Implementation Findings from the First Year of Accelerating Opportunity

1. Implementation Findings from the First Year of Accelerating Opportunity Theresa M. Anderson Robert I. Lerman The Urban Institute With many thanks to our collaborators, Carol Clymer, Maureen Conway, Lauren Eyster, and Marcela Montes

2. AO Theory of Change • Long-Term Outcomes • System • Students Stakeholders & Policy Levers

3. Activities 2-Year Outcomes AO Theory of Change College & Career Pathways • Professional development • Engage faculty • Redesign curriculum • Learning networks • Engage employers • Employers engage with colleges on pathway development • 2 viable pathways per college • Multiple faculty deliver integrated curriculum • Evidence-based & innovative implementation • Engage champions • Launch strategic communications • Track data • Promote access to campus resources • Awareness of problem & solution • Greater ABE access to campus resources • ABE population seen as important • ABE students seek pathways • Investment in ABE data tracking Culture Shift • Identify multi-sector resources • Removal of policy barriers • Cost-benefit analysis tools • 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 Scale & Sustain-ability

4. Overview of Presentation • Orienting These Findings within the Overall Evaluation • Exploring the Major Questions • Summing Up • Future Research Questions

5. Orienting These Findings within the AO Evaluation • Three parts of the evaluation: • Implementation • Impact • Cost-Benefit • Illinois • Kansas • Kentucky • North Carolina How Is AO Going So Far?

6. Major Research Questions about the First Year of AO Implementation • What types of students did AO serve? • What do the AO pathways look like? • What interactions did colleges have with community partners and employers?

7. Implementation Data from the First Year • 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

8. AO Is a Defined Model • 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

9. Other Key Elements of the Model • 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

10. What Types of Students Did AO Serve?

11. AO Students Were Mostly Female, Mostly White, and Many Ages Race/ Ethnicity Gender Age

12. Most Had a High School Diploma and Qualified for AO by ABE-Level Skills Qualification for AO Secondary School Credential (at entry) Employment (at entry)

13. Most Students Were Recruited from Inside the College IL: 419 students KY: 499 students KS: 1001 students NC: 218 students

14. Colleges Used Similar Recruitment Strategies • 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.

15. AO States and Colleges Responded Differently to Loss of Ability to Benefit *

16. What Do the AO Pathways Look Like?

17. Over 90 Pathways Were Implemented in 2012 • There were 91 pathways in operation in 2012 • Average of 2.8 pathways per college • Pathways by state: IL 19 pathways 8 colleges KS 27 pathways 9 colleges (13 with consortium) KY 22 pathways 8 colleges NC 23 pathways 8 colleges

18. Manufacturing Was the Most Common Pathway Industry

19. Colleges Structured AO Pathways According to Required Elements • 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

20. Structure of Team Teaching Varied Across Colleges Visited • 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

21. Integrated Instruction and Team Teaching Were Concerns for Colleges • 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

22. Many Courses Were Blended with Non-AO Students • 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

23. Support Services Were in Many Cases a “Work in Progress” • AO students generally have a dedicated coordinator for both academic and support services • Other services were available to varying degrees • Many 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

24. The Level of Specialized Support Services for AO Varied Number of Colleges

25. What Interactions Did Colleges Have with Community Partners and Employers?

26. Almost All Colleges Had a Partnership with a Workforce Organization

27. Information about Employer Partnerships Was Mixed • 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

28. Summing Up • Much of the first year was devoted to start-up activities • AO seems to be serving the target population, but many students have secondary school credentials • The change in Pell rules affected recruitment strategies • Pathways were primarily concentrated in manufacturing and healthcare

29. Summing Up • Many students in AO expressed satisfaction with the program and tried to recruit others to join • Some colleges IL and NC used bridge programs AO-eligible students in the 6thto 8th grade adult education levels • Team teaching approaches ranged from a high level of integration to the adult education instructor acting more as a teacher’s aide

30. Summing Up • Team teaching presented a financing challenge to states and colleges • Many support services were provided, but differentiation for AO was moderate • Almost all colleges had connections with workforce agencies, but information about employer engagement was mixed

31. Future Questions • What are the costs of AO, the distribution of the costs, and the sources of funding? • What were student outcomes? How many completed pathways, obtained credentials, became employed in their area of training, and experienced wage increases? • How did AO impact the student outcomes relative to what they would have achieved otherwise? • Did cultural change occurred as a result of AO, on either the state or college level? Did AO result in policy changes? • Did AO achieve scale? Which aspects of AO were seen as most sustainable?

32. Contact Information • Theresa AndersonAO Project ManagerThe Urban Institutetanderson@urban.org • Bob LermanAO Principal InvestigatorThe Urban Instituteblerman@urban.org

33. Almost All Colleges Targeted Students Already in Adult Education and with Interest in One of the Pathways

34. Almost All Colleges Targeted Students Already in Adult Education and with Interest in One of the Pathways

35. All Four States Had Pathways in Manufacturing, Health, and Automotive

36. Illinois Had the Most Team Teaching on Average Excluded: 0 100%: 3 0%: 1 Excluded: 3 100%: 1 0%: 2 Excluded: 4 100%: 0 0%: 0 Excluded: 7 100%: 0 0%: 7 Excluded: 14 100%: 4 0%: 10

37. Complementary-Supportive Teaching Was the Most Common Team Teaching Method • 82% of colleges used Complementary-Supportive Teaching • 70% of colleges used Monitoring Teacher • 55% used Traditional Team Teaching • 4 colleges reported that there was no team teaching in Year 1, all in NC

38. The Level of Specialized Support Services for AO Varied Colleges

39. Colleges Mostly Used Existing Relationships and Connections to Reach Out to Employers