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