WELCOME President’s Advisory Committee

INAM ConferenceHarper College

June, 2014

INAM College Presidents

College PresidentCollege of DuPage Dr. Robert BreuderCollege of Lake County Dr. Jerry Weber Daley (City Colleges of Chicago) Dr. Jose Aybar

Danville Area Community College Dr. Alice Marie Jacobs

Elgin Community College Dr. David Sam

Harper College Dr. Ken Ender

Illinois Eastern Community College Mr. Terry Bruce

Illinois Valley Community College Dr. Jerry Corcoran

John Wood Community College Mr. Michael Elbe

Joliet Junior College Dr. Debra Daniels

Kankakee Community College Dr. John AvendanoKishwaukee College Dr. Tom Choice

Lincoln Land Community College Dr. Charlotte Warren

McHenry County College Dr. Vicky Smith

Oakton Community College Dr. Margaret Lee

Prairie State College Dr. Terri Winfree

Richland Community College Dr. Gayle Saunders

South Suburban College Mr. Don Manning

Southwestern Illinois College Dr. Georgia Costello

Triton College Dr. Patricia Granados

Waubonsee Community College Dr. Christine Sobek

Earn & Learn Model

Grant Strategy Flowchart

5 Core Elements for allTAACCCT Projects

• Use of Evidence in Program Design• Stacked and Latticed Credentials• Online and Technology-Enabled Learning• Transferability and Articulation• Strategic Alignment

Consortium Members Roles & Responsibilities

• Curriculum Development• Training Materials• Advisory Assistance• In-kind Resources• Recruitment of Trainees• Certification/Degrees/Accreditation• Job Placement Assistance

9 Deliverables1. Total of unique participants served (new students).

2. Total number of participants completing a TAACCCT-funded program of study.

3. Total number of participant still retained in their program of study or other TAACCCT-funded program.

4. Total number of participants completing credit hours.

5. Total number of credentials awarded.

6. Total number of participants enrolled in further education after TAACCCT-funded program of study completion.

7. Total number of participants employed after TAACCCT-funded program of study completion.

8. Total number of participants retained in employment after program of study completion.

9. Total number of those participants employed at enrollment who received a wage increase post-enrollment.

Priorities & Strategies

Priority 1.0 Create educational plans that provide a clear pathway and lattice to industry-recognized credentials in advanced manufacturing.

Strategy 1.1 Develop educational plans outlining coursework and timelines.Strategy 1.2 Develop a mechanism for awarding academic credit for prior learning.

Priority 2.0

Implement programs along the career pathway and lattice that meet advanced manufacturing industry needs and result in industry-recognized credentials and/or associate degrees.

Strategy 2.1 Offer bridge programs in technical skills.Strategy 2.2 Offer programming leading to the National Career Readiness Certificate (NCRC).Strategy 2.3 Enhance programming in areas of specialization certificate programs.Strategy 2.4 Offer associate degree completion.

Priority 3.0 Develop online and technology-enabled learning by strategically aligning INAM programs with technology purchased by the Illinois Green Economy Network (IGEN), a first-round TAA awardee.

Strategy 3.1 Engage in a partnership with IGEN in using National Training Education Resource (NTER) System.

Priority 4.0 Develop partnerships with employers that include paid internships and on-the-job training opportunities in advanced manufacturing.

Strategy 4.1 Engage employers to secure paid internships and on-the-job training.Strategy 4.2 Conduct regular employer input and feedback sessions.

Priority 5.0 Provide placement services that connect students to available jobs in advanced manufacturing.

Strategy 5.1 Develop a platform that provides job posting capabilities for employers and résumé posting for students.Strategy 5.2 Enhance the image of advanced manufacturing.

Priority 6.0 Improve articulation of credit between two-year and four-year colleges to facilitate pursuit of additional education in advanced manufacturing.

Strategy 6.1 Develop articulation agreements with four-year colleges and universities.

www.inam.net

Continuous Quality Improvement for INAM Strategies

Monthly Activity Report

Where do we get our data?

33%

31%

21%

7%5%

3%

INAM Programs of Study among 18 Community Colleges currently counting students

Welding (Metalworking)

Precision machining (CNC)

Certified production technician (CPT)

Mechatronics

Maintenance

Bridge

What we know about INAM so far…

Some college:High school diploma:

GED:Two-year degree:Four year degree:Some high school:Graduate school:

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Entering Education Level

Male 833Female 69

Average 31Median 27

< 20 9520 - 29 43130 - 39 19040 - 49 11150 - 59 6560 - 69 17

> 70 1

White 68%Hispanic/Latino 13%Black or African American 11%Unknown 4%Asian 2%More than one race 2%American Indian or Alaska 0.3%Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.1%

Race / Ethnicity

Student Demographics

Age

Gender

INAM Student Classification

General Student

Incumbent Worker

Dislocated Worker

Veteran TAA eligible0

100200300400500600700 585

14679 60 25

INAM Consortium Colleges Total 4-Year Grant Award

Expended To-Date

Balance Remaining

% of Goal Achievement

College of DuPage $ 520,015 $ 158,172 $ 361,843 30.42%College of Lake County $ 525,769 $ 227,591 $ 298,178 43.29%Daley City Colleges of Chicago $ 86,335 $ 6,950 $ 79,385 8.05%Danville Area Community College $ 525,654 $ 116,133 $ 409,521 22.09%Elgin Community College $ 525,769 $ 260,237 $ 265,532 49.50%Harper College $ 515,000 $ 426,396 $ 88,604 82.80%Illinois Eastern Community College $ 525,769 $ 232,617 $ 293,152 44.24%Illinois Valley Community College $ 525,769 $ 82,230 $ 443,539 15.64%John Wood Community College $ 525,769 $ 335,357 $ 190,412 63.78%Joliet Junior College $ 525,769 $ 247,623 $ 278,146 47.10%Kankakee Community College $ 525,769 $ 285,807 $ 239,962 54.36%Kishwaukee College $ 525,616 $ 185,480 $ 340,136 35.29%Lincoln Land Community College $ 525,769 $ 164,801 $ 360,968 31.34%McHenry County College $ 525,743 $ 311,792 $ 213,951 59.30%Oakton Community College $ 525,769 $ 178,447 $ 347,322 33.94%Prairie State College $ 525,769 $ 275,026 $ 250,743 52.31%Richland Community College $ 525,755 $ 107,837 $ 417,918 20.51%South Suburban College $ 525,769 $ 347,268 $ 178,501 66.05%Southwestern Illinois College $ 525,769 $ 200,951 $ 324,818 38.22%Triton College $ 522,306 $ 269,357 $ 252,949 51.57%Waubonsee Community College $ 525,769 $ 397,221 $ 128,548 75.55%

TOTALS: $ 10,581,421 $ 4,817,291 $ 5,764,130 45.53%

Budget Scorecard Snapshot

Projections from Colleges on DOL Deliverables

Consortium Members Students Enrolled Projected Students Year1 + Year 2 Difference in Participants

College of DuPage 27 10 17College of Lake County 40 13 27Danville Area Comm. College 0 30 -30Daley-City Colleges Chicago 55 62 -7Elgin Comm. College 49 112 -63Illinois Eastern Comm. Colleges 0 91 -91Illinois Valley Comm. College 49 89 -40John Wood Comm. College 79 103 -24Joliet Junior College 75 82 -7Kankakee Comm. College 11 86 -75Kishwaukee College 87 57 30Lincoln Land Comm. College 50 82 -32McHenry County College 58 133 -75Oakton Comm. College 24 100 -76Prairie State College 7 78 -71Richland Comm. College 34 42 -8South Suburban College 10 86 -76Southwestern Illinois College 55 45 10Triton College 27 69 -42Waubonsee Comm. College 0 20 -20Wm. Rainey Harper College 130 80 50

TOTAL 867 1470 -603

INAM Grant Consortium Unique Participants Year 1 & 2

Certificate Offerings by College

Currently on INAM Website

Course Syllabi Criteria

1. Course Details (college, course name / number, credits, pre-requisites)

2. Contact information for faculty or department representative

3. Course Description

4. Textbook(s), required readings, videos, CDs or other teaching materials

5. Student Learning Objectives / Outcomes

6. Course Outline (weekly activities / topics covered)

7. Assessment / Evaluation / Measurement of student learning

8. Required DOL Statement (which was included for faculty)

Presentation by the Evaluator Team

Paul T. Bucci, PhD, LLC

J U N E 1 1 , 2 0 1 4

Paul T. Bucci PhD, LLC; Westat, Inc.; and

GEM Software Development, Inc.

EVALUATION OF INAM

What We Have Done• Collected data on individual students

• Entrance survey• Transcript and other college record data• Exit surveys

• Conducted focus groups and interview• In October 2013 iNAM meeting• At seven colleges in spring 2014

• College of Lake County, Elgin, John Wood, Kishwaukee, Lincoln Land, McHenry, Richland

• Conducted surveys• In October 2013 iNAM meeting• Student entrance and exit surveys (as noted above)

• Wrote first annual report• Customized database• Provided technical and capacity-building assistance

21

What We Plan

• Additional data collection• Additional rounds of existing data collections• Followup surveys of students• Wage data from IDES• Collection of data on comparison group

• Additional analyses• Review by content experts• Program impact analysis

• Additional reporting• Two additional annual formative evaluation reports• Final summative evaluation report

22

What We Can Tell You

• It’s premature to look at outcome data.• We can report on the process

• What has been done• How it is perceived• What obstacles have been encountered• What remains to be done

23

Enrollment Targets and Achievements

IndicatorYear 1* Year 2 Four-year total

Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual (to date)

Total Unique Participants Served 587 12 883 873 2,487 885

Total Number of Participants Completing a TAACCCT-Funded Program of Study

222 0 452 112 1,292 112

*At DOL’s recommendation, iNAM devoted year 1 to program design.Source: iNAM database

24

Findings

• There is neither a uniform iNAM experience nor a uniform program impact.• Some institutions have changed much more than others

• Particularly those with new or initially small programs versus larger and established programs

• In recent site visits to 7 colleges, 5 reported no changes in the characteristics of their student populations, while 2 colleges reported change (the changes included getting more high-risk students and getting older students).

Source: Site visits

25

Buy-in

• There is tremendous variation in the amount of buy-in.• Students often are unaware of iNAM.

• Students seem to care because of the in-district tuition feature (and possibly for additional course-taking options).

• Awareness of the consortium increases the credibility of the program, and makes it easier to recruit them to it.

• Faculty vary in awareness• It may be the weakest programs that see the greatest value

in collaboration.

Source: Site visits

26

Targeting and Recruitment

• The average age may be slightly higher than normal (31 vs. 29).

• Few (3 percent) are TAA eligible.• Few (4 percent) are eligible Veterans.

Source: iNAM database; N=899

27

Educational Plans

• Both faculty and students are often unaware they exist.• Note: students’ course-taking patterns could be affected by the

educational plans even if students are not aware they are getting something new.

• Project directors had mixed views of ed plans• 4 saw benefits from counseling students• 1 saw little change from what the college was already

doing• 1 felt the plan most helped students in multiple semesters• 1 described the plan as a tool to help students get out

quickly• Educational Plan as a requirement to participate in

iNAM programsSource: Site visits

28

Purchasing

• Many view equipment as a primary benefit of grant

• Some were disappointed they couldn’t buy more because of confusion over the rules

• Comprise close to half (47%) of iNAM expenditures overall as of March 17, 2014.• For 4 colleges, equipment is more than 75% of

expenditures• For another 5 colleges, it is more than 60% of

expenditures• For 6 colleges, it is less than 30%Source: Budget data; focus groups

29

Curriculum

• There is a potential disconnect between for-credit and noncredit courses.

• “Tweaking of courses” varies substantially in meaning.• Some report making no important changes to courses.• At the other extreme, it may include entirely new

courses.• Project directors tended to have a more positive view

than faculty did, particularly commenting on the value of new courses, the ability to earn certificates meeting national standards, and the advantages of students of getting more lab time

Source: Site visits30

Reasons Why Students Came to iNAM

I lost my job and decided I needed

more training7%

I wanted to change from my existing job

to a higher paying job35%

I had a specific ca-reer goal that re-

quires more training37%

Other8%

I lost my job and wanted to start working in a new area

13%

Source: iNAM database; N=890 31

Reasons Why Students Came to iNAM

Reason Percent Mean age

I had a specific career goal that requires more training 37% 25.9

I wanted to change from my existing job to a higher paying job 35% 28.3

I lost my job and wanted to start working in a new area 13% 38.5

I lost my job and decided I needed more training 7% 39.1Other 8% 32.0

Source: iNAM database; N=890; Data as of 6-4-14

32

Reasons Why Students Left iNAMReason Numbe

rPercent

Mean age

Completed certificate or degree 117 55% 30.1Personal reasons 9 4% 32.1Financial reasons 11 5% 30.0Work requirements 15 7% 30.0Poor academic performance 2 1% 25.0New job 2 1% 23.5Other 58 27% 30.1

Source: iNAM database; N=214; Data as of 6-4-1433

Student Course-Taking

Measure Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Number of courses per student

3.2 1 12

Total credits attempted 9.0 0 36Total credits earned 8.3 0 35Of credits attempted, mean percentage earned 92.5 0 100

Grade point average 3.2 0 4

Source: iNAM database; Data as of 6-4-1434

Student Activities and Supports

• Participated in internship: 7 of 96 (7%)• Joint projects with businesses as classwork: 13 of

95 (14%)• Received financial aid: 54 of 89 (61%)• Received educational counseling: 47 of 84 (56%)• Received job placement: 23 of 79 (29%)• Received tutoring: 32 of 83 (39%)

Source: Exit surveys; Data as of 6-4-14

35

Your Time to Ask Questions

Questions&

Answers