Mandatory Drug Testing Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 3

Mandatory Drug Testing - Assignment Example The experience of recent years shows that drug spread causes numerous problems for present-day life penetrating into almost every sphere of human activity, starting from school and high educational establishments through job and finding its direct aftereffect in drug misuse in prisons, which in addition very often appear to be an immediate result of personal involvement into drug use or indirect distribution of different substances. One way or another, drugs as pervasive evil touches and destroys people’s life day by day endangering the prosperity of their future as minimum and their physical being and psychological health as maximum. The main reason for this lies in inappropriate control or lack of control in such an essential question as drug use by people of various occupations whether they are teachers, students, employees or inmates. In this regard, mandatory drug testing must be accepted and applied universally in the places that have displayed their engagement into drug consumption. There is a strong belief that any kind of tests related to questions of drug use and applied for clarifying of a situation within the issue may be extremely stressful for persons under test. Moreover, they are able to have a negative impact on the reputation of such persons. As a matter of fact, there are particular disadvantages of mandatory drug testing, which can be found in errors and faults of the procedure itself. The question is that any tests and researches are supposed to have some drawbacks, this is the fact. Still, except people’s intentional misrepresentation of absolute data in the matter of drug use or misuse, there even cannot be evident large errors of mechanic origin, since modern equipment is engineered according to the latest scientific discoveries. This is the particular slightness of the opinion.  

Business Strategy And Planning Of Costcutter

Business Strategy And Planning Of Costcutter The corner shop or convenience store, as it is sometimes labelled, has been a feature of retail life in cities and towns from Roman times, if not earlier. To be sure, the Romans articulated the role of the convenience store in everyday life, developed its corporate identity and regarded it as an enterprise that operates optimally within the range of footfall. The Roman streetscape was littered with these stores, most engaging prominent positions, some even corner positions, but all dominating the facades of the masonry buildings they occupied. A characteristic of the Roman convenience store was its integration into the local market, sourcing locally grown farm produce, supplying locally refined products and distributing this merchandise at a local level. With the passage of time, the convenience store began to infiltrate the New World, and remained a characteristic feature of retail life in countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States, until well after the Second World War. But from the 1960s, as the economies of the industrialised world entered a rapid phase of expansion, the supermarkets emerged as the dominant players in the retail grocery sector. Yet, the convenience store managed to survive as a viable economic entity. Nowadays, even supermarket giants such as Tesco and Sainsburys here in the United Kingdom, have begun to penetrate the lower echelons of the retail grocery sector with their own version of the corner shop. Using this concept as a launch pad, Tesco has already made inroads in the United States, though with varying degrees of success. Moreover, Tesco harbours further ambitions to establish its convenience scale outlets in such emerging economies as South Korea. On the face of it, very little appears to have changed over the millennia since the Romans devised the concept of the convenience store. Neighbourhood stores, if they form part of a larger national chain, are still obsessed with such issues as corporate image and identity, not to mention their strategic role in the local market.1 What has changed, however, is the largely oligopolistic nature of the retail grocery sector. By 2010, the major participants in this sector Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda and Morrisons controlled 65.4 per cent of a grocery market valued by industry analysts at a staggering  £118.2 billion2. Given the strongly oligopolistic character of this market, it is hardly surprising to observe that these key players have developed planning strategies that virtually anticipate their competitors next move. In other words, their behaviour is very much retaliatory! There is evidence, too, to suggest that this behaviour is being emulated in the convenience store segment of the market, where the hallmarks of oligopolistic competition are just starting to appear3. COSTCUTTER Costcutter is one of the United Kingdoms leading convenience store chains. Although the majority of the stores trading under its banner are based here, Costcutter also operates outlets in Northern Ireland and Poland. As a typical grocery retailer, Costcutter stocks a comprehensive range of groceries, alcoholic products, tobacco and confectionery. However, Costcutter operates two distinct retail store models : (a) the directly owned outlet; and (b) the independently owned franchised outlet. Both models benefit from economies of scale, so that as the organization grows, so too, does its purchasing power. Yet, those outlets that are independently owned tend to operate along the lines of a retailers cooperative. Costcutter has developed a high profile corporate image, which is bolstered by its own range of branded products. Groceries bearing the company brand name are often shelved alongside those of Nisa Today Costcutters warehousing and distribution affiliate. The companys headquarters are based in Yorkshire. As of December 2006, ownership of Costcutter is vested in James A Barry Co.4 COMPANY HISTORY Costcutter was founded in 1986 by Colin Graves, a former sales employee of the SPAR grocery group. In the short space of just 12 months, Graves set up seven stores in Yorkshire. By 1991, Costcutter had opened its first outlets in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In 1992, the company established a grocery distribution centre in Barnsley. It was then keen to develop its corporate image and identity. By the mid-1990s, Costcutter operated some 500 outlets throughout the United Kingdom, the majority of them franchise-owned. In 2004, Costcutter merged 50 of its outlets with the MURCO fuel distribution group. Thereafter, the Costcutter convenience store found its way onto the forecourts of an increasing number of MURCO petrol filling stations. In addition to their grocery lines, these stores stock car care products and accessories. Exponential growth followed. By 2007, largely driven by a successful franchise recruitment campaign, the total number of outlets under its corporate banner, grew to 1500. Sales turnover exceeded  £600m in 2010, making the company one of the most significant players in the grocery retail sector. For all that, Costcutter is not unlike the other key players in the convenience store market. Costcutter stores occupy prominent high street positions with a typical catchment area covering a radius of a quarter mile. The company continues to enjoy solid growth, though recently its development strategy increasingly promotes direct ownership of outlets. At present, more than 1200 stores in the chain are independently owned by franchisees.5 Business models, concepts and tools in business strategy and planning of costcutter At an early stage in its corporate history, Costcutter put growth at the centre of its retail development strategy. Indeed, the company conducts an aggressive retail recruitment drive to enlist new franchise owners. Ideally, the company seeks existing operations which engage high footfall volumes and occupy floor space of between 1,000 to 1,500 square feet. By contrast, the typical Sainsburys Local or Tesco Express occupies a floor space of between 2,000 to 6,000 square feet. Costcutter does not regard the absence of car parking as an issue. There are a number of advantages which Costcutter offers its franchise owners: an association with a well-established high profile retailer continuous retail training and technical support generous profit margins a loyalty scheme which rewards franchise owners for centralised purchasing improved credit terms both within the group and externally the cost benefits of group purchasing power fast and cost-effective Epos accounting and inventory control an efficient and reliable supply chain cycle a robust business development strategy deploying the services of a range manager to maximise profits and sales turnover extensive national, local and in store advertising6 As an adjunct to this, each franchised outlet is indelibly stamped with the Costcutter corporate identity. All newly franchised premises are refurbished to the Costcutter specification, though refits are tailored to a range of budgets. The process of nurturing company image is achieved through: a conspicuous company logo which largely resembles a banner distinctive company fascia advertising the use of a thematic colour palette to harmonise the in-store ambience the use of a standardised in-store lighting format in-store radio providing a continuous voice for product promotion the shelving of Costcutter branded products extensive advertising The cost of a Costcutter franchise is between  £70,000 to  £100,000. Annual management fees amount to  £1880. Projected first year net profit for a typical outlet is in the region of  £100,000.7 THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY At the heart of Costcutters retail development strategy is growth itself. It improves market share and even allows new products to be sold. Above all, growth promotes economies of scale. Such economies are reflected in the companys burgeoning purchasing power and presence in the wholesale distribution markets. From its inception, Costcutter has enjoyed continuous year-on-year growth, despite predatory competition from the huge multiples. Growth has been achieved through: the setting of annual expansion targets a vigorous franchise recruitment program, as noted above the defection of other franchisees from the ranks of competitors notably, from the SPAR group the direct acquisition of small groceries the purchase of other outlets under administration8 Continuous expansion of the Costcutter chain remains a development priority. Not surprisingly, Costcutter has devised an ambitious overseas expansion drive, which at present has targeted such emerging powerhouse economies as India and Pakistan. But such proposed international development is to be accompanied by further consolidation of its core business in the United Kingdom.9 In recent years, Costcutter established a close relationship with Nisa Today, the leading independent wholesale distributor of groceries throughout the UK. Critical to the companys development is the vertical integration of wholesale grocery distribution. Costcutters affiliation with Nisa Today partly achieves this objective. But in 2007, the Bibby Line group, a direct competitor to Nisa Today, acquired a 51% shareholding in Costcutter. In the event, Nisa Today has retaliated by establishing its own retail outlets.10 Despite this, the growth strategy of Costcutter remains the same. That approach incorporates a number of other marketing facets: the development of new lines, especially fresh, locally sourced products promotion of the concept of value for money a narrowing of the cost profile between its outlets and those of the huge multiples promotion of the concept that Costcutter can deliver quality food as needed, thereby avoiding the arduous weekly shopping event an increasing investment in technology, especially as its relates to online marketing the promulgation of a company ethos, culture and set of values, as noted below11 Appraise processes of Costcutter to identify their goals and values THE COSTCUTTER ETHOS Not unlike Tesco, Costcutter espouses a human relations approach that values its customers and staff. The company prides itself in the marketing of fresh, quality products. But unlike Tesco employees and management, Costcutters staff are versatile individuals, well versed in product knowledge across its full range. In addition, all staff together with franchise owners, benefit from continuous retail training. All franchise owners undergo a rigorous induction course. Furthermore, the company has established its own academy to equip store managers and their staff with cutting edge retail techniques. The development of customer loyalty through harmonious relations and rapport is central to the company ethos.12 ANALYSIS OF THE COSTCUTTER GROUP Central to the development strategy of the Costcutter group is its continuing growth. Using the convenience store model it has developed for the UK market, Costcutter is poised to make significant inroads into the emerging markets of Asia. But it is here in the United Kingdom, that Costcutter has reached a mature stage in its evolution. At the top end of the grocery retail sector, leviathans such as Tesco and Asda compete for market share, in what is overwhelmingly an oligopolistic market. Retaliatory marketing techniques are a conspicuous feature of such markets, as these companies clearly demonstrate. Yet, as companies like Costcutter continue to expand, even the bottom end of the retail grocery sector is beginning to display oligopolistic behaviour. Second guessing the competitors next move is par for the course. Nevertheless, Costcutter seems well positioned to fare better than most of its competitors, as it signs up an increasing number of franchisees, attracted by its generous profit margins and reduced overheads. 4.0 CONCLUSION The convenience store has endured as a potent force in the retail grocery sector, despite increasing competition from the huge multiples, such as Tesco and Sainsburys. Indeed, the blue print for the convenience store has largely remained the same since the Romans articulated its role in everyday life. Costcutter remains a robust example of the convenience store concept. The floor space of the typical Costcutter outlet is less than one quarter that of its major rivals notably, Sainsburys Local and Tesco Express. In this way, the typical Costcutter outlet manages to reduce its overhead costs, and at the same time, benefit from the substantial purchasing power of the Costcutter group itself. As a convenience store chain, Costcutter lacks the bureaucratic structure of the huge multiples. Instead, it fosters a more flexible and independent approach to its management. Such flexibility enables its local outlets to purchase outside the central distribution arm of the organization. In recent times, this has allowed the company to stock more local fresh produce. Thus, Costcutter can be perceived as a highly evolved and adaptable form of enterprise, and one which is not just sensitive to the tastes and preferences of the local market, but in some instances, equally sensitive to its ethnic composition.

The Odyssey Essay -- Homer, Odyssey Essays

The Odyssey details Odysseus’ arduous return to his homeland. Ten years have passed since the end of the Trojan war and Odysseus, the â€Å"most cursed man alive†, has been missing and presumed dead by many. (10.79). Throughout the novel, gods play a significant role in the fate of Odysseus and other characters. The extent of the gods’ role though is not unqualified, contrary to Telemachus’ suggestion that, â€Å"Zeus is to blame./He deals to each and every/ laborer on this earth whatever doom he pleases† (1.401-403). While Zeus does have this power, his description of how humans meet their fate is more accurately depicted throughout the novel. As he aptly points out, â€Å"from us alone, the say, come all their miseries, yes,/ but they themselves, with their own reckless ways,/ compound their pain beyond their proper share† (1.38-52). While the gods do doom certain mortals, many of these mortals exacerbate their ill fate by making ras h decisions and ignoring the gods’ warnings. The gods are also not always disrupting mortals lives; they often aid mortals in need. In fact, mortals who effectively court the favor of the gods often benefit greatly. While the gods’ powers are unquestionable, no one god’s power is insurmountable. Gods can be outsmarted and their wrath escaped. The Odyssey, in congruence with Zeus’ statement, ultimately, portrays human freedom as existent, but limited. While mortals do not unjustly complain about their fates, they fail to acknowledge that they are also responsible for their ill fate, as mortals themselves, possess a sizable degree of control. There is little doubt that Odysseus and his crew are unlucky, but had it not been for their brash decisions they would have reached Ithaca much sooner. After Od... ...st have some level of freedom, even if it is limited. Telemachus is valid in complaining of how Zeus dooms mortals. Zeus, unequivocally, causes many mortals pain and suffering. Zeus, though, aptly points out that mortals magnify their own pain and suffering. Zeus’ ability to acknowledge that gods are the root of mortals’ pain strengthens his credibility. Mortals’ abilities to successfully navigate their circumstances will lead to an easier life. If mortals are able to avoid the ill will of the gods, by securing the favor of the gods and making intelligent decisions, they will not â€Å"compound their pain beyond their proper share† (1.52). The final position of The Odyssey supports Zeus’ belief in regard to mortals’ misery, since he acknowledges his own role in their suffering, which is clearly evident, while also recognizing how mortals increase their own pain.

Preschool Assessment Essay

This paper addresses the many questions the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation has received about testing four-year-olds. Our reasons for sharing this paper with early childhood practitioners, policymakers, and parents is three-fold: (a) to provide basic information about the terms and issues surrounding assessment; (b) to add an empirical and pragmatic perspective to what can sometimes be an impassioned debate; and (c) to affirm our commitment to doing what is best for young children and supporting those who develop the programs and policies that serve them. High/Scope believes child assessment is a vital and necessary component of all high quality early childhood programs. Assessment is important to understand and support young children’s development. It is also essential to document and evaluate how effectively programs are meeting their educational needs, in the broadest sense of this term. For assessment to occur, it must be feasible. That is, it must meet reasonable criteria regarding its efficiency, cost, and so on. If assessment places an undue burden on programs or evaluators, it will not be undertaken at all and the lack of data will hurt all concerned. In addition to feasibility, however, assessment must also meet the demands of ecological validity. The assessment must addresses the criteria outlined below for informing us about what children in real programs are learning and doing every day. Efficiency and ecological validity are not mutually exclusive, but must sometimes be balanced against one another. Our challenge is to find the best balance under the conditions given and, when necessary, to work toward altering those conditions. Practically speaking, this means we must continue to serve children using research-based practices, fulfill mandates to secure program resources, and improve assessment procedures to better realize our ideal. This paper sets forth the criteria to be considered in striving to make early childhood assessment adhere to these highest standards. Background The concern with assessment in the early childhood field is not new. Decades of debate are summarized in the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) publication Reaching Potentials: Appropriate Curriculum and Assessment for Young Children (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992). This position statement has just been expanded in a new document titled Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation: Building an Effective, Accountable System in Programs for Children Birth through Age 8 (www. naeyc. org/resources/position_statements/pscape. asp). 1  What is new in this ongoing debate is the heightened attention to testing young children as a means of holding programs accountable for their learning. Assessment in the Classroom (Airasian, 2002) offers the following definitions: Assessment is the process of collecting, synthesizing, and interpreting information to aid classroom decision-making. It includes information gathered about pupils, instruction, and classroom climate. Testing is a formal, systematic procedure for gathering a sample of pupils’ behavior. The results of a test are used to make generalizations about how pupils would have performed in similar but untested behaviors. Testing is one form of assessment. It usually involves a series of direct requests to children to perform, within a set period of time, specific tasks designed and administered by adults, with predetermined correct answers. By contrast, alternative forms of assessment may be completed either by adults or children, are more open-ended, and often look at performance over an extended period of time. Examples include objective observations, portfolio analyses of individual and collaborative work, and teacher and parent ratings of children’s behavior. The current testing initiative focuses primarily on literacy and to a lesser extent numeracy. The rationale for this initiative, advanced in the No Child Left Behind Act and supported by the report of the National Reading Panel (2000), is that young children should acquire a prescribed body of knowledge and academic skills to be ready for school. Social domains of school readiness, while also touted as essential in a series of National Research Council reports (notably Eager to Learn, 2000a and Neurons to Neighborhoods, 2000b), are admittedly neither as widely mandated nor as â€Å"testable† as their academic counterparts. Hence, whether justified or not, they do not figure as prominently in the testing and accountability debate. This information paper responds to questions being asked of early childhood leaders about the use and misuse of testing for preschoolers 3 to 5 years old. This response is not merely a reactive gesture nor an attempt to advance and defend a specific position. Rather, the paper is intended as a resource to provide information about when and how preschool assessment in general, and testing and other forms of assessment in particular, can be appropriately used to inform policy decisions about early childhood programming. As a framework for providing this information, High/Scope accepts two realities. First, testing is, will be, and in fact always has been, used to answer questions about the effectiveness of early childhood interventions. Since early childhood programs attempt to increase children’s knowledge and skills in specific content areas, evaluators have traditionally used testing, along with other assessment strategies, to determine whether these educational objectives have been achieved. Second, program accountability is essential, and testing is one efficient means of measuring it. Numerous research studies show that high quality programs can enhance the academic and lifetime achievement of children at risk of school failure. This conclusion has 2 resulted in an infusion of public and private dollars in early education. It is reasonable to ask whether this investment is achieving its goal. Testing can play a role in answering this accountability question. With this reality as a background, this information paper proceeds to address two questions. First, given the current pervasive use of testing and its  probably expansion, when and under what conditions can this type of assessment be used appropriately with preschool-age children? That is, what characteristics of tests and their administration will guarantee that we â€Å"do no harm† to children and that we â€Å"do help† adults acquire valid information? Second, given that even the most well-designed tests can provide only limited data, how can we maximize the use of non-test assessments so they too add valuable information over and above that obtained through standardized testing procedures? General Issues in Assessment Uses of Child Assessment  Assessment can provide four types of information for and about children, and their parents, teachers, and programs. Child assessment can: 1. Identify children who may be in need of specialized services. Screening children to determine whether they would benefit from specific interventions is appropriate when parents, teachers, or other professionals suspect a problem. In these cases, assessments in several related domains are then usually administered to the child. In addition, data from parents and other adults involved with the child are considered in determining a diagnosis and course of treatment. 2. Plan instruction for individuals and groups of children. Assessment data can be used by teachers to support the development of individual children, as well as to plan instructional activities for the class as a whole. In addition, information on developmental progress can and should be shared with parents to help them understand what and how their children are learning in the classroom and how they can extend this learning at home. 3. Identify program improvement and staff development needs. Child assessments can provide formative evaluation data that benefit program and staff development. Findings can point to areas of the curriculum that need further articulation or resources, or areas where staff need professional development. If children in the classroom as a whole are not making progress in certain developmental domains, it is possible that the curriculum needs revision or that teachers need some additional training. In conducting formative evaluations, child data are best combined with program data that measure overall quality, fidelity to curriculum implementation standards, and specific teaching practices. 4. Evaluate how well a program is meeting goals for children. It is this fourth purpose, sometimes called outcome or summative evaluation, that is the primary focus of this paper. 3 Note that it is the program, not the child, who should be held accountable. Although data may be collected on individual children, data should be aggregated to determine whether the program is achieving its desired outcomes. These outcomes may be defined by the program itself and/or by national, state, or district standards. How the outcomes are measured is determined by the inextricable link between curriculum and assessment. Ideally, if a curriculum has clear learning objectives, those will drive the form and content of the measures. Conversely, thoughtful design of an appropriate assessment tool can encourage program developers to consider what and how adults should be teaching young children. Reliability and Validity Any formal assessment tool or method should meet established criteria for validity and reliability (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council of Measurement in Education, 1999). Reliability is defined as how well various measurements of something agree with each other, for example, whether a group of similar test items or two observers completing the same items have similar results. Validity has several dimensions. Content or face validity refers to how well an instrument measures what it claims to measure; ecological validity refers to the authenticity of the measurement context; and construct validity deals with the measure’s conceptual integrity. In assessing young children, two aspects of validity have special importance—developmental validity and predictive validity. Developmental validity means that the performance items being measured are developmentally suitable for the children being assessed. Predictive validity means the measure can predict children’s later school success or failure, as defined by achievement test scores or academic placements (on-grade, retained in grade, or placed in special education) during the elementary grades. Over the longer term, predictive validity can even refer to such outcomes as adult literacy, employment, or avoiding criminal activity. In Principles and Recommendations for Early Childhood Assessments, the National Education Goals Panel (1998) noted that â€Å"the younger the child, the more difficult it is to obtain reliable and valid assessment data. It is particularly difficult to assess children’s cognitive abilities accurately before age 6† (p. 5). Meisels (2003) claims â€Å"research demonstrates that no more than 25 per cent of early academic or cognitive performance is predicted from information obtained from preschool or kindergarten tests† (p. 29). Growth in the early years is rapid, episodic, and highly influenced by environmental supports. Performance is influenced by children’s emotional and motivational states, and by the assessment conditions themselves. Because these individual and situational factors affect reliability and validity, the Panel recommended that assessment of young children be pursued with the necessary safeguards and caveats about the accuracy of the decisions that can be drawn from the results. These procedures and cautions are explored below. 4 Testing. Appropriate Uses of Testing Standardized tests are used to obtain information on whether a program is achieving its desired outcomes. They are considered objective, time- and cost-efficient, and suitable for making quantitative comparisons. Testing can provide valid data when used appropriately and matched to developmental levels. Moreover, tests can act as teaching tools by providing a window into what children already know and where they need more time, practice, and/or help to improve. Creating a valid assessment for young children is a difficult task. It must be meaningful and authentic, evaluate a valid sample of information learned, be based on performance standards that are genuine benchmarks, avoid arbitrary cut-off scores or norms, and have authentic scoring. The context for the test should be rich, realistic, and enticing (Wiggins, 1992). It is therefore incumbent upon the creators of assessment tools to design instruments that—unlike artificial drills— resemble natural performance. If these conditions are met, young children are more likely to recognize what is being asked of them, thus increasing the reliability and validity of the results. Criteria of Reliable and Valid Preschool Tests Both the content and administration of tests must respect young children’s developmental characteristics. Otherwise the resulting data will be neither reliable nor valid. Worse, the testing experience may be negative for the child and perhaps the tester as well. Further, the knowledge and skills measured in the testing situation must be transferable and applicable in real-world settings. Otherwise the information gathered has no practical value. To produce meaningful data and minimize the risk of creating a harmful situation, tests for preschool-age children should satisfy the following criteria: 1. Tests should not make children feel anxious or scared. They should not threaten their selfesteem or make them feel they have failed. Tests should acknowledge what children know—or have the potential to learn—rather than penalizing them for what they do not know. 2. Testing should take place in, or simulate, the natural environment of the classroom. It should avoid placing the child in an artificial situation. Otherwise, the test may measure the child’s response to the test setting rather than the child’s ability to perform on the test content. 3. Tests should measure real knowledge in the context of real activities. In other words, the test activities as well as the test setting should not be contrived. They should resemble children’s ordinary activities as closely as possible, for example, discussing a book as the adult reads it. Furthermore, tests should measure broad concepts rather than narrow skills, for example, alphabetic and letter knowledge sampled from this domain rather than familiarity with specific letters chosen by the adult. 5 4. The tester should be someone familiar to the child. Ideally, the person administering the test would be a teacher or another adult who interacts regularly with the child. When an outside researcher or evaluator must administer the test, it is best if the individual(s) spend time in the classroom beforehand, becoming a familiar and friendly figure to the children. If this is not feasible, the appearance and demeanor of the tester(s) should be as similar as possible to adults with whom the child regularly comes in contact. 5. To the extent possible, testing should be conducted as a natural part of daily activities rather than as a time-added or pullout activity. Meeting this criterion helps to satisfy the earlier standards of a familiar place and tester, especially if the test can be administered in the context of a normal part of the daily routine (for example, assessing book knowledge during a regular reading period). In addition, testing that is integrated into standard routines avoids placing an additional burden on teachers or detracting from children’s instructional time. 6. The information should be obtained over time. A single encounter, especially if brief, can produce inaccurate or distorted data. For example, a child may be ill, hungry, or distracted at the moment of testing. The test is then measuring the child’s interest or willingness to respond rather than the child’s knowledge or ability with respect to the question(s) being asked. If timedistributed measurements are not feasible, then testers should note unusual circumstances in the situation (e. g. , noise) or child (e. g. , fatigue) that could render single-encounter results invalid and should either schedule a re-assessment or discount the results in such cases. 7. When repeated instances of data gathering are not feasible (e.g. , due to time or budgetary constraints), an attempt should be made to obtain information on the same content area from multiple and diverse sources. Just as young children have different styles of learning, so they will differentially demonstrate their knowledge and skills under varying modes of assessment. For example, a complete and accurate measure of letter knowledge may involve tests that employ both generative and recognition strategies. 8. The length of the test should be sensitive to young children’s interests and attention spans. If a test is conducted during a regular program activity (e. g. , small-group time), the test should last no longer than is typical for that activity. If it is necessary to conduct testing outside regular activities, the assessment period should last 10–20 minutes. Further, testers should be sensitive to children’s comfort and engagement levels, and take a break or continue the test at another day and time if the child cannot or does not want to proceed. 9. Testing for purposes of program accountability should employ appropriate sampling methods whenever feasible. Testing a representative sample of the children who participate in a program avoids the need to test every child and/or to administer all tests to any one child. Sampling strategies reduce the overall time spent in testing, and minimize the chances for placing undue stress on individual children or burdening individual teachers and classrooms. 6 Alternative Child Assessment Methods Alternative forms of assessment may be used by those who have reservations about, or want to supplement, standardized tests. These other methods often fall under the banner of â€Å"authentic† assessments. They engage children in tasks that are personally meaningful, take place in real life contexts, and are grounded in naturally occurring instructional activities. They offer multiple ways of evaluating students’ learning, as well as their motivation, achievement, and attitudes. This type of assessment is consistent with the goals, curriculum, and instructional practices of the classroom or program with which it is associated (McLaughlin & Vogt, 1997; Paris & Ayres, 1994). Authentic assessments do not rely on unrealistic or arbitrary time constraints, nor do they emphasize instant recall or depend on lucky guesses. Progress toward mastery is the key, and content is mastered as a means, not as an end (Wiggins, 1989). To document accomplishments, assessments must be designed to be longitudinal, to sample the baseline, the increment, and the preserved levels of change that follow from instruction (Wolf, Bixby, Glenn & Gardener, 1991). Alternative assessment can be more expensive than testing. Like their counterparts in testing, authentic measures must meet psychometric standards of demonstrated reliability and validity. Their use, especially on a widespread scale, requires adequate resources. Assessors must be trained to acceptable levels of reliability. Data collection, coding, entry, and analysis are also time- and cost-intensive. This investment can be seen as reasonable and necessary, however, if the goal is to produce valid information. Alternative child assessment procedures that can meet the criteria of reliability and validity include observations, portfolios, and ratings of children by teachers and parents. These are described below. Observations In assessing young children, the principal alternative to testing is systematic observation of children’s activities in their day-to-day settings. Observation fits an interactive style of curriculum, in which give-and-take between teacher and child is the norm. Although careful observation requires effort, the approach has high ecological validity and intrudes minimally into what children are doing. Children’s activities naturally integrate all dimensions of their development—intellectual, motivational, social, physical, aesthetic, and so on. Anecdotal notes alone, however, are not sufficient for good assessment. They do not offer criteria against which to judge the developmental value of children’s activities or provide evidence of reliability and validity. Instead, anecdotal notes should be used to complete developmental scales of proven reliability and validity. Such an approach permits children to engage in activities any time and anywhere that teachers can see them. It defines categories of acceptable answers rather than single right answers. It expects the teacher to set the framework for children to initiate their own activities. It embraces a broad definition of child development that includes not only language and mathematics, but also initiative, social relations, physical skills, and the arts. It is culturally sensitive when teachers are trained observers who focus on objective, culturally neutral descriptions of behavior (for example, â€Å"Pat hit Bob†) rather than subjective, culturally loaded 7 interpretations (for example, â€Å"Pat was very angry with Bob†). Finally, it empowers teachers by recognizing their judgment as essential to accurate assessment. Portfolios One of the most fitting ways to undertake authentic, meaningful evaluation is through the use of a well-constructed portfolio system. Arter and Spandel (1991) define a portfolio as a purposeful collection of student work that tells the story of the student’s efforts, progress, or achievement in (a) given area(s). This collection must include student participation in selection of portfolio content, the guidelines for selection, the criteria for judging merit, and evidence of student self-reflection (p. 36). Portfolios describe both a place (the physical space where they are stored) and a process. The process provides richer information than standardized tests, involves multiple sources and methods of data collection, and occurs over a representative period of time (Shaklee, Barbour, Ambrose, & Hansford, 1997). Portfolios have additional value. They encourage two- and three-way collaboration between students, teachers, and parents; promote ownership and motivation; integrate assessment with instruction and learning; and establish a quantitative and qualitative record of progress over time (Paris & Ayres, 1994; Paulson, Paulson, & Meyer, 1991; Wolf & Siu-Runyan, 1996; Valencia, 1990). â€Å"Portfolios encourage teachers and students to focus on important student outcomes, provide parents and the community with credible evidence of student achievement, and inform policy and practice at every level of the educational system† (Herman & Winters, 1994, p. 48). The purposes for which portfolios are used are as variable as the programs that use them (Graves & Sunstein, 1993; Valencia, 1990; Wolf & Siu-Runyan, 1996). In some programs, they are simply a place to store best work that has been graded in a traditional manner. In others, they are used to create longitudinal systems to demonstrate the process leading to the products and to design evaluative rubrics for program accountability. There are also programs that merely have students collect work that is important to them as a personal, non-evaluative record of their achievements. When portfolios are not used to judge ability in some agreed-upon fashion, they are usually not highly structured and may not even include reflective pieces that demonstrate student growth and understanding. Portfolios are most commonly thought of as alternative assessments in  elementary and secondary schools. Yet they have long been used in preschools to document and share children’s progress with parents, administrators, and others. For portfolios to be used for program accountability, as well as student learning and reflection, the evaluated outcomes must be aligned with curriculum and instruction. Children must have some choice about what to include in order to feel ownership and pride. Portfolios should document the creative or problem-solving process as they display the product, encouraging children to reflect on their actions. Conversations with children about their portfolios engages them in the evaluation process and escalates their desire to demonstrate their 8 increasing knowledge and skills. Sharing portfolios with parents can help teachers connect school activities to the home and involve parents in their children’s education. Teacher Ratings Teacher ratings are a way to organize teacher perceptions of children’s development into scales for which reliability and validity can be assessed. Children’s grades on report cards are the most common type of teacher rating system. When completed objectively, report-card grades are tied to students’ performance on indicators with delineated scoring criteria, such as examinations or projects evaluated according to explicitly defined criteria. In these ways, teacher ratings can be specifically related to other types of child assessments including scores on standardized tests or other validated assessment tools, concrete and specific behavioral descriptions (e. g. , frequency of participation in group activities, ability to recognize the letters in one’s name), or global assessments of children’s traits (e. g. , cooperative, sociable, hard-working). Research shows that teacher ratings can have considerable short- and long-term predictive validity throughout later school years and even into adulthood (Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993). Parent Ratings Parent ratings are a way to organize parent perceptions of children’s development into scales for which reliability and validity can be assessed. Soliciting parent ratings is an excellent way for teachers to involve them as partners in the assessment of their children’s performance. The very process of completing scales can inform parents about the kinds of behaviors and milestones that are important in young children’s development. It also encourages parents to observe and listen to their children as they gather the data needed to rate their performance. An example of the use of parent ratings is the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) study, in which parents’ ratings of their children’s abilities and progress were related to measures of classroom quality and child outcomes (Zill, Connell, McKey, O’Brien et al. , 2001). Conclusion Recent years have seen a growing public interest in early childhood education. Along with that support has come the use of â€Å"high stakes† assessment to justify the expense and apportion the dollars. With so much at stake—the future of our nation’s children—it is imperative that we proceed correctly. Above all, we must guarantee that assessment reflects our highest educational goals for young children and neither restricts nor distorts the substance of their early learning. This paper sets forth the criteria for a comprehensive and balanced assessment system that meets the need for accountability while respecting the welfare and development of young children. Such a system can include testing, provided it measures applicable knowledge and skills in a safe and child-affirming situation. It can also include alternative assessments, provided they too meet psychometric standards of reliability and validity. Developing and implementing a balanced approach to assessment is not an easy or inexpensive undertaking. But because we value our children and respect those charged with their care, it is an investment worth making. 9 References Airasian, P. (2 002). A ssessment in the classroom. New Y ork: Mc Graw-H ill. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council of Measu rement in E ducation. (1 999). S tanda rds for edu cationa l and psy cholog ical testing. W ashington, DC: American Psychological Association. Arter, J. A. , & Spande l, V. (199 2). Using p ortfolios of stud ent work in instru ction and a ssessment. E ducational Measurement Issues and Practice, 36–44. Brede kamp, S. , & Rosegra nt, T. (Ed s. ) (1992 ). R eaching Potentials: Appropriate Curriculum and Assessment for Young Children . Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Graves, D . H. , & Sun stein, B. S. (19 92). P ortfolio p ortraits . New Hampshire: Heinemann. Herma n, J. L. , & W inters, L. (199 4). Portfo lio research: A slim collection . E duca tional Lea dership , 5 2 (2), 48–55. McLa ughlin, M. , & Vogt, M . (1997) . P ortfolios in teacher education . Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Meisels, S. (2003, 19 March). Can Head Start pass the test? E ducation Week , 2 2 (27), 44 & 29. National A ssociation for the Educa tion of Yo ung Childre n and Na tional Assoc iation of Ear ly Childhoo d Specia lists in State Dep artments of E ducation (2 003, N ovemb er. E arly Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation: Building an Effective, Accountable System in Programs for Children Birth Through Age 8 . ) Washin gton, DC : Authors. Av ailable online at www. naeyc. org/resources/position_statements/pscape. asp. N ational E ducation G oals Pane l. (1998). P rinciples and rec ommen dations for early childh ood assessm ents. Washington, DC: Author. National R eading P anel. (200 0). T eaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washin gton, DC : National In stitute of Child Health and Human Developm ent, National Institutes of Health. National R esearch C ouncil. (20 00a). E ager to learn : Educating our preschoo lers. W ashington, DC: National Academy P ress. National R esearch C ouncil. (20 00b). N eurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, D C: National Acad emy Press. Paris, S. G . , & Ayers, L. R . (1994) . B ecom ing reflective s tudents a nd teach ers with po rtfolios and authen tic assessment. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Paulson, F. L. , Paulson, P. R. , & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio? E duca tional Lea dership , 48 (5), 60–63. Schweinha rt, L. J. , Barne s, H. V. , & Weika rt, D. P. (19 93). S ignificant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 27 . Ypsilanti, MI: High/Sco pe Press. Shaklee, B . D. , Barb our, N. E ., Ambros e, R. , & H ansford, S. J . (1997) . D esigning and using portfolios. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Valencia , S. W. (1 990). A portfolio ap proach to classroom reading asse ssment: Th e whys, whats an d hows. T he Reading Teacher , 4 3 (4), 338–340. Wiggins, G . (1992) . Creating tests wo rth taking. E duca tional Lea dership , 4 9 (8), 26–33. Wolf, D. , Bixby, J. , Glenn, J. , & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. In G. Gran t (Ed. ), R eview of research in education, V ol 17 ( pp. 31–74). Washington D. C. : American Educational Research Association. Wolf, K . , & Siu-Run yan, Y.(19 96). Po rtfolio purpo ses and po ssibilities. J ournal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40 (1), 30–37. Zill, N. , Conn ell, D. , Mc Key, R. H . , O’Brien, R . et al. (2001 , January). H ead Start FACES: Longitudinal Findings on Pro gram P erforma nce, Third Progres s Report. W ashington, DC: Administration on Children, Youth and Families, U. S. Depa rtment of Health and H uman Services. 10 High/Scope Assessment Resources High/Scope has developed and validated three preschool assessment instruments. Two are for children, one focusing specifically on literacy and the other more broadly on multiple domains of development. The third measure is used to assess and improve the quality of all aspects of early childhood programs. These alternative assessments are described below. Early Literacy Assessment In the Fall of 2004, High/Scope will release the Early Literacy Assessment (ELA), which will evaluate the four key principles of early literacy documented in the Early Reading First Grants and the No Child Left Behind legislation: phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, comprehension, and concepts about print. Evaluation will take place in a meaningful context that is familiar to children.

Starbuck’s: Delivering Customer Service

Starbucks: Delivering Customer Service Christine Day, Starbuck’s senior vice president of administration in North America, believes recent market research indicates customers are not satisfied with Starbuck’s customer service. To address this concern, she is proposing to invest $40 million to increase store hours in order to reduce customer wait times. Day believes there is a direct correlation between customer wait times and their overall satisfaction with service. Starbucks has implemented a â€Å"secret shopper† program in order to spot check stores on their service, cleanliness, product quality and average wait times.The goal for average customer wait time is 3 minutes. The secret shopper scores for the past 5 quarters have shown a negative correlation between customer service and average wait time (exhibit 1). As average customer wait time decreases, the average secret shopper scores increase. In response, Day feels that adding an additional 20 hours to each of the 4500 North American Stores will reduce the customer’s wait time and in turn, increase their overall customer satisfaction scores. Day’s plan will have the largest impact on the following three major stakeholders: shareholders, employees/partners and customers.Starbuck’s shareholders are primarily interested in the plan’s impact on retained earnings and long term growth. Investing an additional $40 million dollars will reduce the shareholder’s short term earnings. Investors who were looking forward to larger dividend checks would be disappointed, but investors who were interested in the long term growth of their portfolio may support Day’s plan if she could show how this investment would positively impact customer’s loyalty and improve the company’s future profit potential. Assuming the partners were looking for additional hours, this plan would be viewed favorably by store baristas and employees.During peak periods of b usiness, they would have another employee to help share the workload and it could reduce the stress of â€Å"rush hour† on each individual partner. The popularity of this plan would be different depending on each store’s location, layout and manning. Stores with insufficient work flows could create or enlarge bottlenecks and the additional manpower may actually increase wait times. On the other hand, stores who have a hard time recruiting employees may not want to burden their existing overworked employees with an additional increase in hours.In some stores, partners would prefer to reduce the quantity and complexity of available drinks instead of increasing available hours. Starbucks is known for innovative and seasonal drinks and over the years, the knowledge requirement for baristas has dramatically increased. Baristas are constantly challenged to learn more complex drinks and still perform to the 3 minute metric. Reducing the number of drinks offered may be an appr opriate solution if there is evidence to show that there are a number of very unpopular drinks, but we do not have any current sales or market data to support those decisions.Additional research needs to be performed in order to assess this option. Customers visit Starbucks for a variety of reasons and those who value short wait times may approve of the new manning plan if indeed it results in shorter wait times. Customers who visit Starbucks for the quality of their coffee or the inviting environment may not increase the frequency of their visits because of a shorter wait time. Customers who value the intimacy and personal attention their local Starbucks provides may actually disapprove of the plan to increase manning if it interrupts their established relationship with their trusty barista.In 2002, Starbucks surveyed their customers to find out what store qualities they attribute to customer satisfaction. The top 6 of these responses referred to the actual store, relationship with the staff and product quality. Wait time was ranked 7th on the list (exhibit 2). This survey suggests that investing $40 million to decrease the wait time might not have the desired impact on customer satisfaction. There is an inherent issue with self reported customer surveys that may have influenced these findings. Customers may not realize what influences their opinions and what constitutes good customer service.What they think they value and what they actually use to make purchasing decisions may be different. In addition, each customer will have their own bias when rating customer service because they all value different experiences and relationships with their local Starbucks. If you look at the secret shopper findings and the self reported customer service surveys jointly, you could devise that customers may give higher cleanliness, service and product quality scores if their wait time is shorter regardless of the store’s actual level of cleanliness, service and produ ct quality.The shorter wait time may have influenced the customer’s opinion on the other store attributes. Another measure of customer service besides secret shoppers and customer surveys is the number of repeat customers. Customers vote with their feet and if they continue to patron Starbuck’s stores, they are voting that they are satisfied customers. In exhibit 8 of the Starbucks case, it is reported that in 2002, 73% of Starbucks customers have been visiting Starbucks for over a year. Only 23% of customers were new that year. This report suggests Starbucks has done a good job at reducing customer churn and they are already satisfying their customers.A common error when trying to measure and improve customer satisfaction is using quantitative metrics. Customer service is a qualitative experience that is very subjective for each individual. Trying to influence someone’s overall customer satisfaction by improving only one quantitative metric may not give you the intended impact to your overall customer satisfaction scores. Day needs to understand the limitations with her single metric plan and realize that she needs to address all aspects of customer service for an overall improvement.In order to understand the variety and complexity of the issues impacting their 4500 stores, Day needs to engage the store managers to fully understand what each store needs to improve customer service. Increasing available hours may help some stores while others may need new equipment or a re-designed work space. Day’s plan to uniformly increase labor hours over-simplifies the potential needs of the individual stores. Empowering the managers would encourage individual ownership and commitment. The manager’s guidance would ensure Day allocated the $40 million most ffectively to not only reduce customer wait times but to increase overall customer service. During this process, Day may find out managers are frustrated with Starbuck’s aggress ive growth. In metropolitan areas, growth has led to cannibalization of customers which undermines the manager’s efforts to increase customer loyalty. Quality customer service is an individual experience that requires a personal interaction between customers and employees. It is more difficult to create a lasting experience and relationship if customers are constantly changing from store to store.Manager’s will lose their motivation to encourage these relationships if they feel another Starbucks will open nearby and steal away the loyal customer base they have worked to create. Starbuck’s value proposition to their customers concentrate on three goals: quality coffee, excellent service and an inviting atmosphere. These three attributes are focused on building customer loyalty. Starbuck’s loyal customers (8 or more visits a month) account for 62% of their revenue. This group of established customers value high quality coffee and Starbuck’s meets thi s need through mass customization.Starbucks gives customers the ability to specialize their drinks to fit their individual tastes in order to create customer loyalty. This evidence suggests that Starbucks needs to continue to allow for individual drink customization in order to increase customer loyalty even though it may increase their average wait time above their three minute goal. Loyal customers are their largest source of revenue and if their perceived value is centered on quality coffee, they would not want to risk losing this source of steady revenue.Starbucks lacks a strategic marketing group who is responsible for managing their overall marketing plans, promotions and research. Marketing was internally viewed as the responsibility of all senior executives, but as their corporation continued to rapidly grow, the executives could not keep up with their primary responsibilities and effectively contribute to the strategic marketing plan. As a result, Day states â€Å"Weâ€⠄¢ve been operating with the assumption that we do customer service well. But the reality is we’ve started to lose sight of the consumer. In addition, Day admits â€Å"we tend to be great at measuring things, at collecting market data, but we are not very disciplined when it comes to using this data to drive decision making. † Both of these statements validate the concern that Starbucks needs to hire a senior executive who will make marketing their chief responsibility. They need a central department who will integrate their market research with top level decision making, and manage promotions, such as frequency programs, so they are using their resources in the most effective way to increase customer loyalty.The marketing department should not only collect data from their own customers, but they should consider hiring a marketing firm in order to ensure they are collecting unbiased information about themselves and their competitors. Using research on their competitors will allow Starbucks to have a more comprehensive view on their industry and growing trends or concerns from their available customer base. This will also give them the information they need in order to attract new customers from other competitors.Day’s preliminary research shows more resources need to be given to accurately capture their customer’s interests to ensure they are meeting high standards of customer service to create and keep loyal customers. Her original plan to invest $40 million to increase labor hours is not the most effective use of resources because each individual store’s needs are unknown. Quality customer service cannot be achieved by concentrating on a single quantitative metric. Customer service is a personal, qualitative experience only the individual store managers can gauge and deliver.Day needs to work with store managers and a marketing department to formulate a more comprehensive plan to measure and improve customer service. EXHIBI T 1 The AVG line is the average of the secret shopper scores for Service, Cleanliness and Product Quality. The compiled average increases as the average customer wait time decreases. EXHIBIT 2 These are the top 7 attributes grouped by category reported in Starbuck’s 2002 self-reported customer survey. Store Attributes, relationship with staff, product quality were all reported to have a higher impact on customer satisfaction than wait time.