Abstract pending.

Abstract pending.

Two years after starting college, recipients of Georgia's HOPE scholarship program are more likely to still be enrolled in college, have higher grade point averages (GPA), and have earned more credit hours than their counterparts, according to a study by the Council for School Performance. The following graphs illustrate the difference in college performance for the two groups selected for the study, 1994-95 borderline HOPE recipients (those with a 3.0-3.16 GPA) and a matched sample of students who did not receive HOPE. For purpose of comparison, similar information is provided for all 1994-95 first-time HOPE recipients and for all first-time students enrolled in Board of Regents institutions in 1994-95

This report addresses the issue of the financing of higher education in Georgia by comparing financing in Georgia with other states and examining how financing affects the student population in terms of performance, and retention rates. FRC Report 142

The first wave of the six-year HOPE Longitudinal Study, commissioned by the Council for School Performance and partially sponsored by the Board of Regents, addresses three major questions. First, to what extent do thirteen to fifteen-year-olds and their parents know about the eligibility requirements of the HOPE Scholarship and the associated benefits? Second, what factors affect the expectations students form about attending and graduating from college? Finally, seventh and eighth graders were asked about the new PREP It Up! Program to determine how they heard about the program and to what extent they are able to recall college prep curriculum requirements.

The survey was undertaken during the spring of 1997. Given that a database of students with telephone numbers is generally not available, the Applied Research Center called over 44,000 households throughout the state to locate and gain consent of 800 students and their parents to participate in the study.

The first wave of the six-year HOPE Longitudinal Study, commissioned by the Council for School Performance and partially sponsored by the Board of Regents, addresses three major questions. First, to what extent do thirteen to fifteen-year-olds and their parents know about the eligibility requirements of the HOPE Scholarship and the associated benefits? Second, what factors affect the expectations students form about attending and graduating from college? Finally, seventh and eighth graders were asked about the new PREP It Up! Program to determine how they heard about the program and to what extent they are able to recall college prep curriculum requirements.

The survey was undertaken during the spring of 1997. Given that a database of students with telephone numbers is generally not available, the Applied Research Center called over 44,000 households throughout the state to locate and gain consent of 800 students and their parents to participate in the study.

The purpose of this study is to examine the connection between staff development and student achievement and to develop a base of knowledge for improving staff development in Georgia. Since 1985, the state has appropriated funds for staff development under the Quality Basic Education Act, one of the most comprehensive statewide initiatives for school improvement in the United States. In fiscal year 1998, Georgia appropriated over $35 million for staff development in schools and school districts. The Georgia Department of Education has collected information about uses of resources, levels of participation, and accomplishments of effectiveness of staff development in Georgia schools have not been conducted. Indeed, evaluations of staff development programs at a state level are rare. This study provides information to policy makers about whether or not state staff development funds are used in such a way as to have an impact on student achievement. The study also provides information that can be used to help schools maximize the effectiveness of their staff development efforts.

While staff development can be defined in a number of ways, for this study we used the following definition: An organized learning opportunity for teachers to acquire knowledge and skills to help them become more effective teachers. Staff development activities may consist of activities such as a single workshop, a conference, a workshop series, summer institutes, college coursework, or organized peer coaching and study group sessions. A staff development activity may be sponsored by many entities including a school, the school district, Regional Education Service Agencies, state agencies, teacher academies, colleges, or professional networks and organizations.

In this study we ask the question, "Do differences in the ways schools and school districts provide staff development for their teachers account for some of the variation in student achievement across Georgia schools?" The general strategy for the investigation was to select a sample of higher and lower achieving schools across a full range of socio-economic status, to gather data on staff development in these schools, and to test the extent to which the characteristics of staff development varied in the two groups of schools. Sixty schools in 35 districts participated in the study. At each school, we interviewed school administrators, conducted a focus group discussion with six to ten teachers, and surveyed teachers in the school (1,150 teachers responded). At the district office, we interviewed the staff development coordinator, personnel director, and finance director to determine the context in which staff development occurred at the schools.

The purpose of this study is to examine the connection between staff development and student achievement and to develop a base of knowledge for improving staff development in Georgia. Since 1985, the state has appropriated funds for staff development under the Quality Basic Education Act, one of the most comprehensive statewide initiatives for school improvement in the United States. In fiscal year 1998, Georgia appropriated over $35 million for staff development in schools and school districts. The Georgia Department of Education has collected information about uses of resources, levels of participation, and accomplishments of effectiveness of staff development in Georgia schools have not been conducted. Indeed, evaluations of staff development programs at a state level are rare. This study provides information to policy makers about whether or not state staff development funds are used in such a way as to have an impact on student achievement. The study also provides information that can be used to help schools maximize the effectiveness of their staff development efforts.

While staff development can be defined in a number of ways, for this study we used the following definition: An organized learning opportunity for teachers to acquire knowledge and skills to help them become more effective teachers. Staff development activities may consist of activities such as a single workshop, a conference, a workshop series, summer institutes, college coursework, or organized peer coaching and study group sessions. A staff development activity may be sponsored by many entities including a school, the school district, Regional Education Service Agencies, state agencies, teacher academies, colleges, or professional networks and organizations.

In this study we ask the question, "Do differences in the ways schools and school districts provide staff development for their teachers account for some of the variation in student achievement across Georgia schools?" The general strategy for the investigation was to select a sample of higher and lower achieving schools across a full range of socio-economic status, to gather data on staff development in these schools, and to test the extent to which the characteristics of staff development varied in the two groups of schools. Sixty schools in 35 districts participated in the study. At each school, we interviewed school administrators, conducted a focus group discussion with six to ten teachers, and surveyed teachers in the school (1,150 teachers responded). At the district office, we interviewed the staff development coordinator, personnel director, and finance director to determine the context in which staff development occurred at the schools.