310 likes | 387 Views
CCTI Year Three Research Findings. League for Innovation Atlanta, GA March 20, 2006. Who is JBL Associates?. Called in to help after previous contractor had to withdraw because of change in ownership We have worked on similar projects. What are we Trying to Do?.
E N D
CCTI Year ThreeResearch Findings League for Innovation Atlanta, GA March 20, 2006
Who is JBL Associates? • Called in to help after previous contractor had to withdraw because of change in ownership • We have worked on similar projects
What are we Trying to Do? • Provide continuation and improvement of the data collection and reporting in the current project • Provide help to colleges in using the data for internal management purposes • Develop a model based on longitudinal student-level data that other colleges can use
Objectives • Decrease Remediation • Improve Enrollment Persistence • Improve Academic Achievement • Increase the Number of Postsecondary Degrees • Increase Progress in Education or Work
55 60 48 40 Number 40 20 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 0 Year Number of Participating High Schools
2000 1,627 1800 1600 1400 1,145 1200 903 888 Number Fall 2005 1000 758 743 800 524 466 600 Fall 2004 400 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade 200 Number of Enrollees at CCTI Partner High Schools by Grade (2004 and 2005)
100% 80% 60% Percent 25.6% 40% 18.5% 20% Fall 2004 Fall 2005 0% (32 of 125 students) (43 of 232 students) Remediation in Reading Cohort 1 (Fall 2004) Versus Cohort 2 (Fall 2005): % of CCTI Students Requiring Remedial Courses
100% 80% 60% Percent 26.5% 40% 21.4% 20% Fall 2004 Fall 2005 0% (32 of 121 students) (50 of 234 students) Remediation in Writing Cohort 1 (Fall 2004) Versus Cohort 2 (Fall 2005): % of CCTI Students Requiring Remedial Courses
100% 80% 60% 41.1% 33.8% Percent 40% 20% Fall 2004 Fall 2005 0% (27 of 80 students) (81 of 197 students) Remediation in Mathematics Cohort 1 (Fall 2004) Versus Cohort 2 (Fall 2005): % of CCTI Students Requiring Remedial Courses
100% 80% 60% 36.1% Percent 40% 14.5% 20% Fall 2004 Fall 2005 0% (13 of 36 students) (10 of 69 students) Remediation in Algebra Cohort 1 (Fall 2004) Versus Cohort 2 (Fall 2005): % of CCTI Students Requiring Remedial Courses
50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 21.86% 25% Percent 18.58% 17.49% 20% 12.57% 15% 8.20% 10% 6.01% 5.46% 3.28% 2.19% 2.19% 1.64% 5% 0.55% 0% Guidance Enrollment Counseling Persistence Perceptions Educational Student Remediation Professional Development Development Career Development Financial Aid Skills New Credential Alignmentand/or Articulation Curriculum Opportunities Employment/Work Primary Type of Improvement Primary Type of Improvement Plan
Summary • Small numbers of students in cohorts reduce reliability of findings • Most indicators show improvement • Enrollment is up, and remediation is down • Attention should be paid to remedial math • Aligning curriculum and professional development are the primary strategies being used by project sites
Next steps • Collect next year’s data and develop report • Consider new data elements to track improvement • Benchmark your improvements • Find ways for other colleges to participate • Help colleges integrate student tracking data into their management decisions
For Further Help and Information John Lee JBL Associates, Inc. jbl@jblassoc.com or Sue Clery sclery@jblassoc.com