WHAT DID YOU DO TODAY?
Not only was my flowing nectar affirmed again today (more info to come), but I've been hard at work at my new job with my good friend Buttons. While we both had 23 other things to do, our director General Zaragoza "charged" us with learning about and responding to Bush's decision to cut Upward Bound, and subseqently our jobs and the opportunity for 105 low income students in Minneapolis to get much needed academic support to get into college and receive a top notch education. Here is what we wrote:
President Bush’s stated intention for the FY 2004 federal budget is to cut education programs that “are not getting results or duplicate current efforts or do not fulfill essential priorities.”[1] Upward Bound (UB) is in full agreement with this aim. To determine which programs are ineffective, the President relies on a study called the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). PART’s intention is to rate programs for effectiveness based on purpose and design, strategic planning, management and results.
PART finds that UB has a clear purpose and is designed to have a significant impact on addressing a specific need,[2] but does not “demonstrate adequate progress in achieving long term outcome goals.”[3] This assessment, however, calls for further investigation. PART clearly states as part of their analysis that “the department of Education recently finalized its goal and targets for Upward Bound but does not yet have information to measure program progress.”[4] This lack of information is mystifying because colleges sponsoring UB programs have been submitting detailed annual performance reports for over 10 years. The DOE has not analyzed this information and submitted it for PART analysis. In addition, of the 56 education-related programs evaluated using PART, only 2 were rated Effective. These two programs are the National Center on Educational Statistics and the National Assessment (of Educational Programs). They are focused only on educational assessment. No program actually educating students or providing services to students earned an effective rating. Results such as these strongly indicate that a reevaluation of the PART analysis, particularly in regard to educational programs that provide services, is essential before its findings can be used in decision-making of this magnitude. Upward Bound’s program effectiveness must be evaluated based on actual reported results, not on an assessment riddled with missing information and a questionable outcome.
In the State of the Union address, President Bush announced his intention to “demand better results from our high schools so every high school diploma is a ticket to success.”[5] His plan to accomplish this includes taking funding from Upward Bound and applying it to the expansion of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to high schools. According to the DOE website, the stated goals of NCLB include the intention to “place emphasis on determining what educational programs and practices have been proven effective through rigorous scientific research.”[6] Again, UB is in full agreement with this aim. However, the numerous concerns with PART’s analysis of educational programs demonstrate that PART’s method of evaluation does not constitute sufficient scientific research. Clearly, President Bush’s subsequent decision to replace UB with experimental efforts is not in line with his stated goals. This judgment is made more troubling by the fact that thorough, detailed program information on UB and its outcomes has been readily available for over 10 years.
[1] State of the Union speech, 2005
[2] Pg 443-444 of the PART study for the FY 2004 Federal Budget
[3] Pg 449 of the PART study for the FY 2004 Federal Budget
[4] Pg 450f the PART study for the FY 2004 Federal Budget
[5] State of the Union speech, 2005
[6] http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/index.html?src=ov
PART finds that UB has a clear purpose and is designed to have a significant impact on addressing a specific need,[2] but does not “demonstrate adequate progress in achieving long term outcome goals.”[3] This assessment, however, calls for further investigation. PART clearly states as part of their analysis that “the department of Education recently finalized its goal and targets for Upward Bound but does not yet have information to measure program progress.”[4] This lack of information is mystifying because colleges sponsoring UB programs have been submitting detailed annual performance reports for over 10 years. The DOE has not analyzed this information and submitted it for PART analysis. In addition, of the 56 education-related programs evaluated using PART, only 2 were rated Effective. These two programs are the National Center on Educational Statistics and the National Assessment (of Educational Programs). They are focused only on educational assessment. No program actually educating students or providing services to students earned an effective rating. Results such as these strongly indicate that a reevaluation of the PART analysis, particularly in regard to educational programs that provide services, is essential before its findings can be used in decision-making of this magnitude. Upward Bound’s program effectiveness must be evaluated based on actual reported results, not on an assessment riddled with missing information and a questionable outcome.
In the State of the Union address, President Bush announced his intention to “demand better results from our high schools so every high school diploma is a ticket to success.”[5] His plan to accomplish this includes taking funding from Upward Bound and applying it to the expansion of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to high schools. According to the DOE website, the stated goals of NCLB include the intention to “place emphasis on determining what educational programs and practices have been proven effective through rigorous scientific research.”[6] Again, UB is in full agreement with this aim. However, the numerous concerns with PART’s analysis of educational programs demonstrate that PART’s method of evaluation does not constitute sufficient scientific research. Clearly, President Bush’s subsequent decision to replace UB with experimental efforts is not in line with his stated goals. This judgment is made more troubling by the fact that thorough, detailed program information on UB and its outcomes has been readily available for over 10 years.
[1] State of the Union speech, 2005
[2] Pg 443-444 of the PART study for the FY 2004 Federal Budget
[3] Pg 449 of the PART study for the FY 2004 Federal Budget
[4] Pg 450f the PART study for the FY 2004 Federal Budget
[5] State of the Union speech, 2005
[6] http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/index.html?src=ov
Victory to the huddled masses yearning to be free! And to two women who crush emotional fuckwits and strive to change the world!
<< Home