the impact of project grad (graduation really achieves dreams) presented by: tony hastings audra...
TRANSCRIPT
The Impact Of Project GRAD (Graduation Really Achieves Dreams)
The Impact Of Project GRAD (Graduation Really Achieves Dreams)
Presented By:
Tony Hastings
Audra Wells
Presented By:
Tony Hastings
Audra Wells
Facts About Project GRADFacts About Project GRAD
Non-Profit educational reform Started in Houston, Texas in 1992 Used in grades K-12 Delivers research based results on national
scale. Currently serving 132,000 students Now being utilized in 211 of the nations
disadvantaged schools
Non-Profit educational reform Started in Houston, Texas in 1992 Used in grades K-12 Delivers research based results on national
scale. Currently serving 132,000 students Now being utilized in 211 of the nations
disadvantaged schools
History of Project GRADHistory of Project GRAD
1988, Tenneco Company funds four year college scholarships for Davis High School in Houston, Texas
1991, Number of graduates in Davis High School quadruples
1991-1993, Development of the full Project GRAD model
1993, Principals and teachers vote to adopt Project GRAD
Today, Project GRAD in Houston effects more than 51,000 students in 74 schools nationally
1988, Tenneco Company funds four year college scholarships for Davis High School in Houston, Texas
1991, Number of graduates in Davis High School quadruples
1991-1993, Development of the full Project GRAD model
1993, Principals and teachers vote to adopt Project GRAD
Today, Project GRAD in Houston effects more than 51,000 students in 74 schools nationally
Some of the Districts Implementing the
Project GRAD Program Some of the Districts Implementing the
Project GRAD Program Alaska
Kenai Peninsula California
Los Angeles Texas
Houston Brownsville
Ohio Columbus Akron Cincinnati Lorain
Tennessee Knoxville
New York Long Island
New Jersey Newark
Georgia Atlanta
Alaska Kenai Peninsula
California Los Angeles
Texas Houston Brownsville
Ohio Columbus Akron Cincinnati Lorain
Tennessee Knoxville
New York Long Island
New Jersey Newark
Georgia Atlanta
What Is Project GRAD?What Is Project GRAD?
Innovative model for economically disadvantaged youth College prep Challenging curricula Opportunities for college scholarships
Innovative model for economically disadvantaged youth College prep Challenging curricula Opportunities for college scholarships
Mission Of Project GRADMission Of Project GRAD
To ensure quality public education for all at risk children in economically disadvantaged communities To increase the graduation rates these
communities To prepare students to enter and have a
successful college experience
To ensure quality public education for all at risk children in economically disadvantaged communities To increase the graduation rates these
communities To prepare students to enter and have a
successful college experience
Goals of Project GRADGoals of Project GRAD
To have the following results: 80% students graduate from high school 50% students enter and graduated from college Provide long term support for the students in
districts Works to achieve sustainable systematic change
To have the following results: 80% students graduate from high school 50% students enter and graduated from college Provide long term support for the students in
districts Works to achieve sustainable systematic change
The Five Pillars of Project GRAD
The Five Pillars of Project GRAD
The Feeder System Existing Assets Community Collaboration Project GRAD USA Local Grad Sites
The Feeder System Existing Assets Community Collaboration Project GRAD USA Local Grad Sites
Components of Project GRADComponents of Project GRAD
Mathematics Literacy Classroom Management Social Services /Parent Involvement High School Programs
Mathematics Literacy Classroom Management Social Services /Parent Involvement High School Programs
Project GRAD DemographicsProject GRAD Demographics
% of Minority Students
91%
60%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
%of GRAD Minority Population % Charter School Minority Population % of US Public School MinorityPopulation
GRAD Demographics Compared to US and Charter Schools
% o
f M
inori
ty S
tud
en
ts
%of GRAD Minority Population % Charter School Minority Population % of US Public School Minority Population
% of Minority Students
91%
60%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
%of GRAD Minority Population % Charter School Minority Population % of US Public School MinorityPopulation
GRAD Demographics Compared to US and Charter Schools
% o
f M
inori
ty S
tud
en
ts
%of GRAD Minority Population % Charter School Minority Population % of US Public School Minority Population
GRAD Program’s Student Ethnicity GRAD Program’s Student Ethnicity
GRAD Program's Student Ethnicity
0.40%
38.20%
52.20%
8.60%
0.40% 0.20%0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Asian Afrian Amerian Latino White Multi-racial Alaska Native andNative American
Ethnic Background
% o
f S
tud
en
ts
Asian Afrian Amerian Latino White Multi-racial Alaska Native and Native American
Project GRAD Demographics Cont.
Project GRAD Demographics Cont.
% of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch
85%
63%
35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
% of GRAD Free/Reduced Lunch % of Charter Free/Reduced Lunc % of US Public Free/Reduced
Category of Students
% o
f S
tud
en
ts
% of GRAD Free/Reduced Lunch % of Charter Free/Reduced Lunc % of US Public Free/Reduced
% of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch
85%
63%
35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
% of GRAD Free/Reduced Lunch % of Charter Free/Reduced Lunc % of US Public Free/Reduced
Category of Students
% o
f S
tud
en
ts
% of GRAD Free/Reduced Lunch % of Charter Free/Reduced Lunc % of US Public Free/Reduced
Graduation Rate Comparison From 1999-2005
Graduation Rate Comparison From 1999-2005
Graduation Rate Comparison From 1999-2005
64
195 192
112
98
265256
135
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Columbus, Ohio Houston, Texas Atlanta, Georgia Knoxville, Tennessee
Cities
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
den
ts
1999 Graduation Rates 2005 Graduation Rates
Graduation Rate Comparison From 1999-2005
64
195 192
112
98
265256
135
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Columbus, Ohio Houston, Texas Atlanta, Georgia Knoxville, Tennessee
Cities
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
den
ts
1999 Graduation Rates 2005 Graduation Rates
Rate of Students Attending College in Columbus, OhioRate of Students Attending College in Columbus, Ohio
% of Students Attending College
27.20%
39.80%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
1999-2002 % of Graduates Attending College 2005 % of Graduats Using GRAD Scholarships to AttendCollege
National and Columbus, Ohio GRAD Comparison
% o
f S
tud
en
ts
1999-2002 % of Graduates Attending College 2005 % of Graduats Using GRAD Scholarships to Attend College
% of Students Attending College
27.20%
39.80%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
1999-2002 % of Graduates Attending College 2005 % of Graduats Using GRAD Scholarships to AttendCollege
National and Columbus, Ohio GRAD Comparison
% o
f S
tud
en
ts
1999-2002 % of Graduates Attending College 2005 % of Graduats Using GRAD Scholarships to Attend College
Project GRAD Students Attending College in 2006
Project GRAD Students Attending College in 2006
Current % of Students Attending College in 2006
Atlanta13%
Columbus4%
Houston59%
Knoxville6%
Los Angeles9%
Newark9%
Atlanta Columbus Houston Knoxville Los Angeles Newark
Current % of Students Attending College in 2006
Atlanta13%
Columbus4%
Houston59%
Knoxville6%
Los Angeles9%
Newark9%
Atlanta Columbus Houston Knoxville Los Angeles Newark
Results of Project GRADResults of Project GRAD
Number of high school graduates increased by 94%
Number of students going to college has increased 400%
Graduates are completing college at a rate that is 70% higher than national average
Number of high school graduates increased by 94%
Number of students going to college has increased 400%
Graduates are completing college at a rate that is 70% higher than national average
Cost of Project GRADCost of Project GRAD
Average cost is $500 per student 5% of the total amount spent to educate a
public school student
Costs are covered by reallocating existing funds
Administrative costs are 8% of Project GRAD’s overall cost
Average cost is $500 per student 5% of the total amount spent to educate a
public school student
Costs are covered by reallocating existing funds
Administrative costs are 8% of Project GRAD’s overall cost
Advantages to Project GRAD(mdrc 2006)
Advantages to Project GRAD(mdrc 2006)
Uses a “feeder” program structure Encourages the push for students to be
better prepared for Project GRAD high schools
Provides financial support for college Strives to change the learning environment Plans for long range reform
Uses a “feeder” program structure Encourages the push for students to be
better prepared for Project GRAD high schools
Provides financial support for college Strives to change the learning environment Plans for long range reform
Disadvantages to Project GRAD(mdrc 2006)
Disadvantages to Project GRAD(mdrc 2006)
Lacks curriculum reform Does not address specific skill deficits of students Lacks staff development for instructional content Is not having the anticipated quick improvement
for student achievement Has not dealt with the “leaks” in the feeder system
Students moving into the high school that did not have the advantage of the feeder school
Transitions of families in and out of the schools
Lacks curriculum reform Does not address specific skill deficits of students Lacks staff development for instructional content Is not having the anticipated quick improvement
for student achievement Has not dealt with the “leaks” in the feeder system
Students moving into the high school that did not have the advantage of the feeder school
Transitions of families in and out of the schools
What Do We Belive About Project GRAD?
What Do We Belive About Project GRAD?
Appears to be too good to be true Too young of a reform to make a solid judgment
on the program Rated as a moderate reform program Has the potential to be a great reform program for
a school system if the program addresses missing attributes
The reform addresses the whole child not just the academic portion
Appears to be too good to be true Too young of a reform to make a solid judgment
on the program Rated as a moderate reform program Has the potential to be a great reform program for
a school system if the program addresses missing attributes
The reform addresses the whole child not just the academic portion
ResourcesResources
Project GRAD USA (2006 update), “Project GRAD Houston, Texas”. November 12, 2006 http:www.projectgrad.org
Snipes, J., Holton, G., Doolittle, F., Sztejnberg, L., (July 2006) “Striving for Student Success”, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC). November 12, 2006 http:www.mdrc.org
Interview with Ms. Montina Jones, Knoxville County School District, Knoxville, Tennessee
Project GRAD USA (2006 update), “Project GRAD Houston, Texas”. November 12, 2006 http:www.projectgrad.org
Snipes, J., Holton, G., Doolittle, F., Sztejnberg, L., (July 2006) “Striving for Student Success”, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC). November 12, 2006 http:www.mdrc.org
Interview with Ms. Montina Jones, Knoxville County School District, Knoxville, Tennessee