CCTI Year Three Research Findings

1. CCTI Year ThreeResearch Findings League for Innovation Atlanta, GA March 20, 2006

2. 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

3. 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

4. Third Year Evaluation

5. Building a Culture of Evidence

6. More Ways to go Wrong than Right

7. Objectives • Decrease Remediation • Improve Enrollment Persistence • Improve Academic Achievement • Increase the Number of Postsecondary Degrees • Increase Progress in Education or Work

8. Objective 1: Decrease Remediation

9. Objective 2: Enrollment Persistence

10. Objective 3: Academic Achievement

11. Objective 4: Postsecondary Degrees

12. Objective 5: Further Education or Work

13. Aggregate Measures of Success

14. 55 60 48 40 Number 40 20 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 0 Year Number of Participating High Schools

15. 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)

16. Persistence from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005

17. Persistence from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005

18. Persistence from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005

19. Persistence from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005

20. Persistence from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005

21. CCTI Enrollment Summary

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Remediation by Occupational Cluster, 2005

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. For Further Help and Information John Lee JBL Associates, Inc. jbl@jblassoc.com or Sue Clery sclery@jblassoc.com

31. Any Questions or Comments?