URBAN INSTITUTE
Theresa AndersonLauren Eyster
Robert I. Lerman
The Urban Institute
Maureen ConwayMarcela Montes
The Aspen Institute
Carol Clymer
Penn State University
URBAN INSTITUTE
Long-Term Outcomes•System•Students
2
Stakeholders &Policy Levers
URBAN INSTITUTE3
College & Career Pathways
Culture Shift
Scale & Sustain-ability
• Professional development• Engage faculty• Redesign curriculum• Learning networks• Engage employers
• Engage champions• Launch strategic communications• Track data• Promote access to campus
resources
• Identify multi-sector resources• Removal of policy barriers• Cost-benefit analysis tools
• Employers engage with colleges on pathway development
• 2 viable pathways per college• Multiple faculty deliver integrated
curriculum• Evidence-based & innovative
implementation
• Awareness of problem & solution• Greater ABE access to campus
resources• ABE population seen as important• ABE students seek pathways• Investment in ABE data tracking
• Financial aid barriers removed• Colleges/states access untapped
funding to support pathways• Able to analyze cost-benefit• Greater student tracking capacity
and linking data to labor market
Activities 2-Year Outcomes
URBAN INSTITUTE
Orienting These Findings within the Overall Evaluation
Exploring the Major Questions
Summing Up
Future Research Questions
4
URBAN INSTITUTE
Three parts of the evaluation:
Implementation
Impact
Cost-Benefit
5
How Is AO Going So Far?
• Illinois• Kansas• Kentucky• North Carolina
URBAN INSTITUTE
What types of students did AO serve?
What do the AO pathways look like?
What interactions did colleges have with community partners and employers?
How much does AO cost?
6
URBAN INSTITUTE
• Site visits to four original AO states (Fall 2012)– Interviewed state team and partners– Interviewed staff and partners from two colleges in
each state
• Quarterly calls with state offices and two colleges per call
• Year 1 survey of all AO colleges in original four states (February 2012)
• 100% response rate
7
URBAN INSTITUTE
Key elements of the model (“non-negotiables”):At least two educational pathways with evidence of strong local demand
Contextualized learning and the use of hybrid course designs
Evidence-based dual enrollment strategies
Comprehensive academic and social student supports
Achievement of marketable, stackable, credit-bearing certificates and degrees and college readiness
Award of some college-level professional-technical credits
Partnerships with Workforce Investment Boards and employers
8
URBAN INSTITUTE
Career pathways should be at least 12 credit-hours long
At least two pathways should be established in each of at least eight colleges
Pathways should have at least 25% team teaching
Students eligible for AO must fall within 6th to 12th grade levels on math, reading, or writing or levels 5-6 in English language skills
Enrolled students may have a secondary school credential as long as they fall within the eligible skill ranges
9
URBAN INSTITUTE10
11
12
13
URBAN INSTITUTE
Most colleges recruited students from local adult education programs
Utilized many types of outreach
Most effective recruitment strategy was “word of mouth”
Challenges included lack of time/resources, administrative/staffing delays and students not interested in pathways offered.
14
URBAN INSTITUTE15
StateAbility to Benefit Change
Effect on Target Population
IllinoisColleges started only targeting students with GED or equivalent; state intervened and now serving those without GED or equivalent
KansasBegan to recruit heavily from existing career and technical education programs in many colleges *
KentuckyColleges started only targeting students with GED; state required at least 25% served to be without GED
North Carolina
No change for students at 9.0-11.9 levels at 8 of 9 AO colleges; some colleges doing non-credit bridge programs for those below 9.0 level
Data are based on site visits only.
*
URBAN INSTITUTE16
URBAN INSTITUTE
There were 91 pathways in operation in 2012
Average of 2.8 pathways per college
Pathways by state:
IL19
pathways8 colleges
KS27 pathways9 colleges
(13 with consortium)
KY22 pathways
8 collegesNC
23 pathways 8 colleges
17
URBAN INSTITUTE18
URBAN INSTITUTE
KS and NC state AO offices developed pathway approval processes, KY created a pathway design template
Pathways varied widely across the states with respect to:
Number of credits and credentials that could be earned
Cohort approaches
Blending with mainstream students
Team teaching approaches
19
URBAN INSTITUTE
Team teaching could have a high level of integration or have the adult education instructor act more as a teacher’s aide
Few of the colleges visited seemed to be providing the more highly integrated approach to team teaching
College staff thought the instructors would do more integration after they had more experience working together
Some colleges relied more heavily on linked classes but not team teaching
20
URBAN INSTITUTE
Overall, there was initial skepticism about team
teaching
Territory and utility on the instructor level
Financing on the administrative level
Students were very positive about team teaching
21
URBAN INSTITUTE
Of 517 AO courses, 77% had a blend of AO and non-AO students in at least some sections
68% of the 517 classes were blended in all sections offered to AO students
Instructors and students reported that the non-AO students were often not aware who was in AO
Some non-AO students in blended classes were recruited into AO by AO students
22
URBAN INSTITUTE
AO students generally have a dedicated coordinator for both academic and support services
Other services were available to varying degreesMany students were not aware of the range of services available to them
The difference in support services for AO students compared with other students was not always substantial
Colleges made academic supports more available to adult education students in AO
State offices are helping colleges with support services
23
URBAN INSTITUTE24
URBAN INSTITUTE25
URBAN INSTITUTE26
URBAN INSTITUTE
Every college indicated on the survey that it had reached out to employers
Primarily through pre-existing connections
Site visits suggested that employers were not yet actively engaged with AO
Possible reasons for differences between site visits and survey:
Concerns related to the depth or quality of employer involvement
Employers became involved in late 2012, after the site visits
27