PowerPoint Presentation

July 20-22 2010 1 High School Equivalent Program (HEP) Results for 2008-2009HEP 2009 ResultsUS Department of EducationOffice of Migrant EducationOME ConferencePhiladelphia, PANovember 15-19, 20101Welcome and Introduction of Rachel Crawford and Ed MonaghanJuly 20-22 2010 HEP 2009 Results2Outline of PresentationIntroductionSolutions to Previous Years ChallengesAssumptions and Limitations Research Assumptions Research LimitationsPresentation of HEP DataTop 10 Programs for GPRA 1 & 2 ResultsSummary and ConclusionsNext Steps

Review outline with audience3Introduction: Why are we here?Share HEP 2009 APR program results2009 snapshot data, using national HEP data2009 comparison data, using data from groups of HEP projects2006-2009 longitudinal data, using national HEP data

Recognize high performing projects

After our session, share ideas for program improvement

July 20-22 2010 3HEP 2009 Results4 Course Completers: The APR requires accurate information regarding students that complete the coursework but do not pass the GED and do not re-enroll. Data Quality Checks: The APR requires use of data quality checks, in order to ensure a level of accuracy within the report.Over-Served: When HEP projects served more students than they were funded, the GPRA 1 for projects could exceed 100%. Persisters: When HEP projects reported large numbers of persisters, the GPRA 1 for projects could exceed 100%, or go below 0% .Top Reporting Issues from 2006-2008 July 20-22 2010 4HEP 2009 ResultsRachel will elaborate on not just hints, but the electronic APR will contain built-in checks that wont allow for error within the APR.5 Grantees carefully reviewed definitions and entered data within EMAPS for electronic Annual Performance Report (APR) with built-in hints for data quality checks.

Office of Migrant Education adjusted GPRA 1 formula

Solutions to Known Reporting Issues July 20-22 2010 5HEP 2009 ResultsRachel will elaborate on not just hints, but the electronic APR will contain built-in checks that wont allow for error within the APR.6 Option A: For grantees who actually serve LESS than the number funded to be served or serve exactly the total number funded to be served:GPRA Measure 1= total no. of HEP GED attainers [total no. funded to be served minus total no. of persisters]

Adjusted GPRA Measure 1 FormulaJuly 20-22 2010 6HEP 2009 ResultsFor grantees who serve =125 students funded)

Small Programs: 27 Programs (enrollment 1/5 of the population).Withdrawals and course completers represent 30% of the population.89Summary: What are the results (GPRA 2)?July 20-22 2010 89HEP 2009 ResultsGRPA 2 shows post-secondary is most popular choice in placement (40%)Enhanced career and no placement tieMilitary is well behind

90Summary: ConclusionsWhat we know:

GPRA 1 NOT met, 61% with a national target of 69%.GPRA 2 NOT met, 74% with a national target of 80%.Percentage of students served in HEP is 116%.Program costs are rising slightly, per student funded/served.Students in projects that over-serve, in general, are not as successful in GED attainment as those that serve less than or equal to the number funded. Pure residential projects significantly underperform combination and commuter projects.

July 20-22 2010 90HEP 2009 Results* Results are here91Summary: ConclusionsWhat we know:GPRA 1 results of projects with open enrollment and structured enrollment do not differ. Structured projects tend to place more students.There are no differences between GPRA 1 results for large and small projects.There is a slightly positive relationship between the number of hours a project provides to students, as they seek a GED.Twenty-one percent of HEP students are reported as English Learners, and projects with a higher percentage of ELs tend to place less students. July 20-22 2010 91HEP 2009 Results* Results are here92Summary: ConclusionsWhat we know:There is slightly positive relationship between higher scores in Math and Reading screening assessments, and GED attainment and subsequent placement.The majority of HEP students are 25 years of age and older, female, and 15% of HEP students commute more than 20 miles, one-way, to classes.July 20-22 2010 92HEP 2009 Results* Results are here93SummaryWhat we dont know:

The level to which grantees practices affect GPRA 1 and GPRA 2 results

Next Steps: Pilot Student-Level Data

July 20-22 2010 93HEP 2009 Results94OME MissionThe mission of the Office of Migrant Education is to provide Excellent leadership,Technical Assistance, andFinancial Supportto improve the educational opportunities and academic success of migrant children, youth, and agricultural workers and fishers, and their families.

THANK YOU for your hard work and improving the lives of 6,354 HEP students!

July 20-22 2010 94HEP 2009 ResultsProgram evaluation occurs within our office in order to provide excellent leadership and technical assistance to grantees, so that we may all improve the educational opportunities of migrant children, youth, workers, and their families.