Assessing AVID's effectiveness across elementary, middle, and high school levels

AVID or Advancement Via Individual Determination aims to offer high-risk students a sense of personal drive, the academic and organizational skills imperative to take advanced courses and readying themselves for—and getting accepted into—a university or college. In the absence of such an intervention, such students might not be able to make it to college. This paper will study AVID-linked literature and come up with a potential assessment plan for gauging AVID's efficacy at high school, middle school, and elementary school levels. Initial analyses discovered that schools' state performance levels went up one notch following 2-3 years of the program's implementation. Further, graduation rates improved, with increased AVID student continuance into college sophomore level. Lastly, students claimed their AVID experience in high school positively influenced their performance at college (PPS, 2015).

AVID's origins may be traced back to Mary Catherine Swanson, an English teacher at San Diego's Clairemont High School, who decided to help low-income pupils hailing from various backgrounds with requisite skills for successfully completing advanced college coursework. It has been 35 years since then, and AVID is being implemented in 41 colleges or universities and 4,837 K-12 schools across the U.S. and abroad. The mission of AVID is to bridging the achievement divide for readying all pupils for college and ensuring their success in the global setting (AVID Center, 2014) History Prior to 1954, and the Brown v. Board of Education case, separate schools in America taught differentiated curricula to students from different racial backgrounds. This different curriculum was illegalized when teaching desegregation in schools was called for, and for the past half-century, American schools have strived to provide an equitable education to all.

Schooling was made the great American equalizer, with students, at least theoretically, being offered an equalized playing field when moved across the schooling system. However, in practice, the disparities between children belonging to diverse ethnic groups, and between rich and poor kids, have witnessed an exacerbated divide in public schools. Schools have had a direct impact on children's outcomes and opportunities via 'tracking', a system implemented at the start of the twentieth century, with the rule of compulsory attendance. Kids were grouped based on similar achievement, ambitions or aptitude. This grouping turned self-perpetuating, with pupils frequently grouped for every subject at one academic level irrespective of potential differences in aptitude in different subjects. From 1965-1975, a majority of secondary schools in the U.S. eliminated their tracking systems of assigning pupils to previously established course programs in high school. Track labels, like basic, remedial and honors applied no more to students' programs; rather, they were used for courses (Lucas, 1999). Freedman (2000), has explained such a differentiated method of isolating minorities in remedial classrooms and having low expectations from them as a creation of "instructional ghettos," in the educational system (Watt, Yanez, & Cossio, 2014).

'Tracking' worsens achievement disparities, by reducing student achievement for low track students and elevating it for high track students (Kerckoff, 1986). Moreover, a High School and Beyond national statistics study revealed that non-White children and children from low-income households were seen to be academically higher in low-track classes. Almost fifty years after the landmark Brown case, tracking, although largely camouflaged and varied, continues to be institutionalized in the secondary schools of the nation (Watt, Yanez, & Cossio, 2014).

US public school structure shows that federal funding has attempted to bridge the gap between children belonging to different racial backgrounds. Over time, special programs for addressing diverse student groups' needs have been redesigned and implemented. Special students include the exceptionally talented or intellectual students, who are typically placed in rigorous curricular tracks with teachers expecting exceptional academic success from them (Maeroff 1999; Mathews 1998). Another student group labeled a 'special' group comprises of special education and 'at-risk' pupils, who are offered extra funds for equalizing their academic opportunities. However, this latter category of students is placed in tracks with minimum educational rigor and typically limited to the area of vocational training/experiences (Watt, Yanez, & Cossio, 2014).

In view of the low scores on standardized exams and high dropout frequency among African-American and Hispanic pupils in Texas State and across the rest of the nation, AVID seems a suitable model for dealing with concerns linked to high rates of performance at school, and college enrolment and completion for middle-level students. In spite of growing Advanced Placement (AP) programs across Texas schools, low-income pupils' percentages are lower than the percentages of Caucasian middle-class students. In the year 1999, a mere 7.9% of Hispanics and 4.3% African-American pupils completed an AP exam, as opposed to 13.4% of Caucasian pupils (Texas Education Agency, 2000). Advanced Placement participation is a problem all over Texas, and AVID is expected to increase enrolment in, and successful completion of AP programs as well as, eventually, access to college education among underrepresented student groups (Watt, Yanez, & Cossio, 2014). Budget Implementing surveys to be filled by school administrators, educators, and pupils is one sound, low budget approach. These surveys can closely emulate those designed by external assessors. Data collection would be immediate, or at the baseline level (i.e., before AVID implementation), and then a year later, in the next spring session. Every question would potentially use a 5-7-point (strongly agree -- strongly disagree) scale (PPS, 2015).

In case of schools with bigger budgets and more time on their hands, an assessment plan may incorporate one-on-one or focus group interviews in addition to the aforementioned surveys. The advantage of interviews is that it offers a more precise and comprehensive picture of AVID's effects (PPS, 2015). Student Population Principally, GPA (grade point average), course enrolment, attendance, scores on different tests, and other baseline information was gathered for roughly 1000 students from 26 Texas secondary schools. Such information was gathered once again in fall 1999, spring 2000, and summer 2001 semesters. Study authors looked into variances and similarities in students' course participation, attendance, and achievement rates among and across schools. AVID students' demographic characteristics were obtained through comparative data collection. Lastly, information on educational levels of the parents of students enrolled in AVID was gathered as well (Watt, Yanez, & Cossio, 2014).

AVID students undertook rigorous coursework during the fall 1999 school session. However, different schools define the term 'rigorous coursework' differently. Two middle schools and two high schools immediately engaged AVID program enrollees into full-load rigorous programs, while thirteen schools placed their AVID pupils in advanced science or social studies classes. Meanwhile, the rest (nine schools) placed their AVID program enrollees in a minimum of 2 rigorous courses. The basis for this decision to place AVID students in different advanced classes was counselor recommendations and educator expectations. At least one school hesitated when it came to moving AVID students to rigorous coursework. Further, it was only in the second school semester that the schedules of pupils were altered to mirror one or more rigorous courses. Study authors looked at students' class schedules during research visits -- not every school had provided 10% of AVID enrollee schedules (Watt, Yanez, & Cossio, 2014). Staffing With regards to the placement of AVID students in advanced classes, AVID principals play a central role. The School Principal's involvement in the Site Team proved critical to AVID implementation effectiveness. Schools wherein counselors and principals actively engaged in the Team (site teams are campus teams constituting core academic area educators, counselor, administrator, and AVID coordinator) had ensured their AVID pupils were enrolled in two or more rigorous courses. On the other hand, educational institutions wherein counselors and principals weren't actively involved in AVID implementation placed their students in a smaller number of rigorous courses; further, Site Teams in the latter faced a struggle against board policies, master schedule, and counselor attitudes. A supportive and accommodating principal stated she wished to implement the program despite her campus not receiving AVID grant funding the way other district schools did. This particular educational institution's AVID student schedule showed that they were, on an average, enrolled in 2-5 rigorous classes. Moreover, every AVID student found placement on the most advanced graduation plan. On the other hand, another principal in that district, whose school was accorded grant funding expressed hesitation with regard to AVID's motives, possibly because they had not attended the AVID Summer Institute (an annual training program for educators) and had inadequate knowledge about the program and its implications (Watt, Yanez, & Cossio, 2014).

Curriculum and Instruction The research-based curricula and approaches AVID involves improve students' critical thinking, reading, writing, and other academic skills across different content areas. Time management, goal establishment, organization, and other academic behaviors are taught as well, under AVID. High, middle and elementary school teachers collaborated with higher education professors to design the curriculum for the AVID program. Guided by WICOR (Writing, Inquiry, Collaboration, Organization, and Reading to Learn), and characterized by rigorous standards, the AVID program curriculum supports superior academic achievement by students, in addition to aligning to national and state content benchmarks (AVID, n.d.).

The research-established learning support framework of AVID incorporates WICOR elements. WICOR offers a learning framework that may be employed by schools for guiding their pupils in understanding concepts and expressing ideas at more advanced levels (scaffolding) in developmental, discipline-based, and general education curricula. Additionally, WICOR mirrors and supports attitudes and knowledge that serve children effectively in academics as well as in their careers. AVID's Elementary L-WICOR introduces comprehension and the "learning to learn" element at suitable developmental levels, laying the groundwork for more comprehensive subsequent WICOR use (AVID, n.d.). Coordination Administrators and educators accept that the classroom atmosphere and the latter's personal attributes are an important influence. Administrators stressed teacher leadership qualities like open interaction with principals, organizational skills, innovative problem-solving, and respect and collegiality with coworkers. The findings' implications are that, according to principals, teacher leadership traits are central to AVID elective educator choice (Mills et al., 2014).

Another critical factor is the principal's involvement, considered the underpinning of successful AVID implementation. Cossio, Watt, and Huerta (2004) discovered that high lack of principal participation or support is causal to AVID Team turnover and ineffective AVID staff training. According to their research work, principals who effectively implement AVID first come up with a Site Team selection plan and include AVID elective educators who are actually looking forward to associate with, and implement the program, and are ready to assume leadership (PPS, 2015). Monitoring and Evaluation Measuring AVID implementation fidelity under an assessment plan is essential. The CSS (Certification Self-Study, wherein information is gathered from certified Site Teams) is one of the measurement alternatives (PPS, 2015).

Researchers of an extensive analysis of CSS validity and reliability concluded that the tool is a sound measure of implementation fidelity. However, there is one exception to it: the AVID Essential 4, academic rigor, wherein seniors and juniors might have already finished one or more dual credit, advanced placement, or International Baccalaureate course. Further, all students might already be engaged in a rigorous course (AVID Center, 2014) during middle school application (Johnston et al., 2010). The above two items, AVID Essential 4 and already engaged in rigorous course, depicted low-level relationships and failed to meet internal consistency conditions, primarily because both measured student performance or outcomes due to AVID implementation, rather than implementation fidelity. At high school, fees and other obstacles to students signing up for college entrance examinations could impact precise measurement of required academic rigor (Johnston et al., 2010).

For studying how AVID implementation affects students' achievement levels, one may perform numerous data analyses. Firstly, assessors must use baseline scores (prior to program adoption) to gauge changes in achievement levels over time following individual as well as overall school scores over time. Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS) scores may be utilized in case of institutions that have already implemented AVID before the academic year 2014-15. Moving forward, Smarter Balanced (SB) scores may be utilized. However, SB scores have to be utilized carefully, since a sharp growth is anticipated in all students' SB scores as students, schools and educators become familiar with it. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) scores may be utilized as well, particularly to study AVID impacts at elementary-school level. Moreover, GPA, graduation rates, attendance, and enrollment in rigorous courses may be studied as well. Comparison schools have to be selected carefully for mirroring AVID institutions' demographics whenever possible; also, prior to implementation, internal comparisons of institutions will be undertaken. Data must be separated based on ethnicity/race, socioeconomic status, and gender. High- and middle- school demographic analyses may help examine who participates in the program and how they meet (or fail to meet) the requirements of the program (PPS, 2015).

Portland Public Schools, especially those not regarded as AVID-sponsored and not a part of the bigger assessment, have a small number of AVID assessment options. Non-sponsored institutions' timeline and plan may closely follow the formal AVID appraisal plan. Appraisal plan options may differ based on constraints like budget and time (PPS, 2015). AVID Strengths

Instruction: AVID strategies, modern instruments and best teaching practices are employed by the entire instructional faculty, for assuring college readiness in AVID students, and improving all students' scholastic performance. Systems: The established systems promote governance, instruction, syllabus, data gathering and analysis, parent and student outreach, and professional training for guaranteeing student college readiness. Leadership: Leaders establish the tone and vision for promoting high student expectations and college readiness. Culture: AVID ideology progressively transforms academics-related behaviors and attitudes, and hence, an increasing number of students meet college readiness criteria (Kiffmeyer, Doud, Skappel, & Egberg, 2015)

Weaknesses A key issue associated with AVID implementation is budget, as many schools that do not receive funding, quit. Overall, the program's opportunities and advantages greatly outdo its shortcomings. AVID can work wonders for all students ready to accept the accompanying challenge (Bernhardt, 2013).