Adult education directors' perceptions of performance indicators for adult education programs in the state of Florida

Current demands for accountability in education emphasize outcome-based program evaluation and tie program funding to individual student performance. As has been the case for elementary and secondary programs, demands for accountability have increased pressure on adult educators to show evidence of the benefits of their programs in order to justify their financial support. In Florida, recent legislation fundamentally changes the delivery of adult education in the state by establishing a performance-based funding system that is based on outcomes related to the retention, completion, and employment of program participants.^ A performance-based funding system requires an evaluation process that stresses outcome indicators over indicators that focus on program context or process. Although the state has adopted indicators of program quality to evaluate its adult education programs, these indicators focus mostly on program processes rather than student outcomes. In addition, the indicators are not specifically tied to workforce development outcomes, a priority to federal and local funding agents.^ Improving the accountability of adult education programs and defining the role of these programs in Florida's Workforce Development System has become a priority to policy makers across the state. Another priority has been to involve adult education practitioners in every step of this process.^ This study was conducted in order to determine what performance indicators, as judged by the directors and supervisors of adult education programs in the state of Florida, are important and feasible in measuring the quality and effectiveness of these programs. The results of the study indicated that, both statewide and by region, the respondents consistently gave the highest ratings on both importance and feasibility to the indicators of Program Context, which reflect the needs, composition, and structure of the programs, and to the indicators of Educational Gain, which reflect learner progress in the attainment of basic skills and competencies. In turn, the respondents gave the lowest ratings on both importance and feasibility to the indicators in the areas of Return on State's Investment, Efficiency, Retention, and Workforce Training. In general, the indicators that received high ratings for importance also received high ratings for feasibility. ^

Teachers' perceptions of the usefulness of Individual Education Plans (IEP)

Since 1997 federal special education policy mandated that all classroom teachers take part in planning and implementation of Individualized Education Plans (IEP) for students with disabilities. This legislation has given teachers new responsibilities because it requires greater participation in the IEP process. The purpose of this study was to examine teachers' perceptions of the usefulness of Individualized Education Plans (IEP). ^ Eighty seven certified Miami-Dade County Public School teachers, 60 general education teachers and 27 special education teachers were surveyed using an updated version of Rheams' (1989) The Teacher Perceptions of the Usefulness of IEPs. Subjects completed a survey form containing a demographic cover page, 18 Likert-scale statements and 3 open ended questions. This study looked at differences in perceptions by teacher group affiliation (general and special), grade level taught (elementary and secondary), and years of experience (<=5 and >5 years). The dependent variables were teacher preparedness; feasibility of IEP implementation; relevancy of IP to classroom instruction; and legal, professional and personal accountability with regard to the IEP. ^ Results of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) revealed that (a) special education teachers held a more positive perception of overall IEP usefulness than general education teachers, (b) special educators held more positive perceptions concerning issues of feasibility and preparedness, (c) elementary level teachers viewed the IEP more positively than secondary level teachers, specifically in the areas of preparedness and feasibility. ^ Findings of this study indicate that general and secondary educators have not embraced the legislation and incorporated it into their planning and instruction. These findings provide policymakers, institutions of higher education, and school administrators with insight as to how to better translate policy into classroom instructional practice. Consideration should be given to implementing (a) honest communication and shared decision making with regard to IEP directed curriculum and instruction, (b) updated pre and in-service IEP development and implementation training, and (c) opportunities for collaboration and increased plan time, especially on the secondary level. ^

Supporting Students with Intellectual Disabilities in Higher Education through Mentoring

Federal legislation is now making it possible for students with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) to enroll in university programs through inclusive transition models. The need for more knowledge in the workplace, in addition to newly acquired opportunities, draws students with ID to college campuses. With this increase of student in postsecondary education settings, it is necessary to examine the types of supports needed to ensure their success. Peer mentorship has been identified as a crucial aspect of support for academic and social development. This paper identifies the skills mentors use during their sessions and outlines challenges with mentoring partnerships in postsecondary transition programs. Data analysis revealed major themes related to inclusion, self-determination, and adaptive behavior skills.