant to the
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
C. JCPSAE shall from time to time share reports on the effectiveness of the EES
Partnership with JCTC.
15.
To share professional expertise by allowing both JCTC and JCPSAE faculty and
staff to attend both JCTC and JCPSAE professional development opportunities.
16.
This basic agreement is effective from September 1, 2009 until September 1,
2011, and is renewable on an annual basis thereafter. The basic agreement will be
evaluated jointly as necessary. Therefore, any necessary changes and
improvements in the basic agreement will also be agreed to by the steering
committee. The details of the relationship, described in the Appendix A, may be
modified at any time upon the authority of the co-chairs of the Joint Steering
Committee as long as these modifications are consistent with the basic agreement
described in this document.
Witness the agreement of the parties hereto, as of the date first written above:
Jefferson Community and
Technical College
Jefferson County Public Schools
Adult and Continuing Education
By:
By:
_________________
____________________
Name: _________________
Name: ____________________
Title: _________________
Title: ____________________
_________________
____________________
Date: __________________
Date: ____________________
Revised 6.18.10
References
Creswell, J. (2008) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
Qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, N. J. Pearson.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J.R., Worthen, B.R. (2004) Program evaluation: Alternative
approaches and Practical guidelines. Boston, MA. Pearson.
Patterson, M.B., Zhang, J., Song, W., Guison-Dowdy, A. (2010) Crossing the bridge: GED
credentials and postsecondary educational outcomes. Washington, DC. GED Testing
Service.
Sanders, J.R. (1994) The program evaluation standards 2nd edition: How to assess evaluations of
Educational programs. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (2010) Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco, CA.
Jossey-Bass.