“Student Outcomes of Rural Community Technology Centers:
Additional Evidence from a Case Study in Far Western Kentucky”

Martin I. Milkman
Murray State University
Riza D. Marjadi
Murray State University
Steve H. Freeman
West Kentucky Community and Technical College

Background

   In the early spring of 2003, three rural western Kentucky high schools collaborated to develop a Community Technology Center (CTC) grant proposal – Project Rescue. Each high school had similar challenges in regard to student success rates. Over 50% of the student populations scored below state proficiency levels in math, reading, and language arts. Additionally, percentile ranks on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) indicated that near 50% of the student populations scored below the 50th percentile for each school. The CTBS is a nationally standardized testing instrument.

   The lack of academic preparation of student populations is a reflection of their communities and many of their parents. This pattern of low educational attainment by parents and a culture of poverty, resulting in high dropout rates and low academic achievement of students are consistent with research findings. It is estimated that 40% of children in the United States are at risk for school failure due to poverty, race, single parent family and parents with little education (National Commission on Children, 1991).

   Many students, especially minorities, decide to leave school during early adolescence and a substantial number drop out of school before the end of the 10th grade (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989). Two of the high schools have high percentages of minority students, which have higher dropout rates than non-minority populations (Ekstrom, 1986).

   Additional research findings indicate that flexible curriculum may prevent discouragement and dropout decisions (Gadwa & Griggs, 1995). However, the negative effects of living in a low-income environment may be offset by parenting style and social relationships with family, friends, church, and other organizations (Steinberg, 1988).

   The successfully funded CTC grant provided funding to establish a computer laboratory in each of the three high schools. The initial strategy was to utilize PLATO software as an academic intervention for 9th and 10th grades students and to provide credit recovery opportunities to 11th and 12th grades students. Student selection for participation was based on individual student scores on the CTBS and the Kentucky Core Content Test (KCCT). Each participating high school also reviewed additional risk factors. These factors included but were not limited to the following: 1) attendance rates, 2) evaluation by classroom teachers, and 3) discipline problems.

   The on-line PLATO curriculum was chosen because it contains an assessment that diagnoses and automatically prescribes individualized learning pathways within specific PLATO courses for each participant. Early results indicated that students were benefiting from both the intervention strategies and credit recovery opportunities.

   An unforeseen challenge in the implementation of the project was the resistance from classroom educators. Concerns expressed by educators included a philosophy that students were being presented with too many opportunities to make up credit, that the PLATO software would not cover the Kentucky Core Content and that the utilization of Computer Aided Instruction would not provide an equivalent, rigorous, learning experience compared to classroom instruction.

   In response to this resistance the collaborating partners developed a successful “School and Community Partnership” grant proposal to transition the CTC project to a whole school reform format. This project was evaluated and deemed successful (Milkman, Freeman and Marjadi, 2004). The subject of this paper is the final results of the impact of the CTC at each of the three high schools.

METHODS

   The two methods of evaluation presented in this paper are data from a student survey, and a formal measure of student success rate. The student survey was conducted to identify student perception of the PLATO software system for both academic intervention and credit recovery.

   The formal measure of student success rate was achieved by tracking student success in three areas. This included the following: 1) improvement in CTBS scores for 9th grade students, which reflected the academic intervention component, 2) decreases in grade level retention rates, which indicates a lack of academic progression toward on-time graduation, and 3) a decrease in dropout rates, which indicates failure in the credit recovery component of the project.

   The primary evaluation tools included the School Report Card for each high school. This annual report provided by the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) identifies the official rates of retention, dropout, and CTBS assessment. The report is produced for every high school in the state of Kentucky and provides a valid longitudinal data source for student progress.

Student Survey Highlights

   A student survey was completed of the students participating in the Project Rescue effort during the 2003-2004 academic year. The survey was completed by 106 students. Eighty-three of the students were involved in the credit recovery part of the project. (The survey was completed at the end of the spring term even though some students continued in the project during the summer.)

   As Table One illustrates almost 80% of the students are “more confident” or “much more confident” that they can graduate from high school as a result of participating in Project Rescue. As one might expect, this number is higher for those participating in the credit recovery part of the project.

   Project Rescue utilized a computer laboratory where the computers had PLATO software installed onto each computer. This software was chosen by the schools because it was thought to be sustainable after the grant funding expired (Milkman et al.) and the students found that the software was easy to use. (Over 50% of the students indicated that the PLATO software was “easy “or “very easy” to use.) It is probably important to note that two of the three schools were involved in another federally funded grant program: GEAR-UP that utilized the Nova Net software, so most of the students in those two schools were already familiar with the idea of computer guided self-passed instruction.

   As Table Two illustrates more than a third of the students utilized the software five or more times per week. The percentage of students utilizing the PLATO Software five or more times per week was higher for those involved in credit recovery. There was also considerable variation from school to school. At one high school over 77% of the students reported using the PLATO software five or more times a week, while at another high school less than 8% of the students reported using the PLATO software five or more times a week. Each of the three schools was given the freedom to decide how to utilize their laboratories for the project in terms of how much time would be devoted to credit recovery or academic intervention and this may explain the variation in frequency of student use.

Performance Indicators

   Table 3 highlights the performance indicator data that was used to evaluate this grant. The first performance indicator is the gain in CTBS scores. High School Two had tremendous gains in the CTBS scores. At this school the PLATO software was mostly used for academic intervention, which meant that the ninth grade students used the software extensively. There was no change in the reading scores for High School Three but the math scores significantly improved. The performance of High School One on the CTBS tests was disappointing.

   Retention rates measures the percentage of students retained in a particular grade level. Once again the results from High School One were disappointing. However the results from High Schools Two and Three are encouraging. High School Three was the school that emphasized credit recovery. The principal of High School Three noted that the reason that he felt that his school was so successful in reducing the retention rate was that the students in Project Rescue were very appreciative of the fact that this newly designed computer laboratory was just for them. One student even mentioned that no one has ever done anything like this for us before.

   In addition since the software was self-passed other students did not know the grade level that each student was working on. This reduced the stigma that students might have felt and along with the sense of application may have resulted in the lower dropout rate at High School Three. High Schools One and Two really had no change in their dropout rates.

CONCLUSION

   Even though the federal funding for Project Rescue has been spent, the grant has been sustained. During the summer the computer laboratories were used for credit recovery and the schools are still using the computer software and laboratories this year. The sustainability of the project is not captured in the data presented in this paper. However it is encouraging that the schools are committed to continuing to sustain Project Rescue.

   In conclusion perhaps we were too optimistic that significant changes would occur after only one year. As our earlier paper (Milkman et. al.) notes we did change the attitudes of teachers regarding the use of computer aided instruction for credit recovery. This is perhaps a reason that the resources purchased through Project Rescue are still being utilized. We anticipate that the sustained impact of Project Rescue will be greater than the short run impact and will help to continue to contribute to school reform efforts in west Kentucky.

   The data suggests that further study should be conducted to better understand the difference of student perception between academic intervention and credit recovery. Particular interest should be directed toward entering 9^th graders, since this is a major transition point for at-risk students.

TABLES

 Table 1.    How much more confident are you that you can graduate from high school
as a result in participating in Project Rescue? (N=106)

Table 2.     How often did you use the PLATO Software each week?

Table 3.     Performance Indicators

REFERENCES

Carnagie Council on Adolescent Development, (1989). “Turning points: preparing American youth for the 21^st century.” New York: Carnagie Corporation of New York.

Ekstrom, R.B., Goety, M.E., Pollack, J. M., and Rock, D. A., (1986). “ Who drops out of high school and why?” Findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 87, pp. 356-573

Gadwa, K., and Griggs, S.A., (1985). “The school dropout: Implications for counselors.” The School Counselor, 33, pp. 9-17.

Milkman, M.I., Freeman, H.S., and Marjadi, R. (2006). “Impact of a group of rural community technology centers on credit recovery and academic intervention: A case study from far western Kentucky. National Social Science Journal.

National Commission on Children, (1991). “Beyond rhetoric: a new American agenda for children and families.” Washington D.C.: National Commission on Children

Steinberg, L., (1988, June). “Communities of families and education.” Paper presented at the Conference on Education and the Family, Washington D.C.