ADE 21 Proposal

Component 1: Abstract

The central purpose of this proposal is to increase the capacity of Florida's adult education system and its regional personnel to innovate, apply new ideas, and enhance program effectiveness as we move into a new century.

The target population for the grant request is composed of all adult education teachers and administrators in Regions I through V of the State of Florida. The changing landscape of work, technology and citizenship in each of these regions in the late 1990s presents adult educators with major challenges and major opportunities. The impact of welfare-to-work legislation, for example, coupled with continuing problems of drop-out and low-achievement in K-12 education, has brought new pressures to bear on the adult education system. At the same time, its centrally funded resources are unlikely to increase a great deal in the short term. The challenge of meeting new and changing needs with essentially static allotments of central funding places a high premium on innovation, inventiveness and the capacity to leverage new resources and needed forms of support from the system's many stakeholders. Studies carried out over the last decade with DOE funding have made it clear that only a professional, well-trained and regularly updated body of adult education administrators and instructors can effectively respond to the challenge. In an era of niche-marketing, just-in-time production and individual learning plans, it is also clear that the best responses must necessarily be tailored to the particular situations of the regional economy and society where learners live and work. "Continuing professional education" and "effective regionalization of initiative" therefore have to be keywords in any publicly supported effort to enhance adult educators' abilities to deliver timely and effective programs.

The project directly addresses three national priorities defined in the Federal Adult Education Act: (1) Training persons engaged… as [administrative] personnel in programs designed to carry out the purposes of the Act; (2) Training persons engaged or preparing to engage in [teaching] adult education" [including all categories specified]; and (3) Involving the use of innovative methods, systems, materials or programs that may have national significance. At the State level, official adult education goals are defined in terms of desirable levels and quality of service to Florida learners, rather than from the point of view of the system reform or professional development required to ensure those outcomes. State priorities likewise target characteristics of final provision. However, it is evident that reinforcement of staff competence and system effectiveness are central to achieving all the learner-level outcomes defined and, to this important extent, the project proposed here will have a positive impact on all our program goals, and particularly the central one: "reducing illiteracy and undereducation among adults in Florida." Moreover, the proposal is entirely consistent with Goal 6 of Florida's Blueprint for Education (Professional Development), and strongly supportive of three of Florida's strategic goals for education: School-to-Work, Welfare-to-Work and High-Wage/High-Skill.

The principal Indicator of Adult Education Program Quality targeted by the proposal is IX, "Staff Development." The proposed activities will also have a measurable impact on one important dimension of Indicator VI, "Program Planning and Evaluation" (namely, community input to programs) and on one dimension of Indicator VII, "Curriculum and Instruction" (instructional resources: technology).

Funds will be used to implement a project that qualifies both in the Special Demonstration and the Teacher Training categories of 353 funding. The workplan calls both for providing critical training to persons engaged in adult education and for strengthening the professional development system at a regional level in a manner that will "involve the use of innovative methods", "promote more effective programming" and further "a comprehensive or coordinated approach to problems of adults with educational deficiencies."

The particularly innovative dimension of this project is its approach to strengthening regional capacity to identify and meet adult educators' professional development needs, to associating business and community stakeholders in the process, and to using and cultivating training resources within the region itself as well as those available via inter-regional exchange.

The total budget requested is $249,959.

Component 2: General Information

Florida State University's Center for Policy Studies in Education and the associated Graduate Program in Adult and Continuing Education are well suited to undertake this project by virtue of their historic commitment to adult education and their experience in researching the problems of professional development of adult educators and in engaging stakeholders in innovative processes of capacity building. The Center and the Program sponsored a three-year study of the professional development needs of the State's literacy leadership from 1989 to 1991, coordinated a statewide participatory assessment of the continuing education needs of adult and vocational educators funded by the DOE's Division of Adult, Vocational and Community Education in 1994, and also coordinated a statewide task force on operationalizing Goal 7 in 1995. Other relevant activity includes recent projects for the City of Tallahassee developing strategies to involve housing project residents in community development initiatives, and U.S. AID-funded conduct of participatory evaluation of nonformal education programs in West Africa. The Center specializes in the field application of participatory and collaborative processes for planning, conducting, and evaluating adult and community education.

The Center is also currently working in a cooperative arrangement with the Boys and Girls Clubs of the Big Bend, Inc. and the Family Involvement and Community Development Team of Tallahassee's Orange Avenue neighborhood to provide training for Orange Avenue residents in GED skills, computer literacy, and business creation. It has in the past assisted the Gadsden and Wakulla County School Districts with assessment and strategic planning of their adult education program offerings. Center staff are in addition currently assisting the Department of Education and the Department of Labor with participatory evaluation of the federal demonstration Blueprint Project for Transitions of Students with Disabilities and are engaged in supporting participatory design by local stakeholders of a new federally- and state-funded project to design innovative long-term service delivery models for persons with traumatic brain injuries in Florida.

In the realm of educational technology, Florida State University has a long and growing record of expertise, including recent rapid development of distance learning outreach both domestically and overseas. The Center draws on these strengths and has itself been involved this year in advising and supporting the new Technology Commission of the Florida Association of Community Colleges.

Nothing proposed in this project duplicates offerings funded under other federal, State and local programs, including the Job Training Partnership Act, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Indian Education Act of 1965 or the Domestic Volunteer Services Act.

Dissemination within Florida of the results of the proposed project will be accomplished through several means:

Design and maintenance of an interactive web page on Internet offering (a) capsule descriptions of project goals, activities and outcomes; (b) download access to project reports; (c) networking address for contact with and among interested practitioners; and (d) links to other resources related to adult education professional development;
Involvement of regional universities and community colleges in diagnosis of needs and provision of services.
Presentations on project processes and results at each of the three principal statewide adult education conferences: the ACE Conference, the Literacy Coalition Conference, and the Vocational Education Conference.
Transmittal of all project-generated reports and materials to IDEA for dissemination through its networks;
Presentation of summaries of projects processes and results to the education staff of the Florida Chamber of Commerce for dissemination through Chamber networks and through Enterprise Florida.
Potential adoption and adaptation/modification of the regional professional development strategy by other regions of Florida in years 2 and 3.

Dissemination outside of Florida will be achieved by the same Internet strategy, and in addition through presentation of findings at the annual conferences of the American Association of Adult and Continuing Education and Adult Basic Education Association, as well as at the Adult Education Research Conference.

Sustainability of the initiative is made much more likely by several key factors: the involvement of business and community leaders, representing the "clients" of improved adult education practice; the emphasis on mobilization of regional resources; and the identification of cost-effective means for local professional development. In addition, it is anticipated that 353 funding would be sought for two additional years to permit consolidation of the region-based professional development system in the two areas involved and potential spread of it to other interested regions in the State.

Component 3: Project Work Plan

I. Adult Education Indicator of Program Quality:
Program Planning and Evaluation

Program planning process is ongoing and participatory, guided by evaluation and based on a written plan that considers the community demographics, needs, resources and economic trends, technological trends and local labor market conditions.

Measurable Objective/Outcome A: One continuing professional education support institution recruited in each of the five regions of the State with the assistance of DOE personnel and RPDAC's to act as second year secretariat and technical backstop for regionalization efforts by September 30, 1999.

Major Benchmarks	Activities	Timelines
1. List of candidate institutions and desired qualifications prepared by project staff in collaboration with DOE staff and RPDAC.	a. Contractors, DOE staff and first RPDAC review methodology of project and define the role for a regional institution.	12/2/98
	b. Contractors, DOE staff and first RPDAC define selection criteria for regional institution.	1/5/99
	c. List of candidate institutions identified by first RPDAC and DOE.	2/1/99
	d. Other four regions replicate process through RPDAC's.	7/31/99
2. Institutions selected in each region to participate in proposed project.	a. Invitations and explanatory materials issued to leading institutions by phone and/or other means in first region.	2/1/99
	b. Institutions indicate their interest in participating in first region.	3/1/99
	c. Participating Institutions and personnel for first region finalized on the basis of selection criteria.	3/30/99
	d. Other four regions replicate process.	8/31/99
3. Representatives from institutions selected participate in electronic convocation to plan their participation in subsequent events.	a Lead personnel within chosen institution in first region linked electronically.	4/8/99
	b Electronic convocation/teleconferencing produces plan for participation of regional lead institutions in subsequent phases of project.	4/15/99
	c Other four regions replicate process.	9/30/99
Formative Evaluation: Project Management Office will use services of DOE personnel and appropriate provider representatives to provide feedback on quality of selection process and level of commitment and implication of candidate institutions.
Summative Evaluation: Post-selection questionnaire will be used to establish assessment of all participants regarding utility and fairness of selection process.

Measurable Objective/Outcome B: At least two representatives of seven major stakeholder groups - including, but not limited to, students, teachers, administrators, business community, and local higher education institutions - sit on Regional Professional Development Advisory Councils created in the five regions and play an active role in at least two thirds of the RPDAC activities by September 30, 1999.

Major Benchmarks	Activities	Timelines
1. Regional Council created in the first region with representative participation.	a. Contractor and DOE staff identify stakeholder groups.	10/30/98
	b. Groups contacted and invited to select representatives.	11/7/98
	c. Initial orientation meeting plans set.	11/20/98
2. Two initial meetings held to orient participants and lay plans for assessment described below.	a. Orientation meeting held in first region.	12/2/98
	b. Stakeholder representatives report back to their constituencies.	12/9/98
	c. Representatives relay constituency reactions to second planning meeting.	1/5/99
	d. Representatives from other four regions participate in at least one of these sessions as observers.	1/5/99
1. Regional directors or RPDAC representatives from other four regions replicate procedure with appropriate modifications and adaptations in their own areas.	a. Meeting of these representatives held to evaluate initial stages of process in first region and design modified strategies for their particular cases.	1/8/99
	b. Regional Council members for Regions 2 and 5 identified.	1/8/99
	c. Regional Council members for other two regions identified.	4/7/99
	d. Initial RPDAC meeting held in Region 2.	1/22/99
	e. Initial RPDAC meeting held in Region 5.	2/16/99
	f. Initial RPDAC meeting held in the other two regions.	5/30/99
Formative Evaluation: Project Management Office will maintain contact with representatives of stakeholder groups networked during activity 1 (a) in order to ensure regular feedback from them regarding representativity and quality of operations of RPDAC.
Summative Evaluation: Minutes and records of participation will be used to establish regularity of meeting and attendance. Focus group interviews is the method selected to evaluate summatively the impact of the RPDAC.

Measurable Objective/Outcome C: Assessment of existing staff development opportunities and comparison with priority adult education development needs within the region produced with and by Regional Professional Development Advisory Council in each Region by September 30, 1999.

2/16/99 5/16/99

Major Benchmarks	Activities	Timelines
1. In first region, RPDAC names Needs Assessment Task Force (NATF) composed of at least two of its members, one DOE representative and two contractor technical assistants.	a. Eligible personnel identified.	12/2/98
	b. NATF terms of reference proposed by Contractor and DOE representatives.	12/2/98
	c. Terms of reference debated, modified and adopted in first RPDAC meeting.	12/2/98
2. Task Force carries out assessment and reports back to RPDAC.	a. Task Force in one region devises data collection procedures: focus groups, document review, key informant contacts.	12/16/98
	b. Task Force carries out data collection.	1/26/99
	c. Task Force analyzes and interprets results.
	d. Task Force presents conclusions and summary of needs assessment methods used to third RPDAC meeting, attended by representatives of lead training institutions from other four regions.	3/1/99
3. Regional directors or RPDAC representatives from other four regions replicate procedure with appropriate modifications and adaptations in their own areas	a. Meeting of these representatives held to evaluate initial stages of process in first region and design modified strategies for their particular cases.	1/8/99
	b. NATF created in Region 2.	1/22/99
	c. NATF created in Region 5.	2/16/99
	d. NATFs created in other two regions.	6/1/99
	e. NATF completes assessment and reports back to RPDAC in Region 2.	4/21/99
	f. NATF completes assessment and reports back to RPDAC in Region 5.
	g. NATFs complete assessment and report back to RPDACs in other two regions.	9/1/99
Formative Evaluation: Interim reports from Task Force will be used to inform RPDAC and Project Management of progress of work, as will feedback from network of stakeholder groups mentioned above.
Summative Evaluation: Quality and pertinence of work of NATF assessed via (a) focus group interviews with stakeholder groups; (b) evaluation of resulting trainings (see below); (c) outside appreciation of two needs assessment experts from University community.

II. Adult Education Indicator of Program Quality:
Staff Development

Program has an ongoing staff development process that considers the specific needs of its staff, offers training in the skills necessary to provide quality instruction and includes opportunities for practice and systematic follow-up.

Measurable Objective/Outcome A.: A new regionally-based and collaborative process for identifying staff development needs is created by the RPDACs and defined/presented in a draft manual by September 30, 1999.

Major Benchmarks	Activities	Timelines
Note: Benchmarks and activities for this objective are built on accomplishments under previous objective (I.B.2).
1. In first region, RPDAC develops initial Task Force report into planning document on priority staff development needs in region.	a. RPDAC examines and critiques initial report.	3/1/99
	b. RPDAC members discuss substance of report with their constituents.	3/8/99
	c. In return session, RPDAC finalizes planning document incorporating constituent perceptions.	3/30/99
2. RPDAC develops initial Task Force methodology into draft manual on regional-based identification of staff development needs.	a. RPDAC examines and critiques methodology of needs assessment used by Task Force.	3/1/99
	b. RPDAC members discuss approach with their constituents.	3/8/99
	c. In return session, RPDAC finalizes draft manual on basis of Task Force experience, constituent perceptions, and its own appreciation. Session attended by representatives of lead training institutions from other four regions.	3/30/99
3. Regional directors or RPDAC representatives from other four regions replicate procedure with appropriate modifications and adaptations in their own areas.	a. Meeting of these representatives held to evaluate middle stages of process in first region and design modified strategies for their particular cases.	4/13/99
	b. Regional Councils tailor draft manual on regional-based identification of staff development needs for their regions in other four regions.	9/30/99
Formative Evaluation: Interim drafts of planning document and manual are exchanged among Regions for critique and feedback, and appreciations sought from DOE and Project Management personnel.
Summative Evaluation: Final draft manual is presented to personnel of other State regions for assessment and critique as well as to representatives of key State-level stakeholder groups (e.g., State Chamber of Commerce, Department of Labor representatives, ACE of Florida staff).

Measurable Objective/Outcome B: A new regionally-based system for designing and delivering staff development opportunities, with optimum use of regional resources and appropriate outside support and input, is developed and trial-tested by the RPDACs by September 30, 1999.

Major Benchmarks	Activities	Timelines
1. In first region, RPDAC identifies regional resource people and institutions for delivering training on priority themes.	a. RPDAC invites LEAs and support organizations in region to submit candidacies for status of regional consultant on priority training themes.	1/5/99
	b. RPDAC names up to six regional consultants for initial phase of project.	3/1/99
	c. Other
2. RPDAC provides for development and delivery of three initial training sessions for an average of 25 participants each in first three regions.	a. RPDAC selects particular regional consultants to work in tandem with outside resource people on development of three trainings using three different delivery modalities (e.g., workshop-based, site-visit-based, Internet mediated) on top three priority themes for the region.	3/1/99
	b. Training development teams prepare design for sessions and submit to RPDAC for approval.	3/30/99
	c. Trainings conducted, with representatives of lead training sessions for other four regions in attendance. (Sessions A, B and C: see below)	4/30 - 6/30/99
	d. Next two regions replicate the implementation of training sessions with appropriate modifications and adaptations in their own areas.	7/15 - 9/15/99
3. Regional directors or RPDAC representatives from other four regions replicate procedure with appropriate modifications and adaptations in their own areas.	a. Meeting of these representatives held to evaluate middle stages of process in first region and design modified strategies for their particular cases.	4/13/99
	b. Regional Councils identify consultants to be used in pursuit of process.	8/30/99
Formative Evaluation: Staff development events designed to include interim assessment of satisfaction & relevance by participants and staff alike.
Summative Evaluation: Questionnaire is prepared and administered to participants at end of each session. It is then analyzed on the spot and its results discussed and interpreted with the participants. Evaluation of transfer for learning is addressed below.

Measurable Objective/Outcome C: Enhanced training and professional development opportunities developed regionally are made available to at least 75 participants in first three regions by September 30, 1999.

Major Benchmarks	Activities	Timelines
1. First region RPDAC organizes and prepares three training sessions using different themes and methodologies.	a. Venue and timing of sessions finalized.	3/30/99
	b. Logistic responsibilities assigned.	3/30/99
2. First region RPDAC delivers three regionally generated staff development events to at least 75 participants.	a. Events produced on a sequential time schedule, to tentatively include: #1 - Focusing on e.g. learning disability identification and treatment.	4/30/99
	#2 - Focusing on e.g. performance consulting on the worksite.	5/30/99
	#3 - Focusing on e.g. Internet use to enrich vocational training.	6/30/99
3. RPDAC's in next two regions deliver three regionally generated staff development events to at least 75 participants.	a. Training events, tailored to regional needs and refined following the first region experience, produced on a sequential time schedule: #1 -	7/15/99
	#2 -	8/15/99
	#3 -	9/15/99
Note: At least one training will focus on new uses of educational technology and Internet in support of adult education and all will use educational technology as a medium of instruction. These activities therefore also address Adult Education Quality Indicator VII A.
Formative Evaluation: Staff development events are designed to include interim assessment of satisfaction and relevance by participants and staff alike.
Summative Evaluation: Questionnaire is prepared and administered to participants at end of each session. It is then analyzed on the spot and its results discussed and interpreted with the participants. Evaluation of transfer of learning is addressed below.

Measurable Objective/Outcome D: A new regionally-based system for appraising transfer of training outputs to the work situation is developed and trial-tested by the RPDACs by September 30, 1999.

Major Benchmarks	Activities	Timelines
1. In first region, RPDAC names Transfer Appraisal Task Force (TATF) to propose new methods for assessing transfer of learning from regionally-delivered training.	a. Eligible and interested members and potential technical support personnel identified.	1/5/99
	b. Task Force appointed.	3/1/99
2. Task Force completes its work and reports back to RPDAC.	a. Task Force prepares design for interviews with a sample of training participants, their students, responsible administrators, and "clients" (employers).	4/1/99
	b. Task Force prepares design for broad-based written survey of all participants and their administrators, based on results of (a).	4/16/99
	c. Task Force draws up results of its initial work and submits to RPDAC.	7/15/99
3. Appraisal system trial-tested with adult educators having participated in first regionally sponsored training (Session # 1).	a. Task Force administers in-depth interviews and focus groups to sample members.	8/1/99
	b. Task Force administers broad-based written survey to all participants.	8/15/99
	c. Task Force analyzes results and submits report on findings and critique of methods to RPDAC.	8/30/99
4. Regional directors or RPDAC representatives from other four regions replicate procedure with appropriate modifications and adaptations in their own areas.	a. Meeting of these representatives held to evaluate later stages of process in first region and design modified strategies for their particular cases.	8/15/99
	b. Plans for Year II replication submitted to RPDAC in each of the other four regions.	9/30/99
Formative Evaluation: Transfer Appraisal Task Force monitoring methods the same as for NATF outlined above.
Summative Evaluation: Appraisal system and trial test results submitted to sample of University-based and business-based trainers for critique.

Measurable Objective/Outcome E: Each region prepares a report on first year's activities highlighting experienced-based recommendations for reform and regionalization of the professional development and knowledge generation system in Florida adult education by September 30, 1999.

Major Benchmarks	Activities	Timelines
1. RPDAC reviews set of activities carried out in first year and identifies conditions necessary to make them sustainable.	a. Next-to-last monthly meeting devoted to RPDAC evaluation of overall effort.	7/30/99
2. RPDAC debates and formulates recommendations for system reform that will ensure quality professional development opportunities for the 21st century in its region.	a. Contractor representatives, RPDAC Chair and DOE representative form subcommittee to formulate final report recommendations.	8/15/99
	b. These are submitted to final RPDAC meeting for examination, modification and finalization.	9/30/99
Formative Evaluation: Draft recommendations vetted at DOE, exchanged cross-regions and presented to major State-level stakeholders for reactions.
Summative Evaluation: Recommendations form core of proposal for second year funding of 353, to be judged "summatively" by proposal review commission.

Component 4: Innovative Methods

The particularly innovative dimension of this project is its approach to three critical tasks involved in keeping Florida adult education ahead of the wave in the new century:

strengthening regional capacity to identify and meet adult educators' professional development needs;
associating business and community stakeholders in the process; and
using and cultivating training resources within the region itself as well as those available via inter-regional exchange.

Studies carried out under DOE sponsorship during the course of the last decade - Identifying the Training Needs of Literacy Leadership and Assessing the Professional Development Needs of Vocational and Adult Educators in particular -- have made it clear that a system for upgrading and updating the knowledge and skills of adult educators is critically important in helping them meet the challenges of the 21st century, but that any solution to the problem must at the same time be tailored to the particular characteristics of each region of the State and make full use of the competencies and experience already in place.

The methodology adopted in the project we are proposing does just that: Regional stakeholders are given the lead in identifying training needs and in devising innovative solutions to them. The broad composition of the Regional Councils also guarantees that the complementary points of view of adult education professionals, business representatives, community leaders, and students themselves are taken into account. And particular emphasis is put on drawing out and developing the training expertise available in each region - from institutions of higher education to business community members to local adult educators themselves -- as well as on promoting exchange among the regions in this regard.

At the same time, the proposal offers a more systemic and proactive approach to reforming and upgrading professional development capacity for Florida adult education than has been available to date. On the one hand, training needs will be assessed in a "performance consulting" mode which starts with identification of performance problems in the workplace and community settings to which skills acquired by adult education participants are or could be applied in order to derive a demand-driven and stakeholder-sensitive agenda for professional development. On the other hand, solutions are sought at a regional level as well as program-by-program, which allows the project to identify system reform objectives and means for accomplishing them and not to be limited to piecemeal solutions.

Innovative educational technologies also play a key role in the model of professional development proposed in two respects: (a) intensified electronic networking among practitioners will be a concomitant part of all activities; and (b) increased use of Internet linkages to workforce and training resources will be promoted to enhance the job-relevance of training.

Finally, the dual-region and comparative approach of the project makes its results potentially more easily generalizable to the rest of the State and more informative for the national adult education community, and it provides means for strengthening results in each region by exchange and comparison.