An Evaluation of the Use of Educational Resource Guides for Military Students in Public Schools

Background:  Most public school educators and staff are unaware of the presence and needs of military connected (MC) students in their schools.  The Building Capacity (BC) Consortium sought to increase awareness and resources in public schools with MC students in ways that were sustainable.  The Consortium developed a series of guides tailored to multiple constituents (school administrators, teachers, military parents, etc.) for use in the training of new generations of staff and the development of more supportive learning environments for the more than 4 million MC students in the United States. These guides are based on a thorough review of the literature and examination of available practices developed in the field.  Teachers College Press at Columbia University published the guides in October of 2012 in collaboration with the Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC) and were paid and disturbed free of charge by the Consortium. Educational guides are often used in many university and academic settings, but few are evaluated for their effectiveness and usefulness.  This study evaluates whether the guides were used and if they were found to be useful by the different constituents.

Methods: A mixed methods, internet-based survey was administered to two groups: a sample of individuals who have requested resource guides (N = 413) and MSW students who used the guides as part of their professional training. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through structured questions and detailed critiques from those who received the pupil personnel guide. Thematic analyses were conducted to assess the extent to which users found the guides useful.

Results: A total of 413 resource guide evaluations have been completed, of which 357 had sufficient information for assessment. Of the respondents, there were 117 (32.8%) pupil personnel, 72 (21.6%) teachers, 63 (15.8%) administrators, 25 (7%) parents, and 77 (21.6%) that identified themselves as 'other'.  Analyses of all four constituent groups had the highest reported means for the resource guides as:  respectful of military families (Mean range of 3.74-3.83 on a four-point scale), well presented (Mean range of 3.53-3.57), and reliable (Mean range of 3.45- 3.55). The majority respondents indicated that they would recommend the guides to all targeted groups, but predominantly to pupil personnel (91.3%) and school administrators (90.6). Thematic analyses supported these findings indicating that the guides provide useful information and are helpful resources. Most prevalent themes included ease of use and applicability of the material. 

Conclusion: The development and dissemination of these guides is a form of intervention to help increase awareness and resourcefulness in public schools with MC students and families. Given the positive assessment on the various resource guides, it is important to continue to consider issues of sustainability and spread. For instance, it is important to examine the potential to make the resource guides digitally available as a free online resource that can be downloaded by anyone interested in the topic. Further, it would be helpful if these guides would be updated periodically, based on the emerging literature and experience with best practices relevant to military schools.