1330 Broadway, Suite 1426 Oakland, CA 94612

Tel: (510) 763-1499

Fax: (510) 763-1599 www.spra.com

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

S O C I A L P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H A S S O C I A T E S

Prepared for:

YouthBuild USA 58 Day St. Somerville, MA 02144

Contract No. 09-A58 Project No. 4350

An Analysis of GED Attainment at YouthBuild AmeriCorps Programs

Final Report January 21, 2010

Prepared by:

Michael J. Midling Jillianne Leufgen

This page intentionally left blank.

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies

1

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... ES-1 

I.  INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION ......................... I-1 Background and Rationale for the Evaluation ................................................................. I-1 

Organization of the Report .......................................................................................... I-2 

Background to the GED .............................................................................................. I-2 

The YouthBuild Approach to Education ...................................................................... I-2 

A Youth Development Framework .............................................................................. I-3 

Research Design ........................................................................................................ I-5 

Research Methods ...................................................................................................... I-6 

II.  DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMS, COMMUNITIES, AND PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................... II-1 

Structure of the Academic Programs ............................................................................. II-2 

GED Program Size .................................................................................................... II-2 

Program duration and scheduling .............................................................................. II-2 

Initial Screening ......................................................................................................... II-5 

Assessment and Service Planning ............................................................................ II-6 

GED and high school diploma programs ................................................................... II-7 

Partnering for GED instructional services .................................................................. II-9 

Transportation .......................................................................................................... II-10 

Perceived importance of GED ................................................................................. II-11 

Teachers and Classrooms Characteristics................................................................... II-12 

Classroom size ........................................................................................................ II-12 

Instructors and teachers’ aides ................................................................................ II-12 

Teacher Certification and Experience ...................................................................... II-13 

Teaching Methods and Approaches ............................................................................ II-13 

Team Teaching and Curriculum Integration ............................................................ II-16 

2

Quantum Learning ................................................................................................... II-18 

Monitoring academic progress ................................................................................. II-18 

Youth Characteristics ................................................................................................... II-19 

Demographic Characteristics ................................................................................... II-19 

Barriers to Success .................................................................................................. II-20 

Youth Motivations .................................................................................................... II-22 

Youth Perceptions ........................................................................................................ II-23 

Emotional Support and Safety ................................................................................. II-23 

Skill Building ............................................................................................................ II-25 

Safety and Fairness ................................................................................................. II-26 

Overall Satisfaction .................................................................................................. II-26 

III.  OUTCOMES AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... III-1 High and Low Achieving Program Characteristics ........................................................ III-3 

Multivariate Outcomes Analysis .................................................................................... III-6 

Participant Characteristics ........................................................................................ III-7 

Teaching Methods Used in GED Classrooms .......................................................... III-8 

Program Characteristics ........................................................................................... III-9 

Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... III-12 

REFERENCES 

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study focuses on General Educational Development (GED) test attainment at YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs. Drawing on previous research on YouthBuild programs nationwide, Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) designed two surveys—one for YouthBuild teachers and one for YouthBuild participants. To provide contextual information, SPR also conducted background interviews with staff at selected YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs.

The youth survey was designed around a variety of themes including relationship building; emotional and physical safety; youths’ sense of involvement with the program; and youth perceptions of the usefulness of the program. The teacher survey dealt with issues related to the structure of academic programs such as program size, duration, scheduling, screening, assessment, and service planning; whether programs offered only GED instruction or also offered opportunities for students to obtain high school diplomas; and whether programs offered GED instruction themselves or partnered with other agencies for GED instruction. Other teacher survey questions related to teacher and classroom characteristics and teaching methods.

Survey data indicate that students were overwhelmingly positive about their experiences at YouthBuild. Student respondents indicated that YouthBuild staff showed concern for participants, made students feel as if they belonged, and helped them reach their educational goals. Overall, students highly rated their experiences in both YouthBuild in general and in their GED programs specifically.

Data also show that programs offering a high school diploma option also performed better in terms of GED attainment. Offering in-house GED programs, as opposed to working with partner programs for delivering GED instruction, was also positively associated with GED achievement.

In terms of teaching methods, a mix of approaches appeared to be best. Specifically, lectures and whole-class teaching are best in measured doses and when blended with other methods. Regression analysis indicated that not only too much whole-class teaching, but also the complete absence of whole-class teaching, are correlated with lower outcomes. In terms of scheduling, students in programs with schedules that had used a one-week-off, one-week-on schedule or

ES-2

alternating construction and academics within any given week had better odds of getting their GEDs than students in programs with longer periods between academic classes.

African-American and Latino students had significantly lower odds of passing the GED as compared to white students. Math levels at entry were a good predictor of potential success in GED programs, but using math and reading level entry requirements to screen out potential participants was not related to GED attainment, validating the statements of respondents that emphasized the importance of program leadership in developing high quality education programs, rather than simply targeting students with higher academic levels at entry.

I-1

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION

Background and Rationale for the Evaluation Since 1994, YouthBuild USA has served as a national intermediary for AmeriCorps funds and education awards, and this funding has brought additional resources to local programs. Participating in the AmeriCorps program is intended to inculcate values of national and community service, as well as to provide youth with opportunities to obtain education awards for postsecondary education.

In 2007, YouthBuild USA received a $4.9 million grant from the Corporation for National and Community Service,1 most of which was dispersed to local programs serving some of America’s most disadvantaged communities. The Corporation asked its grantees, including YouthBuild USA, to implement an evaluation of sub-grantee programs. The AmeriCorps Department at YouthBuild USA opted to use this opportunity to examine attainment on the General Educational Development (GED) test among AmeriCorps grantees. YouthBuild USA then contracted with Social Policy Research Associates (SPR), an Oakland, California firm that had recently completed an Evaluation of the YouthBuild Youth Offender Grants for the U.S. Department of Labor (SPR, 2009). All evaluation participants in this current study were YouthBuild AmeriCorps members and staff in YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs during the 2008-09 program cycle.

YouthBuild students are typically low-income young people aged 16 to 24 years old. Students work toward their GED or high school diploma while learning job skills by building affordable housing for homeless and low-income people. While at the YouthBuild program, students are                                                             

1   In 1993, the Corporation for National and Community Service was created as a public-private partnership with the goal of connecting Americans with opportunities to give back to their communities and their nation. Among others programs, the Corporation was directed to manage the newly created AmeriCorps, which incorporated the older VISTA program, the more recent National Civilian Community Corps programs, and a demonstration program that had been established under the National and Community Service Act of 1990. 

I-2

expected to spend one-half of their time in academic education, with the rest of the time being spent in service on a construction site. Upon completion of the required number of service hours (450 or 675), YouthBuild AmeriCorps students earn a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award, which can be used for post-secondary education. In order to use the Segal AmeriCorps award, a student must have attained either a GED or a high school diploma.

Organization of the Report

Chapter I details some of the fundamental principles of the YouthBuild approach and a framework for analyzing youth development programs; the research design that we used to develop research questions and hypotheses for this evaluation; and the methods used in collecting and analyzing data. In Chapter II, we provide a summary and analysis of the descriptive data from two surveys and interviews with program staff. Chapter III discusses the outcomes of regression models in which we tested for effects of variables on GED attainment.

Background to the GED

The General Educational Development test was originally developed in the 1940s for World War II veterans who needed to complete their high school studies and return to civilian life (Tokpah & Padak, 2003). Today, the GED functions primarily as an alternative to a high school diploma for high school dropouts. The GED consists of five required tests in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. The GED Testing Service estimates that about one in seven high school diplomas issued in the United States each year is based on passing the GED tests (ibid., p. 8). The American Council on Education estimates that two-thirds of those earning a GED are over age 20, that the average age of those that pass the GED is approximately 25, and that overall fewer than 2 percent of US dropouts actually attain a GED (ACE figures cited in Boulden, 2008).

The YouthBuild Approach to Education

YouthBuild Program Design and Performance Standards call for educational services that strengthen basic skills and lead to a GED, high school diploma, college, or advanced technical training for participating youth. YouthBuild emphasizes both personal as well as academic development, and for this reason, educational activities cover a broader range of areas than those typically addressed by traditional high schools. YouthBuild education programs are offered in conjunction with vocational education, leadership development, life-skills training, community service, and counseling. Because many YouthBuild participants face academic barriers and significant personal challenges, instructors must often use a much more diverse set of teaching methods and tools to effectively reach and consistently engage youth.

I-3

Common characteristics of YouthBuild programs are as follows:

• Orientation. These orientations typically last up to four weeks and are intended to help prepare youth for the rigors of the program by facilitating group bonding, helping youth to develop trust in staff, and emphasizing goal setting and overcoming obstacles. This orientation also provides an opportunity for grantees to assess each youth’s readiness to participate fully in the program.

• Assessment. Most grantees administer basic skills tests such as the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) to determine the level of assistance that is needed for youth to attain a diploma or GED. In addition, many grantees conduct one-on-one interviews with youth to collect information on participant goals and barriers, test youth for drugs, and develop individual service strategies or plans.

• Educational Activities. Participants must be offered educational services for at least 50 percent of the time that they are in the program. These educational services lead to a high school diploma or GED and encompass basic skills instruction, remedial education, and bilingual education. Counseling or assistance in attaining post-secondary education and financial aid is also provided.

• Construction Training. Participants generally spend most of the remaining half of their time in the program in construction training—rehabilitating or building housing for low-income persons or transitional shelter—or other vocation skills training. Construction is the primary service activity for which YouthBuild students earn AmeriCorps service hours.

• Leadership Development and Community Service. Every YouthBuild grantee that is part of the YouthBuild USA Affiliated Network is required to have a policy committee of youth elected to represent their peers. These youth meet regularly with the staff to discuss all aspects of the program and make recommendations for policy decisions. For leadership training, most programs operate a participant-run “advisory council” that provides youth with opportunities for leadership development. Youth also participate in community service activities through organized volunteering opportunities at local organizations and/or engage in public speaking events to advocate for YouthBuild.

• Counseling and Other Supportive Services. YouthBuild grantees commonly provide counseling, support services, job placement, and follow-up services. Counseling and support services—either on-site or by referral—are usually available to youth to assist them in dealing with personal problems, mental health issues, substance abuse, pregnancy, violence, STD prevention, transportation to and from the site, childcare and housing. In addition, most YouthBuild grantees provide participants with a modest stipend for service at the construction site or subsidized work experience while in the program. Most grantees also offer job development and placement services, including training in resume writing and interviewing.  

A Youth Development Framework

Participating in positive, goal-directed activities gives young people a chance to develop skills, build character, and sample different fields of human endeavor. It may also lessen their chances

I-4

of engaging in risky behaviors, such as drug use or delinquency, by occupying idle time, strengthening commitment to school and other conventional institutions, and exposing them to beneficial peer and adult influences. Studies have found that although U.S. youth have considerable discretionary time available to them, most do not fill their time with activities that build their skills or characters (see for example, Zill, Nord, and Loomis, 1995).

Issues of access to quality education are also important. Minorities and the poor, especially in inner cities, have considerably fewer opportunities to learn such subjects as science and math, largely because of the kinds of schools they attend. (e.g., Oakes, 1990). Many studies also confirm that college entry, persistence, and attainment, are much lower among socioeconomically disadvantaged students--those from low income homes are much less likely to attend 4-year institutions, attend full-time, enroll directly after high school, and complete college (e.g., Terenzini, Cabrera, & Bernai, 2001). Similarly, students whose parents have attained no more than a high school diploma are among the least likely to aspire to a bachelor's degree, as are those who are the first in their immediate family to participate in academic programs leading to college enrollment (e.g., Horn & Bobbitt, 2000).

In developing our research design, we drew from a community youth development framework used by Gambone and her associates (e.g., Connell, Gambone, and Smith, 2000) including various colleagues at SPR (e.g., Gambone, Cao Yu, Lewis-Charp, Sipe, and Lac, 2004). Elements of this framework were used in the development of survey questions, particularly the youth questionnaire. Of particular importance for the designers of the survey were questions regarding the development of supportive relationships, physical and emotional safety, youth involvement and belonging, and skill building. Drawing on this youth development research, we developed our own synthetic framework as follows:

• Supportive Relationships. One of the most consistent findings in youth development research is that relationships with both adults and peers for guidance, emotional support and practical support are critical factors in the healthy development of youth and allow them to be productive, feel connected to others, and navigate day-to-day life.

• Safety. Young people need a sense of physical and emotional safety in their daily lives to be fully productive and connected. If youth feel consistently rejected, discriminated against or physically threatened, some will choose to belong to gangs or carry weapons as a means of providing for their own emotional and physical safety.

• Involvement. Youth need opportunities to grow into adulthood and see themselves as part of a larger community. In particular, the sense of “belonging” is crucial to choosing responsible alternatives, taking on leadership roles, becoming knowledgeable about, and being able to access, the various community resources and activities available to them, and experiencing themselves as individuals who have something of value to give back to their communities.

I-5

• Skill Building. To experience an increasing sense of competence and productivity, youth need to experience a sense of interest, growth and progress, and challenge in developing skills and abilities. Conversely, they are bored by activities that do not challenge them in some way. This boredom can lead to participation in high-risk activities because healthier life options that offer a blend of challenge and sense of accomplishment are not available to them.

Exhibit I-1: A community youth development framework

Skill Building Relationships Safety Involvement

Interest Guidance and practical support

Physical Belonging

Growth & progress Emotional support Emotional Leadership opportunities

Challenge

Adult knowledge of youth Decision making

Peer knowledge of youth Knowledge of community and chance to give back

Research Design

The design of this research was informed by SPR’s previous research on YouthBuild programs and by the youth development framework described above. From our previous research on YouthBuild, we noted that YouthBuild participants tended to have myriad developmental problems and bad experiences within the school system. Many youth are homeless, are often parents themselves, and often deal with difficult family and personal problems related to parenting their own children, substance abuse, gang affiliation, legal problems including incarceration, and limited employment opportunities. Youth entering the program are often far behind in terms of their education level and credit attainment. Moreover, when they enter the program, many suffer from low levels of self-esteem and confidence in their ability to learn.

Drawing on previous research and the youth development framework, we designed our youth survey around themes of relationship building; emotional and physical safety; involvement with the program particularly related to their sense of belonging to something larger than themselves or to their immediate friends or family; and youth perceptions of the usefulness of the program in helping them to build skills—particularly academic skills.

In terms of education programs, we noted in previous research that all grantees sought to strengthen the basic reading, writing and math skills of participants, and that the majority of grantees stressed GED attainment as the end goal of educational activities. We also noted that a relatively high proportion of our previous sample offered the opportunity for students to attain a high school diploma and posited that offering a high school diploma program in addition to a

I-6

GED program might have an effect on outcomes, which we explore in our analysis later in this report. Other themes that emerged from our previous research had to do with questions of using partner agencies for providing GED instruction, the scheduling of academic classes, and class size. We drew on these findings in designing the surveys and other data collection instruments for this evaluation. We also incorporated various measures for “seat time” to assess the amount of time that a typical YouthBuild student spent in GED study and to control for this variable in our regression analysis.

In terms of classroom practices, our previous qualitative research indicated that success in the classroom often had less to do with teachers’ professional experience than it had with their ability to relate well to students; rather the most successful teachers had personal similarities with their students, took time to get to know and personally engage with them, and stepped out of their teaching roles to help youth address their myriad personal issues. We had also found in previous research that YouthBuild teachers used a variety of methods and tools to effectively reach and consistently engage students, foster positive peer relations, and help keep more advanced participants in the class engaged. We therefore built into the current study design both qualitative and quantitative measures of teacher experience and credentialing, questions relating to relationship building, and questions on instructional methods, to test whether these factors were related to GED attainment outcomes.

We also included some measures that our previous analysis indicated were associated with GED or high school diploma attainment. That analysis showed that transportation was a factor in achieving positive outcomes.2 In addition, having a charter school attached to the YouthBuild program and having lower student to teacher ratios—factors that were associated with higher success rates in our previous study—were also included in the present study.

Research Methods

In order to fully investigate the characteristics and outcomes of GED instruction at YouthBuild AmeriCorps sites, we used a variety of methods including multiple surveys, interviews with selected program sites, and analysis of YouthBuild USA administrative data. In addition to providing descriptive information for Section II, the data gathered from all these sources were combined to identify participant and program characteristics that are associated with GED attainment, which are presented in Section III.

                                                            

2   Our previous analysis showed that having a valid driver’s license was associated with GED/high school diploma attainment. In the current study, we focused on “ease” of transportation to the GED instruction site more generally. 

I-7

In all, 31 of the 46 YouthBuild AmeriCorps sites participated in the study. Of the fifteen sites that were not included, nine did not have any GED participants in the 2008-2009 YouthBuild program cycle, one closed after the end of the cycle, and five new programs were excluded because they came under the purview of the grant later than the other sites. Exhibit I-2 displays the names and locations of the participating sites, with the five sites whose staff members participated in interviews highlighted in bold.

Exhibit I-2: 2008-2009 YouthBuild AmeriCorps Programs with a GED Component

Program Name City State

YouthBuild Fresno Fresno CA CCEO YouthBuild Gardena CA YouthBuild Hartford Hartford CT YouthBuild McLean County Bloomington IL Emerson Park YouthBuild E. St. Louis IL YouthBuild Lake County N. Chicago IL CCS YouthBuild Rockford Rockford IL YouthBuild Waukegan Waukegan IL Anew Life Youth Development Gary IN YouthBuild Hazard Jackson KY YouthBuild Louisville Louisville KY YouthBuild Brockton Brockton MA YouthBuild Fall River Fall River MA YouthBuild Lawrence Lawrence MA YouthBuild New Bedford New Bedford MA YWCA YouthBuild Springfield Springfield MA Young Detroit Builders Detroit MI Operation Excel YouthBuild St. Louis MO YouthBuild Newark Newark NJ SOBRO YouthBuild Bronx NY Youth Action Programs and Homes E. Harlem NY Ulster YouthBuild Kingston NY New Directions YouthBuild Partnership Poughkeepsie NY CSC YouthBuild Lebanon OR Portland YouthBuilders Portland OR YouthBuild Providence Providence RI Sumter County YouthBuild Sumter SC YouthBuild Brownsville Brownsville TX YouthBuild Dallas Dallas TXOperation Fresh Start Madison WI SALS Kincaid WV

I-8

The four data sources that were used in this study were:

Administrative data. In October 2009, YouthBuild USA provided SPR with data from their management information system (MIS) that contained information on students from the 2008-2009 YouthBuild program cycle. Students were included only in the database if they were enrolled in one of the 31 programs with a GED component and they were in need of educational instruction aimed at GED and/or high school degree attainment.3 To ensure that the data were complete, YouthBuild USA requested that all sites revisit the MIS information for students from last cycle in order to fill any existing missing or outdated data. 4

The data included:5

• Name • Age

• Student identification number • Reading level at entry

• Education track (GED or high school diploma) • Math level at entry

• GED attainment • Received public assistance at entry

• High school diploma attainment • Ever arrested

• Gender • Ever incarcerated  

Teacher Survey. SPR developed and administered an online survey to teachers at the 31 YouthBuild AmeriCorps sites that had GED students during the 2008-09 YouthBuild cycle. The teacher survey asked teachers questions regarding the structure of their program, instructional/testing practices, and student barriers to learning. The purpose of this survey was twofold—to gather descriptive information on the programs and to gather teachers’ impressions of the program and its students. The survey was administered in September and October 2009. One-hundred percent (100 percent) of the 31 programs had at least one teacher (or administrator when a teacher was unavailable) that responded to the survey.

Student Survey. SPR developed and administered a paper-and-pencil survey to GED students from last cycle. The survey, conducted in September and October 2009, asked YouthBuild AmeriCorps members about their motivations for participating in YouthBuild, satisfaction with

                                                            

3   Students who entered the YouthBuild program with a GED or high school diploma were excluded from the database.

4   Of the 31 sites included in the study, 30 complied with YouthBuild USA’s request. 

5   The completion status of program participants was not included in the database. In addition, completion is a program-specific measure that may be defined differently by various programs. 

I-9

the program, academic outcomes, and some demographic information. The response rate was 54.6 percent of students included in the YouthBuild MIS for last program cycle. Given that programs had to contact participants from the previous YouthBuild cycle to come back to the program site to complete the survey, this response rate is satisfactory for the purpose of this study, and exceeds the minimum target rate of 50 percent that we established at the outset of the study. When the data were analyzed to determine if nonresponse bias existed, we found that survey respondents were slightly more likely to have attained their GED as compared to 2008-09 participants as a whole (38 percent vs. 32 percent). However, this bias was not substantial enough to warrant weighting the data to correct for this discrepancy.

While we found that it was unnecessary to correct for nonresponse bias for the student survey concerning known characteristics, we still need to interpret the results of this survey with some caution because of other potential biases. In order to get youth to take the survey, the YouthBuild program had to have a means of requesting youths’ participation—either through current contact information or direct contact with them if they are still involved in the program. In this case, selection bias may also have been introduced either because youth who had positive experiences in YouthBuild would be more likely to stay in contact with the program than other participants, or because it was more feasible to contact those students that had more stable housing situations or continued to be accessible through email or mobile phone. Since it was beyond the scope of this study to fully investigate the potential effects of such a possibility, we need to interpret these results with the understanding that issues of selection bias may be present.

Interviews with Administrators and Teachers from selected sites. In order to gather more detailed information about YouthBuild AmeriCorps GED programs, SPR conducted telephone interviews with five sites during November 2009. These five sites were selected because they represent the three sites with the highest GED attainment rates last cycle and the two sites with some of the lowest GED completion rates. These interviews were designed to gather more in depth information on the programmatic structure, instructional practices, and strategies practiced by higher and lower achieving sites.6

                                                            

6   Because we were looking at a “snapshot” at one point in time, GED pass rates can be due to anomalies and are subject to change. For example, according to the respondents at one program that had low achievement rates, for the three months prior to the summer 2009 reporting period, the program did not have a GED teacher, but this problem has since been rectified. Similarly, another lower achieving program in 2009 has recently made substantial changes in regards to both the size of the program and the profile of students that it recruits—it is now much smaller and more selective. Therefore, respondents from that program believe that GED pass rates are likely to be much higher for the current (2009-10) cohort of students.

 

This page intentionally left blank.

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies

II-1

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMS, COMMUNITIES, AND PARTICIPANTS

The five sections in this chapter are primarily descriptive, and synthesize the data collected through teacher and student surveys and follow-up telephone interviews with respondents at selected program sites.

The first section of this chapter deals with the structure of academic programs—namely, such variables as program size, duration, scheduling, initial screening, assessment, and service planning. Other structural aspects that we hypothesized could affect outcomes included whether programs offered only GED instruction or also offered opportunities for students to obtain high school diplomas, and whether programs offered GED instruction themselves or partnered with other agencies for GED instruction. We also examined issues related to transportation, a factor that was significantly related to outcomes in our previous study of YouthBuild programs, as well as teacher and administrator perceptions of the relative importance of the GED component within their respective programs.

The second section examines teacher and classroom characteristics, including information on teacher certification and experience, the number of instructors and teachers’ aides at program sites, and classroom size.

The third section describes teaching methods including the use of multiple teachers in a classroom, team teaching, and teacher perceptions of how well academic subjects are integrated into other YouthBuild activities and whether Quantum Learning, which is a teaching method taught at YouthBuild USA’s Academy to Go. We also provide information on questions relating to how often classroom time was spent using a particular teaching method (e.g., whole class teaching, one-on-one teaching, self-directed study); various types of activities such as working with peer work, class projects, or hands-on learning; and monitoring student progress.

The fourth section details a number of youth characteristics. Drawing from YouthBuild’s MIS data, we detail the demographic characteristics of the participants in YouthBuild AmeriCorps GED programs during the 2008-09 program cycle in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, marital and parenting status, parent educational background, arrest and incarceration, receipt of public assistance, and

II-2

reading grade level at entry. Many factors had emerged from our previous YouthBuild research as barriers to learning, including low math and reading levels at the start of the program, students’ lack of confidence in their academic ability, personal problems, so we explore these issues in this chapter. We also asked youth about their motivation for joining the program.

The fifth section in this chapter discusses youth perceptions of their experience at YouthBuild on a number of key issues including emotional support from staff and peers, including the availability of staff to help with studies and personal life; the study environment, including having enough time and being able to concentrate on GED studies; feeling secure in classes and feeling that teachers and classroom rules were fair and reasonable. This section ends with student responses concerning their overall satisfaction with the program.

Structure of the Academic Programs GED Program Size

The number of participants in GED programs last cycle varied considerably across sites. The majority of sites served fewer than 30 participants. However, the number of participants served ranged from under five at the low end to over 100 at the most populous site.

Exhibit II-1: MIS – Number of GED Participants

Number of GED Participants % of Sites (n=31)

Fewer than 15 participants 29.0

15 to 29 participants 45.2

30 to 44 participants 12.9

45 or more participants 12.9

Program duration and scheduling Time and duration for GED instruction

In our teacher survey, we asked questions about the duration of GED programs in terms of the number of hours per week and number of weeks during the year in which GED instruction was offered. Because numbers varied considerably among sites, we followed up with administrators by email to request a total figure for GED instruction for a typical YouthBuild student. The responses given by administrators were in broad agreement with those of teachers and indicated that YouthBuild students spent an average of 490 hours in GED instruction over the course of their participation in YouthBuild. There were variations between the high and low achieving groups of programs, with average program “seat time” at low achieving sites of 427 hours compared to 544 at

II-3

high achieving sites. Although on average, high achieving sites spent more time in GED classes, the difference between the means of high and low achieving sites was not statistically significant.1 The fact that this difference is not statistically significant is largely due to the small number of programs included in this evaluation. The difference in the averages, then, may well have practical importance for YouthBuild programs even though it does not reach statistical significance.

Program Scheduling

As with our previous sample of YouthBuild sites, the most common schedule was the one week on/off schedule of education alternating with work site activities. However, this arrangement was more common in the previous study (54.8 percent of programs) compared to the present study (45.2 percent). In other respects, patterns were roughly similar across the two studies.

Exhibit II-2: Teacher Survey – Program Schedules

Program schedules for education and construction % of Sites (n=31)

Hours for both every day 12.9

Alternate on different days of the week 19.4

One-week education; one-week construction 45.2

Two-weeks education; two-weeks construction 9.7

GED study over several weeks or months 12.9

There was also variation in program schedules among the sites we interviewed. One site uses a schedule in which students have hours for GED study as well as construction every day. Another program is structured as a day-on, day-off program. Two of the programs alternate every week, and the fifth program distinguishes between different levels of students based on competencies, with lower level students receiving more academic instruction and then moving into a higher level, which involves more vocational education and work on construction sites.

Staff at YouthBuild Lawrence decided about six years ago to structure the program so that some of the students are in construction activities during a half-day period in which the remaining students are in the classroom, so that all students alternate between these activities every day. Although this half-day program does not necessarily work as well for the contractors with whom the YouthBuild program partnered as other schedules might have, the YouthBuild program decided that it worked better for the students, who they felt learned better when their day was

                                                            1   For further discussion of “seat time,” please see Chapter III in which it is included as a variable in the

multivariate analysis.

II-4

broken up into two parts. The program provides lunch for the students, so they all have the chance to eat before switching places.

At YouthBuild McLean County and YouthBuild Louisville, the program alternates between a week of construction and a week of instruction. According to respondents, although it creates a consistent schedule for the students, oftentimes the “week off” in education leads to problems in retention of the material that students had covered in academic classes during the previous week. YouthBuild McLean County had originally begun using a half-day education and half-day construction schedule because they thought that it would provide better balance. In theory, after 4 hours students could switch classes, so they would not have to stay in any particular type of activity for a whole day. According to the program’s director, this method was inefficient as the job sites can be at some distance from the education site. However, although the “week on, week off” structure is a somewhat more efficient program in terms of time use, student retention of academic material suffers during the week off. The program is therefore looking at alternatives, including alternating six months of education with six months of vocational training, with the idea that a more continuous educational schedule would further increase student retention of academic materials.

YouthBuild SOBRO’s curriculum is structured as a day-on, day-off program. One group has class on Monday and Wednesday and spends Tuesday and Thursday on the worksite, and the other groups spend Mondays and Wednesdays on the construction site and Tuesdays and Thursdays in classroom. On Friday, both groups participate in additional community service. When this program’s director first began at YouthBuild at another location, that program alternated every two weeks, but it became apparent that students could not retain information and teachers would have to spend days reviewing old material. YouthBuild SOBRO used to be on a one-week alternating schedule, but program staff found the same problems with this schedule. Although the director indicated that the new schedule helps break up monotony and students are generally happy with it, this schedule also has its own challenges. For example, because of some lack of flexibility with the educational partners that we discuss elsewhere in this report, the schedule sometimes makes it difficult to schedule events such as field trips.

Operation Excel YouthBuild has adopted a slightly different approach. Students at different periods during the program are classified into different levels based on their competencies. Level-one students, for example, concentrate primarily on their GED with some life-skills instruction. When they have tested for competencies, they can move up to level-two. Level-one students receive education pay of $3.25 an hour while in education classes; level two students also receive the same amount for education classes, but also earn $4.25 an hour for shop work and $7.25 an hour for work on the construction site. Students receive color-coded uniforms by level, and students view getting to a higher level as an accomplishment and a raise in status.

II-5

Initial Screening

While all 31 of the YouthBuild AmeriCorps GED programs reported administering tests in order to assess participants’ entering basic skill levels, only some sites screen potential participants using the results. Fifty-five (55) percent have a minimum reading grade level for acceptance and 45 percent have a minimum requirement for math. Of the sites that require a basic reading level, the majority of sites (76.5 percent) call for participants to be proficient at the 6th or 7th grade level. Most sites that screen for minimum math levels (57.2 percent) require a 6th or 7th grade proficiency. Over 20 percent of the sites have only a 3rd or 4th grade level requirement in math, while another 14 percent require a 9th grade level.

During the interviews with GED programs, staff members at some sites indicated that exceptions can be made based on participants’ having a strong score in one area that compensates for a weak score in another area, or for individuals who show a great deal of determination to succeed regardless of test scores. Of the high achieving sites interviewed for the study, only one indicated that they use test scores to screen out potential participants, while both of the lower achieving sites reported that they did. Respondents from another high achieving site suggested that programs should use assessment tests with caution when screening applicants because many youth are not accustomed to taking standardized tests and may misunderstand the procedures; thus, sites should interpret test results on a case-by case basis in combination with other factors.

In addition to screening based on skill levels, sites may also employ various application procedures and orientation or probationary periods, sometimes called mental toughness orientation. In the Youth Offender evaluation, SPR found that these orientation periods were used to test participants’ ability to thrive in the YouthBuild environment and that the length and intensity of this period varies across sites. Of the five sites interviewed, the same three that require minimum grade levels for acceptance—one high achieving and the two low achieving—reported that they employed rigorous, and sometimes lengthy, application and orientation periods. The application/orientation process at the high achieving site lasts about three months, resulting in only about one-quarter of original applicants becoming enrolled in the program. At one of the low-performing sites, the application/orientation lasts over a month, during which strict rules are enforced and youth must demonstrate their motivation by completing numerous assignments. During the 2008-09 cycle only about one-third of applicants were eventually enrolled in the program after the orientation. The third site reported that youth go through a thorough interview process and that enrollment in the program is very competitive. However, in this case, even though the orientation process is tough, it only lasts a couple weeks and few participants are screened out or drop out as a result. In addition, two of the three sites included drug tests as a part of the application process.

II-6

These sites indicated that the purpose of the application/orientation process is to introduce participants to the program, determine if they have the adequate motivation and commitment to succeed, and to assess participant needs. The high achieving site attributed their GED completion rate to using a rigorous application process. However, the two high achieving sites that do not use intensive screening indicated that they have not found using such a process to have a substantial impact on outcomes. One program director from a high achieving site stated that the process does not produce enough data to decide which students will succeed and which will not, and that random selection might be just as successful. This respondent indicated that the quality of the teachers and the subsequent motivation of student once enrolled contributed more to the achievement of successful outcomes than does the screening process.

Assessment and Service Planning

As we discuss elsewhere in this report, one use of initial assessment is for screening, but programs also used assessment for other purposes. For example, more than 70 percent of sites, including three high-achieving and one low-achieving site that we interviewed, reported dividing students into classes or learning groups based on their initial assessment tests. One of those high achieving sites conducts periodic assessments that are occasionally used to reorganize learning groups. In organizing these learning groups, staff members noted that they were careful not to inadvertently create groups that participants construe as superior or inferior, as participants are sensitive to being classified in the latter category. However, staff members indicated that an academic standard of grouping is often used to prevent faster learners from growing bored or to put struggling learners into small groups to help address certain problem areas. All 31 sites use assessment tests to check for improvement, and over 54 percent of them retest students three or more times.

Out of the 31 sites, over three-quarters (77.4 percent) used some kind of formal individual service strategy or plan. As part of their application process, one high achieving site required potential participants to develop an Individual Graduation Plan (IGP), which is designed to help participants plan for their future. Plans are then reviewed quarterly to ensure that students are making appropriate academic progress. At another high achieving site, Individual Service Strategies (ISS) are prepared when students come into the program, and are based on students’ stated goals. The director at this site indicated that ISS was useful as a social service planning tool, allowing staff to help students overcome barriers related to such things as homelessness, drug use, and problems with drivers’ licenses. She stated however that she would like to see these ISS become more of an educational planning tool than they currently are. Two other sites—one high achieving and one low achieving—determined that developing individual plans was impractical given that things change so quickly with this population of youth. Instead, these sites reported using informal practices, based on frequent communication among staff members and between staff and participants, to address individual challenges and reassess youth goals.

II-7

GED and high school diploma programs

Of the 31 programs in our sample, 8 or about one quarter (25.8 percent) of the total also offer the opportunity for their participants to obtain high school diplomas. Three programs indicated that they operated charter schools.

Exhibit II-3: Teacher Survey – Program Structure

    %  n

Educational Offerings and Structure

Programs that offer a GED prep curriculum 100 31

Programs that offer High School Diploma classes 25.8 31

Sponsoring agency operates charter school 9.7 31

Who provides GED instruction?

% (n=31)

GED instruction provided by YB program 71

GED instruction provided by partner agency 29

Two of the high achieving programs in our sample of telephone interviewees also offer a high school diploma program, and a third was considering offering a high school option. According to several respondents, offering a high school diploma program can improve the overall quality and diversity of educational programs within YouthBuild programs. As one example of a program that offers a high school curriculum, YouthBuild Louisville works with the local school district to offer a high school diploma through distance education. Students study in a self-directed way for their high school diplomas at the YouthBuild site under the supervision of two credentialed teachers at the other end of the “e-site.” Louisville respondents indicated that youth in the high school program are exposed to a greater amount of literature as well as more opportunities to study subjects such as algebra and geography through the school district than GED students. In another example, YouthBuild McLean County has operated an independent high school for six years and recently opened a charter school in collaboration with a local school district. Students in both YouthBuild McLean County and YouthBuild Louisville can study for both the high school diploma and the GED; all students are expected to take the GED examination, even if their goal is to receive a high school diploma.

Not all respondents agreed that offering a high school program was the best approach. For example, the program director at SOBRO YouthBuild in South Bronx, NY, indicated that the area he serves has some of the highest illiteracy rates in the state. Therefore he feels that a GED-only program, rather than a combined high school/GED program, is the best way to serve that

II-8

community, and that an adult-education style GED program is more appropriate for most participants, many of whom had bad experiences in high school.

We spoke with the program director at YouthBuild McLean County about some of the advantages and challenges of operating a high school and have summarized this conversation in the vignette below in Exhibit II-4.

Exhibit II-4: YouthBuild McLean County High School Program

Over the past six years, YouthBuild McLean County has seen a big shift in terms of its educational services as it transitioned from a GED-only educational program to a high-school based curriculum. According to the program’s director, there are numerous benefits to having various academic options for students. For example, because the GED is a single test, GED programs tend to focus primarily on preparing students for that test. In contrast, a high school curriculum allows for greater detail and depth in terms of what is studied. Also, when the program only offered GED instruction, classes were not as structured as they are now. The program director believes that because there is now a high school, there is a much more efficient use of time than before. The focus is now much more on education: it’s “all education all the time.” The director also noted her observation that students from the high school diploma program are better prepared for higher education than GED students, and less likely to need remediation once they get to college, making them more likely to succeed in post-secondary academics.

At the same time, there are some difficulties involved with offering a high school program, and funding is one issue that needs to be carefully considered. YouthBuild McLean County started with an independent school, which received no funding from the state. Only recently was the program able to open a charter school which receives state educational funding through one of two school districts that the program serves and only students residing within the boundaries of the collaborating school district are eligible for education funding.

Another obstacle for the high school program is that it is sometimes difficult to recruit the types of teachers that the program needs. According to YouthBuild McLean County’s director, there is a relatively high turnover rate because certified teachers often have different expectations than the types of teachers that worked when the program offered only GED instruction. The program is often in competition with school districts because, although salaries are similar in the aggregate, YouthBuild’s schedule differs from most schools, where the expectations are that there are long vacations and summers off. There can also be differences in philosophy. While YouthBuild programs in general do emphasize the importance of education, they also draw from the ethos of the social service tradition, namely “doing whatever it takes” to help. This is an ethos not necessarily shared by all teachers. Another problem is that many available teachers do not match the demographic characteristics of their students—although about 75 percent of the student population is African-American, the program has yet to receive an application from an African-American math teacher.

There are also some key differences compared with “regular” high schools. Students in the YouthBuild high school program concentrate more on core subjects such as civics, US and world history, literature, and grammar, and do not have access to wider variety of courses offered in regular high schools, such as music or foreign languages. 

II-9

Partnering for GED instructional services

Another factor that we considered in this report was whether providing GED services through the YouthBuild sponsor organization or through a partner organization might make a difference in terms of outcomes. As shown in Exhibit II-3, from our sample of 31 programs, 22 (71.0 percent) offered GED instruction through the YouthBuild program, with the remaining 9 programs (29.0 percent) indicating that GED instruction was offered by partners. According to some respondents, offering a GED-only program has advantages, as does working with partner organizations to provide GED instruction. In our sample of interview sites, the three high performing sites offered “in-house” GED programs, whereas the two lower performing sites offered GED instruction through a partner organization.

Those that have “in-house” GED programs see several advantages to that approach. Respondents from two programs pointed to the primary benefits of having in-house teachers as the consistency of culture and shared values that this approach brings to their programs. One respondent contended that while the program “values our partners, a partner organization might not share the organization’s core values.” In-house teachers at one site said that they get to “know more about the student’s lives,” but that in a regular GED program, “people won’t often go to such lengths to learn about their student lives.” The director at another site cited the advantage of in-house programs as giving “a level of control for implementing the YouthBuild model.” She explained that this approach facilitated the integration of leadership in all aspects of education, including vocational and GED instruction.

Respondents at sites with in-house teachers also spoke about how having in-house teaching makes YouthBuild better accountable for the progress of the students. According to a director at one site, although outside programs might be able to help programs accomplish their goals, programs with in-house academic programs can exercise more control and be more accountable for outcomes. Another program director also spoke of the importance of greater control over the hiring process, which gives the program a broader range of potential teachers having the specific skill set required, rather than forcing the program to accept whatever teachers a partnering school system send to the program. Echoing the importance of specific YouthBuild ethos suggested by many of our respondents, he noted that the program has more scope to hire teachers that are best for the “specific population” of YouthBuild students and who are more willing “to buy into the program culture.”

In contrast, respondents at the two sites that used partners for GED instruction found advantages in that approach. They indicated that the major advantage of having a partner provide services is that such an arrangement saves costs. According to the director of one program, these cost savings include some $50,000 to 60,000 for teachers’ salaries as well as the cost savings for

II-10

textbooks, which had been provided by the partner organization until recent budget cuts came into effect.

Beyond just cost savings, respondents cited other advantages of working with partner agencies. For example, one partner agency that provides GED instruction also provides a variety of other services that YouthBuild students can access, including helping students find employment and offering training programs in fields such as computer technology. Neither site reported that “differences in philosophies” with partner organizations provided a challenge; rather they said that communication with their partner agencies was good. At one site, in addition to frequent informal discussions between YouthBuild staff and the GED instructor, the instructor also attends weekly meetings in which all staff provide progress reports and discuss any problems that may have arisen. These are particularly important so that the GED instructor can coordinate any teaching in the upcoming week with the vocational education instructor.

However, the director at another program that uses an education partner also spoke of some of the downsides of the arrangement. He noted that there was sometimes a lack of flexibility with the educational partners, which makes it difficult to schedule events such as field trips or meetings with employers. “Oftentimes things happen last minute,” he said. “YouthBuild may have an employer who wants to see people in, say, 60 minutes. Sometimes the most ideal students for these jobs are in the classrooms and teachers don’t always take too kindly to pulling students out.” The director also noted that he has less control over the types of teaching methods than he would prefer. For example, he would like to see more team teaching, but GED teachers have resisted doing so, because it would mean some shifting of work schedules.

Transportation

SPR’s previous research with YouthBuild programs showed that having a valid driver’s license was associated with GED/high school diploma attainment, suggesting that transportation was a factor in achieving positive outcomes. In the current study, we wanted to look at the impact of transportation more generally on outcomes, hypothesizing that if transportation to and from the site of GED instruction was difficult for some students, they may have lower outcomes.

According to the majority of survey respondents (90.1 percent), transportation to and from their GED classes was fairly easy. In interviews with programs in three urban areas, staff members indicated that youth enrolled in YouthBuild programs had few problems getting to and from the program because those communities were equipped with good public transportation systems and in two of these sites, respondents indicated that participants are provided with public transit passes or vouchers.

II-11

In areas with smaller populations such as Lawrence, MA and McLean County, IL,2 public transportation systems were characterized by respondents as inadequate. For example, according to Lawrence’s program director, virtually “nobody” takes the bus. The main YouthBuild location is about 3 or 4 blocks away from the workshop. The program provides transportation, particularly during inclement weather to avoid having the students arriving cold or wet at the offsite shop. YouthBuild McLean County, at about 2 hours drive from Chicago is in a relatively rural area, and the lack of transportation is often a barrier for youth. The public transportation system in the Bloomington-Normal area is not convenient for most program youth, many of whom do not have their own cars, have had their driver’s licenses revoked, or lack insurance.

Perceived importance of GED

To get a sense of how important GED programs were in the context of their programs, we asked interviewees at each of the sites how important they felt that GED instruction was in the context of all program activities. Most respondents indicated that academic instruction was the major priority of their programs.

As one teacher at YouthBuild Louisville indicated, “you can have all sorts of skills but without a GED you can’t move up. Even McDonalds requires students to be enrolled in some type of schooling.” For respondents in St. Louis, the academic education component is “100 percent the most important” within their program, with construction skills training rated as second, and service learning at third. According to them, academic achievement will help students “go where they want to go” to achieve their goals. Staff at YouthBuild SOBRO try to emphasize just how important the GED is for the students’ future given the increasingly competitive job market in New York, where “YouthBuild students have to compete with students from Columbia and NYU for jobs.”

At the same time, several respondents indicated that academic achievement was “part of a greater whole” that included other aspects of youth development. The YouthBuild Lawrence administrator, for example, noted that while the GED is important for getting a job, the foundation of that program “lies in leading students through the counseling and leadership components of the program, and learning how to change the way they feel about themselves.” According to a teacher at the same program, “learning a work ethic” is part of this whole. “If a

                                                            

2   McLean County, IL had a 2008 estimated population of 165,298. 2006 estimates for the population of the “twin cities” of Bloomington and Normal, which are both served by the YouthBuild program, were 70,970 and 50,681 respectively. The estimated population of Lawrence, MA was 70,014 in 2008.   

II-12

student can learn to apply themselves in both classroom studies and work, they have gained considerable knowledge.”

Teachers and Classrooms Characteristics Classroom size

Although there was some variation across sites, the majority of sites served between 15 and 45 participants. The most common class size across programs, accounting for 55 percent of sites, was from six to ten students in a classroom. Only three sites reported having an average class size of 5 or fewer, but 11 sites indicated having an average class size of 11-20 students.

Exhibit II-5: Teacher Survey – Number of students in GED classroom

Number of Students %

(n=31)1-5 9.7

6-10 54.8

11-15 19.4

16-20 16.1

Instructors and teachers’ aides

Of the 31 programs, it was most common to have either one (41.9 percent) or two teachers (38.7 percent). 5 programs indicated that there were three teachers during the last program cycle, while respondents at only one site indicated that there were 4 or more teachers.

Slightly under half of the total programs reported using teachers’ aides. 8 programs (26.7 percent) reported having one teachers’ aide and 5 programs reporting having 2 or more teachers’ aides (16.7 percent). Student-teacher ratios varied considerably among sites, but across sites, there were approximately 16.1 students per instructor, and if teachers’ aides were included, the ratio was 12.4.

Exhibit II-6: Teacher Survey – Instructors and teachers' aides

Number of instructors %

(n=31) Number of teachers aides %

(n=31)1 41.9 None 56.72 38.7 1 26.73 16.1 2 104 or more 3.2 3 or more 6.7

II-13

Teacher Certification and Experience

Of 37 teachers responding to our survey, approximately half (51.4 percent) indicated that they were certified, while the remaining 18 indicated that they were not certified.

Relatively few teachers had been employed by YouthBuild for 3 or more years. Nearly two-thirds of teachers (62.2 percent) indicated that they had been at the YouthBuild program for 2 years or fewer, and only 4 of the responding 37 teachers indicated that they had been there for between 6 to 10 years. No teacher responded as having worked for 11 years or more.

Teaching Methods and Approaches We asked both teachers and students to give us an indication of how class time was used at their respective programs and found broad agreement in the responses. The pattern that emerges is that the largest amount of time is spent in whole class instruction—52.1 percent of teachers indicated that most or all of their time was spent in this activity, while 42.4 percent of students reported that this activity occurred most frequently. Students reported spending most of their time studying books or computers (29.5 and 18.8 percent respectively) compared to teachers’ somewhat lower estimates (17.8 and 13.4 percent respectively). In about 20 percent both groups reported that students spent most of their time in one-on-one teaching or tutoring. All teachers (100 percent) reported that students working with peers occurred at least sometimes. Nearly 85 percent and 70 percent respectively also indicated that hands-on learning3 and class projects were undertaken at least sometimes.

                                                            

3   One example of “hands-on” learning in the YouthBuild context is an educational course entitled Building Your Money Skills: Taking Charge of Your Future, which YouthBuild developed in collaboration with the National Endowment for Financial Education. The course is designed to introduce participants to basic financial planning concepts such as goal setting, making a spending plan, building an emergency fund, and the wise use of credit. http://www.youthbuild.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=htIRI3PIKoG&b=4991123&ct=2101699

 

II-14

Exhibit II-7: Teacher and Student Surveys– How Class Time is Used

Percent by Teacher (T) and Student (S) respondents None Some About Half Most/All4 n

T S T S T S T S T S

Whole class instruction 2.2 4.7 21.7 23.0 23.9 29.9 52.1 42.4 46 469

One-on-one teaching or individual tutoring 2.2 7.5 37.0 43.7 39.1 29.6 21.7 19.3 46 467

Students studying on their own using computers 20.0 17.7 46.7 34.5 20.0 29.0 13.4 18.8 45 469

Students studying their own using books 13.3 5.1 44.4 30.6 24.4 34.8 17.8 29.5 45 468

Teacher Survey

%Never %Rarely %Sometimes %Often n

Students working with peers 0 0 54.3 45.7 46

Class projects 4.3 26.1 47.8 21.7 46

Hands on learning 0 15.2 34.8 50.0 46

About one-half of students (47.1 percent) reported using textbooks only for their GED classes, while most of the remaining students (50.8 percent) used both printed material and online or computer programs, and only a small percentage (2.2.) reported using computers only. A higher percentage of students rated as at least “good” their books and printed materials (82.1 percent) compared to online or computer programs (75.1 percent). High proportions rated English instruction as good or very good (91.4 percent and 89.5 percent for reading and writing respectively), while a somewhat lower proportion rated math instruction as good or very good (85.7 percent).

                                                            

4   Teacher results for "most" and "all" categories are merged. Student responses were available for only the “most” category. Very few or no teachers indicated spending all of their time on any activity except for whole class instruction (13.0 percent). 

II-15

Exhibit II-8: Student Survey– Student assessments of Activities, Curriculum, and Subject Instruction

Assessment of GED Curriculum %Good/Very Good n

Books and/or printed materials 82.1 453

Online or computer programs 75.1 337

Assessment of GED Instruction by Subject Area %Good/Very Good n

Reading 91.4 453

Writing 89.5 458

Math 85.7 460

Science 88.0 435

Social Studies 88.1 445

Teachers at the programs we interviewed also shared with us some of the techniques they used to engage students and overcome barriers to learning. One of the overriding themes was that it is important to relate the material to situations that students can understand. One director said that she encourages teachers to use a variety of methods in the class, including audio, visual, and kinesthetic and to create innovative lessons that keep students interested. In another program, teachers use newspapers to teach students “what’s going on in the world around them,” and to help students have a greater “stake in what’s happening,” by relating current events materials to the students’ lives and incorporating readings about the students’ own neighborhoods. Similarly, the math instructor at this site uses everyday language and price examples from supermarket flyers from stores like Costco and WalMart, which incorporate approaches to saving money. Below, in Exhibit II-9, we summarize some of the techniques that teachers at YouthBuild Lawrence program described as their most successful teaching methods.

Exhibit II-9: Teaching Methods at YouthBuild Lawrence

The math and science teacher uses demonstration in the math classes, showing students the correct way of solving a problem before they try working it out on their own, rather than lecturing first. He tries not to “drag out lessons,” keeping lectures to a minimum. In his science classes, he first has his students do group work, so that everyone has a chance to participate and give their input. Later he gives them individual assignments similar to those he gave the group.

The reading, writing, and social studies teacher uses textbooks for teaching skills and basic content, but she also has students do research on the city – a recent example had to do with the city’s local labor history. She also used a recent mayoral election to illustrate topics related to the civics section in her social studies course, and shows corresponding movies in her literature courses. Before her students open their textbooks for the day, she has them go over what they already know, and then build on that knowledge. For students with more reading difficulties, the information is presented in smaller bites. She maintains that individual attention is very important, and that her students respond much better to this attention than to lectures.

II-16

A large majority (80.9 percent) of students reported getting help at least sometimes from fellow classmates and one-quarter (24.5 percent) indicated that this occurred often. Most students reported taking GED practice tests at least sometimes (90.4 percent), and nearly half (45.4 percent) reported taking practice tests often. Of all of the methods used in the classroom, large majorities of students found somewhat or very helpful one-on-one teaching or individual tutoring (91.7 percent) and hands-on learning (91.3 percent).

Exhibit II-10: Student Survey—Teaching Methods

Occurrence of Teaching Methods %Never % Rarely %Sometimes % Often n

Getting help from fellow classmates 4.3 14.8 56.4 24.5 461

Taking GED practice tests 2.2 7.5 45.4 45.0 456

Assessment of Teaching Methods

%Not at All Helpful

%A Little Helpful

%Somewhat Helpful

%Very Helpful n

One-on-one teaching or individual tutoring

0.9 7.3 25.6 66.1 437

Hands on learning 2.0 6.7 25.7 65.6 448

Studying on my own/own pace with a GED book

1.1 12.2 36.5 50.2 452

Teachers talking to the whole class

3.5 10.5 38.2 47.8 458

Class projects 5.7 13.4 37.0 43.9 424

Studying on my own/own pace on the computer

3.6 18.4 35.2 42.7 412

Getting help from fellow classmates

5.6 20.0 38.7 35.8 450

Team Teaching and Curriculum Integration

27 of 31 programs (87.1 percent) reported having only one teacher in a GED classroom at a time, with only four programs reporting having two or more teachers in the class. Team teaching was relatively uncommon, with 54.8 percent of sites indicating that they never or rarely used this technique, and only three programs stating that they “often” used team teaching.

In terms of curricular integration on the teacher survey, teachers were asked how well they believed that subject areas covered in the GED test were integrated with activities into other program components (Exhibit II-11). In general, large majorities indicated that the academic subjects that were taught in GED courses were at least somewhat integrated into the curriculum.

II-17

Academic learning was considered by nearly one-half (45.7 percent) of respondents as being “very well integrated” into the leadership/service learning component, and approximately one-third of respondents felt that GED subjects were “very well integrated into construction (30.4 percent), counseling and case management (35.6 percent), life skills (37 percent) and job readiness activities (30.4 percent).

Respondents in two of the programs that we interviewed—YouthBuild McLean County and YouthBuild Louisville— had indicated in the survey that they “sometimes” used team teaching. In our telephone interviews, the YouthBuild McLean County respondent gave an example of team-teaching American history with reading and literature of the period.

Also at YouthBuild McLean County, students are building self-help homes5 with the families who will eventually live in them. During the current phase of the development, houses are being constructed as “green” homes, integrating solar and other environmentally friendly aspects. Partly because of this shift toward environmentally sensitive building, environmental education is becoming integrated into many aspects of the program, including vocational education, construction, academics, and service learning.

Exhibit II-11: Teacher Survey— Integration of GED subjects into other YouthBuild program areas

%Not %A little %Somewhat %Very well Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated nConstruction training 6.5 19.6 43.5 30.4 46

Vocational training 4.4 22.2 51.1 22.2 45

Leadership/Community Service 6.5 8.7 39.1 45.7 46

Counseling/Case Mgmt. 6.7 15.6 42.2 35.6 45

Life skills training 0.0 15.2 47.8 37.0 46Job readiness training 2.2 17.4 50.0 30.4 46

At YouthBuild Louisville, team teaching typically takes the form of one teacher lecturing to a classroom of 15 students while the other works more intimately with the students. In the past, they have used team teaching in math, reading and writing classes, and have more recently adopted a team teaching approach in construction. In one illustrative case, when a student had trouble with the concept of fractions, the construction teacher used the relationship between a bag of nickels and a bag of dimes as an example and the student more readily grasped the                                                             

5   Supported through the USDA Rural Development Agency’s section 502 Mutual Self-Help Housing Loan program, which is used primarily to help very low- and low-income households construct their own homes. http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/sfh/brief_selfhelpsite.htm 

II-18

concept. For YouthBuild Louisville teachers, a team teaching approach draws on the creativity of more than one person—by working together to plan a lesson, teachers can select lessons that complement each other. Working together in this way, the teachers say that they feel less isolated and are better able to give each other good feedback.

It is not always feasible, however, to have team teaching. The director of YouthBuild SOBRO, where a partner organization provides GED instruction, has tried to encourage instructors to use techniques such as team teaching, but because he does not have direct supervisory control of teachers, this has not yet occurred.

Quantum Learning

Quantum Learning for Teachers is a subject taught at the YouthBuild Academy to Go. According to its practitioners, this teaching and learning method has as its core beliefs that every person is capable of learning; that people learn in different ways; and that learning environments should be fun, engaging, and challenging. Training methods include specific teaching strategies, content delivery, curriculum design and learning skills designed to build rapport and self-esteem; improve classroom behavior; accelerate learning for all types of students; make content more meaningful; support standards-based curriculum; and infuse a sense of joy into the learning process.6 Over half of the 31 sites (54.8 percent) in our sample reported using Quantum Learning methods in the classroom.

Monitoring academic progress

As described elsewhere in this report, all 31 of the YouthBuild AmeriCorps GED programs reported administering tests in order to assess participants’ entering basic skill levels. Similarly, all of the programs in our sample indicated that they retest or post-test to check for improvement. Six programs (19.4 percent) indicated that they re-test once, about a quarter of sites (25.8 percent) said that they tested twice and a majority of sites (54.8 percent) indicated that they re-tested three or more times.

In terms of helping students take the GED test, approximately three-quarters (77.4 percent) of programs indicated that they pay for students to take the GED test and that staff accompany students to the GED testing center (73.3 percent). Typically, students do not all take the GED test at the same time—only 11 sites or approximately one-third of sites indicated that they did. In a question to teachers and administrators that allowed for multiple responses, we found that in

                                                            

6   Description of quantum learning as taught through the YouthBuild Academy summarized from: http://www.youthbuild.org/site/c.htIRI3PIKoG/b.3485805/k.5154/Academy_to_Go_Courses.htm  

II-19

a large majority of cases, students take the test when they pass a practice test (90.3 percent) or when the teacher thinks they are ready (71.0 percent). Fewer teachers relied on TABE post-tests (41.9 percent). In only 4 cases (12.9 percent) was the test administered when the student asked for it, and in only one case (3.2 percent) did a respondent answer that students took the GED test at a scheduled time during the year.

Youth Characteristics Demographic Characteristics

Exhibit II-12 displays the demographic characteristics of participants in YouthBuild AmeriCorps GED programs during last cycle.

Exhibit II-12: Administrative Data— Participant Characteristics

Characteristics Percent (mean)

Age (19.48) Gender Female 27.1 Male 72.9 Ethnicity Asian American/Pacific Islander 2.1 Black/African American 48.6 Caucasian 20.6 Hispanic/Latin American 25.7 Native American 0.6 Multi-racial 1.3 Other 1.1 Parent/Guardian has HSD or GED7 68.6 Never Married 97.3

Has Child(ren)  40.9 On Public Assistance at Enrollment 37.4 Ever Been Arrested 47.1 Ever Been Incarcerated 19.5 Reading Grade Level at Entry (7.92) Math Grade Level at Entry (6.50)

                                                            

7   While data for participant demographics were obtained from the YouthBuild USA administrative data, participants’ parents’ educational background was not available in the YouthBuild MIS and thus was only available for 423 participants who answered this question on the Student survey. 

II-20

Generally, YouthBuild’s target population is low-income youth aged 18 to 24 years. During the 2008-09 cycle, participants in YouthBuild AmeriCorps GED ranged in age from 16 to 27 years old, with a mean age of 19 ½ years.

The majority of participants (73 percent) were male. Staff members from interviewed programs indicated that this ratio of men to women is common and staff members at one site suggested that even though a higher proportion of females may express initial interest in the program, one reason for this gender disparity is that women may be dissuaded from participation because of an aversion to working in construction. Most participants were youth of color--either Black/African American or Hispanic/Latino (74.3 percent combined). Of respondents to the Student Survey, over two-thirds (68.6 percent) indicated that a parent or guardian has obtained at least a high school diploma or GED. 

Barriers to Success

According to YouthBuild staff members, youth face a number of external barriers to achieving educational or employment outcomes. Staff respondents from all sites described the youth in their programs as having to cope with a multitude of personal problems that can pose significant hurdles to academic success, including living in impoverished communities in which violence and crime are prevalent, unstable home lives, having children, and even homelessness. Staff members indicated that unless youth are able to overcome the distractions that these problems can create, they will not be able to concentrate and succeed in the program. As one staff member stated, “[participants] aren’t going to study if they are hungry and don’t know where they are going to sleep.”

Administrative data indicates that over 40 percent of participants had at least one child at the time of enrollment. In interviews, staff members indicated that issues related to being a parent, such as obtaining childcare or the need to provide financially for children, can take precedence over achieving their academic goals. Over one-third (37.4 percent) of participants were on public assistance at enrollment. Many youth have been involved in the criminal justice system, with nearly half (47.1 percent) of all participants having been arrested at some point in their lives, and about 20 percent having been incarcerated. In addition, staff members reported that many participants struggle with substance abuse issues. One of the sites indicated that they need a greater ability to provide participants with wrap-around social services because their staff members are currently ill-equipped to help youth deal with many issues external to the program that may jeopardize their ability to succeed. Sometimes, barriers can also be linguistic. At YouthBuild Lawrence, for example, 95 percent of the students are Latino, primarily of Puerto

II-21

Rican and Dominican descent. Although most incoming students speak at least some English, the inability to communicate fluently in English can affect students’ self-confidence.

In addition to external barriers to success, teachers and staff members indicated that participants’ lack of past academic success helps foster defeatist attitudes about their ability to succeed in the program. Staff members indicated that participants struggle most in the areas of math and writing. Exhibit II-13 shows that the average reading level of participants is around 8th grade and between 6th and 7th grade in math.

Another barrier, although one which is relatively easier to overcome, has to do with what one program director described as unrealistic expectations. He told us that many students begin with the assumption that getting a GED is inferior to a high school diploma, and much easier to obtain. In his experience, many youth coming to the program for the first time do not understand “the dynamics of taking the GED or have a grasp of what it takes to pass it.” During early discussions with youth that show an interest in applying to the program, staff work with them to let them know that the GED is an 8-hour test, often taken at one sitting, which can be difficult for young people that “in regular school couldn’t sit still for 45 minutes.” According to this respondent, program staff tell students “exactly what it takes to get a GED. Sometimes, after looking at their past academics, we tell them that it might take twelve months, instead of the regular six months for them to get their GED.”

Exhibit II-13: Teacher Survey— Barriers to passing the GED

Barriers % Somewhat/Very Significant

n

Low reading levels at the start of the program 93.5 46

Low math levels at the start of the program 91.3 46

Lack of confidence in their academic ability 82.6 46

Personal problems or distractions 80.4 46

Short attention spans 78.3 46

Tendency to give up easily 75.6 46

Poor motivation in the classroom 69.5 46

Learning disabilities 58.7 46

 

On the Teacher Survey, GED teachers were asked how significant certain barriers were to hindering their ability to pass the GED. Consistent with staff members observations during interviews, GED teachers indicated that participants’ low reading and math levels at the start of

II-22

the program are the most significant barriers to GED attainment (93.5 and 91.3 percent, respectively), followed by participants’ lack of confidence in their abilities (82.6 percent) and personal problems or distractions (80.4 percent). Teacher respondents reported that poor motivation in the classroom was a less significant barrier to passing the GED (69.5 percent) than other factors. Learning disabilities were the least cited barrier; with just over half of respondents (58.6 percent) indicating it was a significant hindrance.

Youth Motivations

On the student survey, participants from the 2008-09 program cycle were asked about their motivations for entering the YouthBuild program. As shown in Exhibit II-14, the highest percentage of respondents indicated that changing their lives for the better was an important factor in their decision to participate in the YouthBuild program (98.5 percent), followed by getting their GED and learning job skills (96.3 and 95.7, respectively).

Exhibit II-14: Student Survey— Youth Motivations

Motivation % Somewhat/Very Important n

Changing my life for the better 98.5 463 Getting my GED 96.3 468 Learning job skills 95.7 471 Earning an AmeriCorps Education award 87.8 468 Improving my community 87.0 470 Possibility of getting paid while learning 82.3 468

In the interviews with selected YouthBuild sites, staff members reported that most of their participants joined in order to get their GED. However, numerous sites indicated that being paid while learning was also an important factor. One YouthBuild Louisville staff respondent, for example, stated during our telephone interviews that the opportunity to get a GED is what initially brings youth into the program, but being paid is what ultimately keeps them there.

Staff members also noted that many participants highly value the job skills they can acquire, not only on the construction site but also in other areas at some programs. For instance, a YouthBuild Lawrence staff member indicated that the work experience on the construction site is highly valued by some of the students, as obtaining a job in construction is much easier upon completion of the program. However, because construction is only a career of interest for a minority of the students at YouthBuild Lawrence, the program works to build skills for other jobs as well. YouthBuild Louisville staff members also indicated that another important

II-23

motivation for youth participation is that YouthBuild allows them to gain a sense of belonging to a community and having a support system.

Youth Perceptions Included in the student survey that was administered to GED participants from the 2008-09 YouthBuild cycle were questions regarding their assessments of their YouthBuild AmeriCorps program. Participants were asked about their relationships with YouthBuild staff members, the quality of instruction and curriculum, and their overall satisfaction with their experiences in YouthBuild. Drawing on the community youth development framework that we outlined in the introduction to this report, we begin with the themes of relationship building, involvement particularly as it relates to their sense of belonging , emotional and physical safety, and their perceptions of their ability to build skills while at YouthBuild.

Emotional Support and Safety

Supportive relationships with staff members and peers are critical to ensuring that participants feel a sense of emotional support and safety. In interviews, staff members indicated that prior to entrance in YouthBuild, many participants lacked support networks of people on which they could depend, thus, staff work to develop a community in which youth have caring and supportive relationships with adults. Overwhelmingly, respondents to the student survey agreed or strongly agreed that YouthBuild staff members provided them with a sense of belonging (98.3 percent). A majority agreed that they believed that their GED teachers cared about them as individuals (96.8 percent), were available outside of class (90.3 percent), and that their peers are respectful and supportive of each other (91.2 percent). A large majority agreed that staff members showed concern for them (97.9 percent) and they, in turn, felt comfortable discussing personal issues with staff (89.2 percent). These findings agree with many of the accounts that we heard from both staff and youth in our past and current research at YouthBuild sites. As one example among many, in our interview with YouthBuild Louisville as part of this current research, staff indicated that they are constantly working to help participants with their personal issues, including building self-esteem, securing housing or assisting with criminal justice issues.

Participants also agreed that GED teachers understood the youth’s academic strengths (93.0 percent) and took differences among youth into account when teaching (93.7 percent). Staff members at YouthBuild Lawrence explained that they used their knowledge that many youth have experienced past academic failures to structure activities that will enable them to see their potential for success. For example, they took participants on a field trip to a local community college where the youth sat in on classes for the day. Staff members stated that this exercise

II-24

helped participants envision themselves in college because they see that many college students come from backgrounds similar to theirs.

During the interviews, many sites indicated that designing academic lessons that are relatable for students is a useful tool in retaining students’ attention. For example, YouthBuild SOBRO respondents reported that instructors had incorporated readings about the community into the curriculum. Sites also reported that using “real world” examples in math instruction, including those that relate directly to youths’ construction work, thus helping students better understand the concepts. YouthBuild McLean County staff members incorporated youth’s interest in technology into their academics, including the use of “smart boards” and netbooks for student to use on site and at home.

Exhibit II-15: Student Survey— Emotional Support and Safety

Emotional Safety and Adult Support % Strongly Disagree

% Disagree % Agree

% Strongly

Agree n YouthBuild staff: Made me feel as if I belonged 0.0 1.7 41.8 56.5 469

Showed concern for participants 0.0 2.1 40.6 57.3 468

Would listen to me if I had complaints about YouthBuild 0.6 4.9 43.5 51.0 469

Made me feel comfortable discussing personal issues 1.1 9.7 43.2 46.0 465

GED teachers:

Cared about me as an individual 0.8 2.3 51.2 45.6 471

Were usually available outside of class if I needed to talk to them 2.3 7.4 49.4 40.9 470

 

Adults’ Knowledge of Youth % Strongly Disagree

% Disagree % Agree

% Strongly

Agree n GED teachers:

Took student differences into consideration when they taught 0.9 5.4 52.2 41.5 467

Understood my strengths in studying 0.9 6.2 49.4 43.6 470

Peer Support %

Strongly Disagree

% Disagree % Agree

% Strongly

Agree n YouthBuild participants respect and are supportive of each other 0.4 8.4 51.0 40.2 465

II-25

Skill Building

Because a major focus of YouthBuild is to help youth learn skills, it is critical that youth feel they have clear goals to work toward, and that they have the instructional and practical support to help them achieve goals. In this regard, student survey respondents overwhelmingly agreed that GED teachers were helpful to them in advancing their educational goals. A very high percentage (97.3) of youth agreed or strongly agreed teachers were available to help them with specific problems related to their studies. In addition, the vast majority (96.6 percent) agreed that GED teachers not only understood their subject areas, but also were able to communicate their knowledge to students.

Most youth respondents (89.9 percent) agreed that it was easy to concentrate on their studies in GED classes. Even though, as we describe above, the amount of time in GED classes can vary considerably across sites, a large majority of youth respondents agreed that they had sufficient amounts of time to study for the GED (94.1 percent). Overall, nearly all (97.9 percent) felt their YouthBuild program did whatever possible to help them achieve their educational goals.

Exhibit II-16: Student Survey— Skill Building

 

% Strongly Disagree

% Disagree  % Agree 

% Strongly Agree  n 

GED teachers: Provided me with teaching that would help me

succeed on the GED 0.4 3.0 46.0 50.6 470

Worked hard to help me in my weakest areas 0.9 4.9 44.3 50.0 470

Were available to help with specific problems related to my studies 0.4 2.3 48.0 49.3 469

Helped me set goals I could work toward 0.6 5.5 46.1 47.8 469

Understood their subject areas and how to share their knowledge 0.8 2.5 48.0 48.6 471

Provided me with helpful information about my academic progress 0.4 4.0 49.8 45.7 470

At YouthBuild: YouthBuild did whatever it could to help me reach

my educational goals 0.2 1.9 43.9 54.0 467

There was enough time in my schedule for GED studies 0.6 5.2 49.2 44.9 465

It was usually easy to concentrate on my studies in GED classes 0.4 9.7 54.0 35.9 465

II-26

Safety and Fairness

According to interviews with YouthBuild staff members, many participating youth come from impoverished communities or unstable family situations. Thus, it is important that inside the YouthBuild program participants are provided with a safe space to which they feel connected and can be productive. Nearly all (98.3 percent) of youth respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they felt safe and secure in GED classrooms. The majority also agreed that GED classrooms had clear and reasonable rules and GED teachers treated participants fairly (95.1 and 94.0 percent, respectively).

Exhibit II-17: Student Survey— Safety and Fairness

% Strongly Disagree

% Disagree % Agree

% Strongly

Agree n

I felt safe and secure in GED classes 0.4 1.3 48.9 49.4 462

GED classroom rules were clear and reasonable 0.4 4.5 54.4 40.7 467

GED teachers were fair and unbiased in their treatment of participants 1.7 4.3 51.0 43.0 467

Overall Satisfaction

The Student Survey asked youth to report on their overall impressions of YouthBuild and their satisfaction the program. The vast majority of respondents agreed that YouthBuild had a good reputation within the community and that they had enjoyable experiences in the program (96.8 and 98.1 percent, respectively). Overall, youth respondents rated having good or very good experiences in the GED program (93.0 percent) and in the YouthBuild program as a whole (94.4 percent).

Exhibit II-18: Student Survey— Student Satisfaction

% Strongly Disagree

% Disagree % Agree

% Strongly

Agree n YB has a good reputation within the community 0.4 2.8 39.2 57.2 467

It was an enjoyable experience in YouthBuild 0.2 1.7 32.5 65.6 468  

%Not Good %Acceptable %Good % Very Good n

Rating of experiences in: GED program at YouthBuild 0.5 6.6 31.3 61.7 441 Entire YouthBuild program 0.5 5.1 27.0 67.4 433

III-1

III. OUTCOMES AND CONCLUSIONS

The following section provides a summary of the characteristics of YouthBuild AmeriCorps GED programs and participant outcomes, as well as multivariate analysis to explore what factors are associated with GED attainment. The data for this section were gathered from three sources—YouthBuild USA’s MIS, the teacher survey, and the student survey. YouthBuild USA’s MIS contained data on participant characteristics and program outcomes, such as degree attainment.1 The second source of data—the teacher survey—captured data on program characteristics, such as organizational structures and educational practices. Finally, the student survey collected information on participant experiences in YouthBuild AmeriCorps GED programs including satisfaction with the program, types of teaching methods utilized in their classes, and some demographic information.

The following section contains information on participant outcomes for all YouthBuild AmeriCorps GED programs, and then highlights some of the variation in degree attainment across grantees. While all of the programs in sample offered GED instruction last cycle, some programs also offered members the opportunity to obtain a high school diploma instead of or in conjunction with the GED. Exhibit III-1 shows that during the 2008-09 cycle, 28 percent of evaluation participants included in YouthBuild’s administrative database obtained their GED, two percent obtained their high school diploma, and two percent obtained both the high school

                                                            

1   Since the MIS was missing some data, YouthBuild USA asked sites to update information on participant characteristics and outcomes. Only one of the sites did not comply with this request and therefore the MIS data for that site does not contain outcomes information. 

III-2

diploma and GED. 2 The rest of the participants (68 percent) obtained neither a GED nor a high school diploma.3

Exhibit III-1: Administrative Data— Degree Attainment

Degree Attained % (n=862)

Got GED only 28.0

Got High School Diploma only 2.1

Got Both GED and High School Diploma 2.0

Obtained neither GED nor HSD 68.0

On the student survey, participants who reported not yet completing their GED were asked if they continued in their GED studies. As shown in Exhibit III-2, the majority of those respondents (77.4 percent) indicated they were continuing in their studies.

Exhibit III-2: Student Survey— Continued with GED Studies

Continued with GED studies % (n=234)

Yes 77.4

No 22.6

In addition, student survey respondents who had not completed their GEDs were asked which of the five subject areas—reading, math, science, social studies, and writing—they had passed, if any. GED students do not have to test in all subject areas at once, so the results of this question do not represent a pass rate for each subject, rather it indicates which of these areas were most often completed. Exhibit III-3 shows that, for these respondents, reading was the most commonly passed subject, followed by science, and social studies. The two areas that teachers identified as challenging subjects for participants--writing and math--were passed by fewer of the respondents. Math, in particular, was the biggest barrier to completion of the GED for most students, with only slightly over one-quarter of student survey participants indicating that they

                                                            

2   The participants from the YouthBuild program that did not provide outcomes data are excluded from this analysis, as are those who already had a high school diploma or GED upon entry into the program. 

3   Because it was not included in the administrative data, the completion status of participants in not known. Therefore, the percentages for degree attainment include all program participants seeking a GED and/or high school diploma. 

III-3

were able to pass the math subject test area, although this evaluation cannot definitively identify why this is the case.

Exhibit III-3: Student Survey— Subjects Passed

Subjects Passed % (n=259)

Reading 45.9

Math 27.0

Science 41.7

Social Studies 39.0

Writing 34.7

High and Low Achieving Program Characteristics As described above, information on program characteristics was collected as part of the teacher survey. To understand if there were differences in program characteristics and outcomes, programs were classified into two performance categories based on the percentage of their participants who obtained a GED or high school diploma.4 The data on program characteristics from the teacher survey were then cross-tabulated with the performance rating to describe how programs’ performances varied on specific characteristics. These cross-tabulations displayed in Exhibit III-4 are descriptive in nature and are intended only to show variation across program characteristics.

Defining “High” and “Low” Performance. For the purpose of this analysis, higher performing programs are those that had at least a one-third (33.3 percent) of their participants obtain a degree and lower performing sites had pass rates below this percentage. Specifically, the range of lower achieving sites was from 0 to 29.7 percent, and the higher achieving sites ranged from 33.3 to 85.7 percent.5

Structural characteristics. As shown in the exhibit, higher and lower performing programs had similar average numbers of participants enrolled in the last YouthBuild cycle. Higher performers included larger percentages of programs that had in-house GED instruction and offered a high

                                                            

4   Because one program did not provide outcomes information, only 30 programs were used in this analysis. 

5   No tests of statistical significance were performed of differences between higher and lower performing grantees because of the small sample size. 

III-4

school diploma option. In addition, a small number of programs (three sites)—two lower performing and one higher performing—reported operating a charter school.

Assessment. Although all programs administered tests to assess basic skills, more of the higher performing programs used these tests to divide students into classes or learning groups. A greater number of lower-performing programs used the results of these assessment tests to screen out potential enrollees, as more of them required minimum reading and math levels for acceptance into their programs.

Educational practices. At the higher-performing programs, there were fewer participants per GED teacher (lower student-teacher ratios) and students spent more time on average in GED classes than at lower performing sites. In addition, more of the higher performing programs used computers/online programs in addition to GED books/printed materials, engaged in team-teaching, and developed written individual service strategies or plans than did the lower performing programs. While the schedules at most programs rotated between GED instruction and construction at least every week, more high performing programs used the schedules with more frequent alternation than lower performers.

Integration. Integration refers to the degree to which academic subject areas are integrated into the other aspects of the YouthBuild program, as listed below in Exhibit III-4. For each item, the majority of high and lower performing sites integrated academics into on-site construction training, vocational training, leadership development/community service, counseling/case management, life skills training, and job-readiness training. However, for each category, greater numbers of lower performing sites reported having integrated academics into the other aspects of the program than did higher performing sites.

Testing practices. All programs tracked student progress using GED practice tests and retested to check for improvement in participants’ basic skills, though more lower-performing programs administered these tests multiple times. Overall, most programs paid for students to take the GED test and accompanied participants to the GED testing sites, though slightly more higher performing sites did so than lower performers. Though most sites do not have their students take the GED at the same time, more of the lower performing programs than higher-performers engaged in this practice, suggesting that tailoring test-taking to individual students’ readiness may be beneficial to their obtaining GEDs.

III-5

Exhibit III-4: Teacher Survey— Program Characteristics by Performance Rating

Percent (mean) Characteristic Higher Lower Number of grantees 15 15

Structural Characteristics Number of participants last cycle (27.6) (27.9)

GED instruction offered by YB (vs. partner agency) 73.3 66.7

Offer a high school diploma 26.7 20.0

Operate a charter school 6.7 13.3

Assessments Administer tests to assess basic skills 100.0 100.0

Assessment results used to divide students into classes or learning groups 73.4 66.7

Screening6 Have a minimum required reading level for acceptance 53.3 60.0

Have a minimum required math level for acceptance 40.0 53.3

Educational Practices Participants per GED Teacher (14.7) (18.5)

Hours spent in GED classes for the average student (544.2) (426.6)

Use both GED books and computer/online programs 73.3 46.7

Uses team-teaching at least sometimes 53.3 40.0

Develop written individual service strategies of plans 80.0 73.3

Alternates GED and construction every week or more frequently 80.0 73.3

Integration (%Somewhat/Very well)7 On-site construction training 73.3 86.6

Vocational training 73.3 80.0

Leadership development/community service 73.4 86.3

Counseling/case management 60.0 85.7

Life skills training 66.6 100.0

Job-readiness training 73.4 80.0

Testing Practices Track progress on GED practice tests 100.0 100.0

Retest or post-test basic skills to check for improvement 100.0 100.0

Retest or post-test two or more times 80.0 86.7

                                                            

6   While programs operating charter schools could not, by law, exclude students based on entering reading and math levels, other YouthBuild programs that offer high school diploma instruction without operating charters schools or offered GED-only instruction were still able to do so.

7   Levels of integration were rated by program teachers or administrators.

III-6

Percent (mean) Characteristic Higher Lower Pays for students to take the GED 80.0 73.0

Staff accompany students to the GED testing center 78.6 66.7

Students take the GED test at the same time 26.7 40.0

These cross-tabulations provide some suggestion about program characteristics that may be important in helping participants achieve positive educational outcomes. However, by themselves, they do not allow one to conclude that the differences in outcomes between higher and lower performing programs are caused by these characteristics, or even that these differences are meaningful. Instead, other factors, such as differences in the characteristics of participants, may be the underlying reason for apparent differences in Exhibit III-4. In an effort to examine this, a series of multivariate analyses were conducted, and are described in the next section.

Multivariate Outcomes Analysis In addition to the descriptive analyses described above, several analyses were conducted that employed multiple variables in a single model. These analyses produce results with greater explanatory power because they can control statistically for a range of variables and isolate the unique contribution of each individual variable. In other words, these models allow one to examine the relationship between a particular variable (i.e., the gender of a participant) and an outcome of interest (i.e., whether the participant obtained a GED) while holding constant all other variables that might affect the outcome. Since the outcome of interest is binary (meaning the variable must take one of only two values; i.e., GED attainment), logistic regression was used, as this type of analysis provides a more robust estimate when examining binary variables. Unless otherwise noted in the text, only relationships between variables that are statistically significant are discussed in the remaining sections.

The data for this analysis were obtained by creating a master data file that contained information gathered from the YouthBuild USA MIS, the student survey, and the teacher survey. First, data on students contained in the MIS were matched to students’ responses on the survey using their unique student identification number, which was captured in both sources. However, some participants who had invalid student identification numbers on their survey could not be matched to MIS records and were therefore excluded from the file. In addition, because the outcome of interest is GED attainment, a small number of participants who were coded as being on the high

III-7

school diploma track in the MIS were removed.8 Finally, the characteristics of the programs (from the teacher survey) in which participants were enrolled were combined with their individual records to complete the master data file.

Participant Characteristics

Because individuals’ characteristics are known to have some relationship in educational outcomes, it is important to include them in the analysis. The first model, shown in Exhibit III-5, examines the relationship between participant characteristics and GED attainment. The model indicates that older participants were slightly more likely to obtain their GED, with the odds of obtaining a GED increasing 13.5 percent for every year increase in age. There is also a relationship between participants’ ethnicity and outcomes, with participants of color being less likely to obtain their GED than Caucasian participants.9 Though the reason is unclear, participants who had been incarcerated at some point in their lives were nearly three times as likely to obtain GEDs as other participants. One possible explanation of this finding may be that programs might have provided additional services to formerly-incarcerated participants that aid in GED attainment. Another finding indicated that participants who tested at higher math grade levels at enrollment were more likely to obtain their GED, with the likelihood of obtaining the GED increasing 25 percent with each increase in grade level.10 Interviews with teacher and administrators support this finding, as they reported that math is a particularly challenging subject for participants, and it would seem probable that students who entered the program at higher levels in this area would be better equipped to succeed academically.

                                                            

8   The rationale for dropping these students from regression analysis is that although some high school diploma students also acquired their GED, for those who did not obtain a GED, it is unclear whether this was because they attempted and failed the test or because they were focused solely on high school degree attainment.   

9   This finding is broadly consistent with data on educational outcomes within the wider population. See for example, Oakes (1990), Terenzini et al. (2001) and Crissey, Sarah R. (2009), US Census Bureau, Educational Attainment in the United States: 2007 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p20-560.pdf ), which shows a progressively widening gap at higher levels of academic attainment for African-Americans and Latinos compared to non-Hispanic whites and Asians.

10   Reading levels (p =.053) were also close to being significant at the p < .05 level. At this “borderline” significance level, participants who tested at higher reading grade levels at enrollment would have their likelihood of obtaining the GED increase by 11 percent for each increase in grade level, a lower increase compared to math.   

III-8

Exhibit III-5: Outcomes by Participant Characteristics

Predictor B Wald χ2 p Odds Ratio

Age 0.126 4.000 0.045 1.135

Gender

Female 0.119 0.172 0.679 1.126

Ethnicity

Black/African American -0.899 7.002 0.008 0.407

Latino -1.155 10.008 0.002 0.315

Other Non-White -1.755 7.370 0.007 0.173

Has Child(ren) 0.223 0.600 0.439 1.250

Parent has GED or high school diploma 0.009 0.001 0.974 1.009

Driver’s License at enrollment 0.339 1.542 0.214 1.404

Not Married at enrollment 0.076 0.021 0.885 1.079

On Public Assistance at enrollment -0.117 0.192 0.662 0.890

Ever Arrested 0.272 0.930 0.335 1.312

Ever Incarcerated 1.044 7.093 0.008 2.839

Reading Level at enrollment 0.107 3.758 0.053 1.114

Math Level at enrollment 0.225 11.507 <0.001 1.252

Note: B = coefficients derived from logit regression on the dependent variable. Wald χ2 = Wald chi-square. P = p-value. (Results that are significant at the <0.05 level are displayed in bold.) Odds Ratio = odds ratio associated with the coefficients. 11

Teaching Methods Used in GED Classrooms

To examine whether specific teaching methods are related to GED attainment, another model was estimated that included information collected on the student survey about the prevalence of certain teaching methods used in YouthBuild GED classrooms. This model used participant characteristics described above as control variables, thus allowing for an estimation of the independent contribution of each method while holding participant characteristics constant. The results of this model are presented in Exhibit III-6. As shown in the exhibit, the use of specific

                                                            

11   The logistic regression coefficient, “B” (also called the parameter estimate) is an estimator of change in the log odds caused by a unit of change in the independent variable. The Wald chi-square statistic is used to test the significance of individual logistic regression coefficients for each independent variable. The p-value is the probability of obtaining those observed results by chance. For models in this chapter, results at the <0.05 level are considered significant, meaning there is at least a less than 5% probability the results are due to chance. The odds ratios are measures of the effect size that describes the strength of association between the dependant and independent variables. 

III-9

teaching methods was largely unrelated to outcomes, with one notable exception. Participants whose teachers spend most or none of their class time lecturing were less likely to obtain their GED than participants whose teachers lecture some of time. This finding is supported by YouthBuild administrators and GED teachers, who reported that lecturing to classes has limited utility. They reported that using predominately traditional instructional methods, such as lecture, have been less effective because it can be difficult to keep students engaged. In an interview with one of the high performing sites, respondents reported that demonstration methods--where teachers spend some time in whole-class instruction and then have students work on their own--have been particularly useful with their students.

Exhibit III-6: Outcomes by Teaching Methods

Predictor B Wald χ2 p Odds Ratio

Using computers/online programs in addition to books/printed materials

0.296 1.084 0.298 1.354

Having Lecture (reference category: Some lecture)

Lecture most of the time -0.708 6.067 0.014 0.493

Lecture none of the time -1.381 4.084 0.043 0.251

Having one-on-one instruction or tutoring frequently 0.597 0.851 0.356 1.300

Working on own with GED books some of the time -0.267 0.177 0.674 0.774

Working on own on the computer some of the time 0.597 2.521 0.112 1.816

Getting help from peers 0.198 0.095 0.758 1.219

Taking practice GED tests often 0.141 0.234 0.628 1.151

Note: B = coefficients derived from logit regression on the dependent variable. Wald χ2 = Wald chi-square. P = p-value. (Results that are significant at the <0.05 level are displayed in bold.) Odds Ratio = odds ratio associated with the coefficients.

Program Characteristics

The final model examined the relationship between program characteristics captured in the teacher survey and GED attainment. In addition to investigating what program characteristics are successful in interviews with program administrators and teachers, analyzing these variables in a regression model yields a richer understanding of what variations in program characteristics are associated with GED students’ educational outcomes. The model described in this section includes certain program-level characteristics, in addition to the participant characteristics discussed above. Instead of including all programmatic variables in the model, variables were included based on characteristics that were identified as relevant in interviews with program

III-10

administrators and GED teachers (e.g., scheduling or providing in-house GED programs) or on previous academic research (e.g., time spent in GED classes or student-to-teacher ratios). Other factors that were identified as potential areas of interest in interviews were excluded because they were too closely correlated with other variables. For example, all charter schools in the sample offered high school diploma instruction, so only the variable for offering high school diploma instruction was retained in the model. 12

Exhibit III-7 shows that a number of program characteristics were associated with GED attainment. Participants in programs with lower student to teacher ratios were more likely to obtain their GEDs. For each increase in the number of students to teachers, the odds of attaining a GED decrease by 6.1 percent. Students in YouthBuild programs that also offer high school degree instruction are over four times more likely to get their GED than students in programs that only offer GED instruction. One possible explanation of this finding, as suggested by interviewees from high achieving programs in Chapter II, is that offering high school diploma instruction improves the overall quality of instruction. On the other hand, some program staff members suggested that GED-only programming is more appropriate for students who enter the program with greater educational barriers, thus it is also possible that GED-only programs may have served students who entered with larger academic deficits. An additional possibility is that the opportunity to obtain a high school diploma reflects greater attention to education on the part of program leadership. The only data on which we could draw to assess this was a question on the teacher survey, which asked if the teachers feel they have the support of the program director. Perhaps because of the very positive responses to this question (and, thus, the limited variation in responses), there was no significant relationship between this variable and whether a program offered high school diploma instruction. Thus, the finding that GED attainment is higher for students in programs that also offer high school diploma instruction merits further research.

In addition, participants in programs that offered GED instruction in-house as opposed to through partner organizations were nearly three times more likely to obtain their GED. As discussed in Chapter II, staff members reported several advantages to YouthBuild offering instruction directly, such as the ability of the program to maintain greater control over instructional practices and hiring of teachers, which contribute to fostering a culture of shared values. Sites that used partner organizations reported that the advantages of that structure were largely non-educational, such as providing for cost-saving arrangements or the ability of partners to help participants access employment opportunities.

                                                            

12   Fewer than half of the sites that offered high school diploma instruction also ran charter schools. 

III-11

Another program characteristic associated with GED attainment is the scheduling of GED instruction and time on the construction worksite. Participants in programs that alternate time in GED classes and on the worksite at least every week (i.e., split days between GED instruction and construction worksite, alternate days in GED class and the worksite, or spend one week in GED class and then week on the worksite) have better odds of obtaining GED than participants in programs that alternate less frequently, with participants in the latter group being 85 percent less likely to obtain their GED. Reports from interviews with sites seem to support this finding. Respondents indicated that when students had longer intervals between GED class sessions, they also had more difficulty retaining information and teachers often had to spend considerable amounts of time reviewing previously learned material.

Exhibit III-7: Outcomes by Program Structure

Predictor B Wald χ2 p Odds Ratio

Program Structure

Time spent in GED class 0.002 2.080 0.149 1.002

Student to Teacher ratio -0.063 13.882 <0.001 0.939

Provides High School Diploma 1.515 8.672 0.003 4.548

GED instruction offered by YouthBuild 1.060 4.380 0.036 2.887

Schedule

Alternating GED and Construction every two weeks or longer

-1.900 9.922 0.002 0.150

Minimum grade level requirement for acceptance 0.460 1.367 0.242 1.584

Students divided into classes/learning groups by assessments 0.979 4.336 0.037 2.663

Note: B = coefficients derived from logit regression on the dependent variable. Wald χ2 = Wald chi-square. P = p-value. (Results that are significant at the <0.05 level are displayed in bold.) Odds Ratio = odds ratio associated with the coefficients.

Participants in GED programs that used assessment tests to divide students into classes or learning groups were also more likely to have successful educational outcomes. However, interviewed sites indicated that the strategies for dividing students into groups can vary. For example, sites reported they may form groupings of students at similar achievement levels or mix groups so that stronger students can help students who are not as strong in certain areas. This suggests that while the make-up of groups may be less important, one reason for this factor contributing to positive outcomes may be that it is indicative of the promise of using data-driven approaches to organizing instruction. For example, in interviews, staff members at one high

III-12

achieving site noted that they used assessments to re-group students a few times throughout the program cycle in order to re-structure learning groups around changing student needs.

Two other factors were not associated with GED attainment. While educational research indicates generally that time spent on study tends to be associated with outcomes,13 there is no association between spending more time in GED class and GED attainment when other participants and program characteristics are controlled for in the model. In addition, screening applicants based on entering grade levels was not related to GED attainment.

Conclusions and Recommendations To a large extent, the outcomes described above confirmed some of the major hypotheses that we posited at the outset of this study. Perhaps as importantly, the outcomes also validated many of the opinions of the practitioners that we interviewed during the course of this study. In the conclusion that follows, we review some of these findings within the context of promoting systemic improvement of academic instruction in YouthBuild programs.

Students were overwhelmingly positive about their experiences related to their sense of emotional and physical safety, adult support, and skill-building opportunities at YouthBuild. The vast majority of student survey respondents indicated that GED teachers cared about them as individuals, were available to help with specific problems related to studies, understood their subject areas and how to share knowledge, and provided students with helpful information about their academic progress. Likewise, student respondents also agreed that YouthBuild staff showed concern for participants, made students feel as if they belonged, and did whatever necessary to help students reach their educational goals. Overall, students indicated that they had an enjoyable experience at YouthBuild, and highly rated their experiences in both YouthBuild in general and in their GED programs specifically. Some of the variables that were positively correlated to outcomes, such as student-to-teacher ratios, have long been used as measures of quality for academic programs—one needs to look no farther than college rankings prepared annually by US News and World Report, which uses this variable in its assessment of college programs.

                                                            

13   See for example, Lahmers and Zulauf (2000), who showed that both time management skills and study time were positively associated with GPA for a sample of college students. However, the increase in GPA was relatively small per additional weekly study hour per week, suggesting that study time must increase substantially to raise academic outcomes. In that study, each additional hour of study per week resulted in an increase of only 0.025 in GPA. 

III-13

Other variables are more specific to YouthBuild. For example, as described by respondents in programs that offered students the opportunity to obtain a high school diploma, this could also have an impact on the quality of academic offering overall. In one of the examples cited in the current evaluation, program leaders strongly believed that GED-only instruction was inadequately preparing students for further education or careers, and that the shift toward “all education all the time” within the high school program brought with it a higher level of rigor and greater breadth. This finding was validated by our quantitative analysis—we found that offering a high school diploma option was positively related to GED attainment in our study. Also, and as described in Chapter II, respondents from programs that have in-house GED programs see several advantages related to this approach including consistency of culture and shared values, as well as a greater degree of control and accountability. This finding was also validated by our quantitative analysis, which showed that having in-house GED services was associated with GED achievement.

Teachers and administrators spoke to us of the need to “mix it up” in terms of teaching styles. Specifically they noted that lectures and whole-class teaching should be done in measured doses and blended with other teacher methods. In an interesting finding, our regression analysis indicated that not only too much whole-class teaching, but also the complete absence of whole class teaching are correlated with lower outcomes.

Interview respondents had also spoken to us about their concerns in terms of student retention of material—saying that the longer that students were away from education courses, the less they retained. This concern was also validated by our regression models—students in programs with schedules that had used a one-week-off, one-week-on schedule or alternating construction and academics within any given week had better odds of getting their GEDs.

Another important finding has to do with academic levels prior to enrollment. While entry reading levels turned out to be of only “borderline” significance in terms of outcomes, it was not surprising that math levels at entry were highly correlated with GED outcomes—math was rated as the most difficult of the five GED subject areas by the large majority of teacher survey respondents. The odds of being able to get a GED were approximately doubled for a person testing at for example, the 9th grade math level, compared with a student entering at a 5th grade level.

There were also results that were somewhat unexpected. For example, although we may have expected that grouping students according to ability levels would have at least some correlation with outcomes, we found that students in programs that divided them into classes or learning groups based on assessment results were much more likely to pass their GED as students in programs where this method was not practiced.

III-14

Perhaps the most surprising finding had to do with the relationship of GED outcomes and incarceration history. Although a full analysis of this finding is beyond the scope of this evaluation because we did not gather data for offenders specifically, one possible reason for this outcome is that previously incarcerated students who make it through orientation or “mental toughness” are highly motivated to change their lives, and see the YouthBuild as their best opportunity for a “second chance” in life. An alternative, and possibly complementary explanation, is that the programs in our sample may have developed greater capacity in serving youth offenders because half of them had previously received grants specifically designed to serve offenders.

How best can these results be interpreted in the context of assisting programs to improve educational outcomes? The implication of the first three findings that we discussed in this section—increasing the number of teachers per student, offering high school options, and offering “in-house” GED programs—all have potential monetary and non-monetary implications that programs need to consider. In Chapter II, we discussed several of the monetary factors involved in offering high school programs and “in-house” GED programs, and clearly as well, providing more teachers per student has cost implications. In terms of non-monetary considerations associated with offering a high school option, it is important to note that high school may never be the best option for every YouthBuild student. As several interview respondents noted, many students had bad experiences in the traditional school system, and some students are so far behind in credits that it would be difficult for them “catch up” during their time at YouthBuild. However, findings do suggest that it is appropriate for YouthBuild to offer a high school diploma option for students when feasible. Similarly, and with the understanding that there may be specific cases having partners to provide GED services is the appropriate choice, we would recommend that whenever feasible, YouthBuild programs consider offering “in-house” GED programs.

Some aspects of teaching methods and scheduling also clearly matter, particularly in terms of blending techniques to maintain student interest and promoting student retention of academic material. Teachers should be aware that lecturing alone is not the appropriate method for maintaining student interest and promoting favorable outcomes, but at the same time, students in programs that are entirely lacking in whole-class instruction are less likely to do well on the GED than students in programs that better blend techniques. In terms of scheduling, it is probably not advisable for students to go longer than one week without academic instruction—anything more is likely to negatively impact the ability of students to retain what they learn in academic classes. A possible exception to this—and one which remains to be methodically case-tested—would be to begin YouthBuild programs with a longer period of approximately six months of academic instruction followed by construction-related activities.

III-15

In addition, the results indicated that African-American and Latino students had significantly lower odds of passing the GED as compared to white students. One area for further research is to study whether emphasizing diversity in staff members who are better able to understand participants’ backgrounds might help ameliorate these differences. For instance, one administrator with whom we spoke during the current evaluation told us of her difficulty in finding teachers that had both relevant content specialization—particularly in math education—and the ability to relate well to students from a different background than their own. In that particular case, a large majority of the student population was African-American and the program had never received an application from an African-American math teacher. Although we cannot generalize from this one case, we believe that research on the match between student and staff diversity is worth pursuing in future research on YouthBuild programs.

Other findings also have important implications for program practitioners. While we found that students with high math levels would be expected to have significantly better GED outcomes, we also found that using math and reading level entry requirements to screen out potential participants is not related to GED attainment. This finding tends to validate the statements of respondents that emphasized the importance of program leadership in developing high quality education programs, rather than simply targeting students with higher academic levels at entry.

For several reasons therefore, the results of this study need to be carefully considered in terms of their implications for program implementation. As one example among many, we would suggest that educational practitioners in YouthBuild programs need to consider unintended consequences of dividing students according to abilities as tested by assessments. According to one of our interview respondents, students are sensitive to being divided by learning tracks and programs need to be careful in forming these groups as to not further reduce self-esteem for lower-achieving students. Moreover, there may be advantages, as suggested by some interview respondents, of having more mature and advanced learners in classes to provide role models for younger or less mature students.

Similarly, there are other important philosophical underpinnings to the YouthBuild system that must be given primacy in terms of structuring programs. Most important is the fact that YouthBuild is designed as an alternative that seeks to serve youth from among the most disadvantaged areas of the country. Therefore, the use of any individual selection criterion, including academic screening, should be based on thoughtful reflection, keeping in mind the needs of youth and their communities as the primary point of reference in the decision-making process.

This page intentionally left blank.

Insert blank page here when making double-sided copies

REFERENCES

Boulden, W. T. (2008). Evaluation of the advancing young adult learning project. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 2, 3-12.

Connell, J. P., Gambone, M. A., & Smith, T.J. (2000). Youth Development in Community Settings: Challenges to Our Field and Our Approach. In Youth Development: Issues, Challenges and Directions (281-300). Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

Horn, L. & Bobbitt, L. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First generation students 'math track, planning strategies, and context of support (NCES Publication No. 2000-153). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Lahmers, Amy Gortner and Carl R Zulauf (2000). Factors associated with academic time use and academic performance of college students: A recursive approach. Journal of College Student Development.

Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying Inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND

Gambone, Michell Alberti ,Hanh Cao Yu, Heather Lewis-Charp, Cynthia L Sipe, Johanna Lacoe (2004). A Comparative Analysis of Community Youth Development Strategies. Social Policy Research Associates, 2004.

SPR (2009). Abrazaldo, Wally, Jo-Ann Adefuin, Jennifer Henderson-Frakes, Charles Lea, Jill Leufgen, Heather Lewis-Charp, Sukey Soukamneuth, Andrew Wiegand. Evaluation of the YouthBuild Youth Offender Grants: Final Report. Social Policy Research Associates.

Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. R, & Bernai, E. M. (2001). Swimming against the tide: The poor in American higher education. College Board Research Report No. 2001-1. New York: The College Board.

Tokpah, C. L., & Paddak, N. (2003). GED graduates in college. Adult Learning, 14, 8-10.

Zill, Nicholas Christine Winquist Nord, and Laura Spencer Loomis (1995). Adolescent Time Use, Risky Behavior and Outcomes: An Analysis of National Data. Westat, Inc. For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.