Roadmap for the Underprepared:

Creating Success Highways by Institutionalizing Early Interventions

The Road Crew…



Joan Kindle

, Associate Provost 

Kimberley Polly

, Mathematics Instructor 

Laura LaBauve

, Associate Dean Multicultural Learning 

Kathi Nevels

, Student Development Professor

Today’s Map…

 Harper College Context  Overview of Three Intervention Pathways for the Underprepared 

High School/Community College Partnership



REACH Summer Bridge Program



Project Success: Early Intervention

 Value of Integration and Institutionalization — 

Discussion and Questions

Harper College Demographics

 Credit Headcount = 17,000  Full time Equivalent = 10,170  Caucasian = 58%  Female = 56%  Developmental Math = 43%  Developmental English = 15%  Developmental Reading = 18%  High School Headcount = 28,000  High School Graduates = 6,600  % Graduates Enroll at Harper = 35%

Beginning the Student Success Journey



Joined ATD in 2009



Achievement Gaps:



Developmental Ed



Developmental Math



African American Students



New President 2009



New Strategic Plan 2010-

Building Community Through Student Success



Northwest Educational Council for Student Success 2010



Merged Academic and Student Affairs 2010

The Result…..

 Bringing all units across the college and the district together to build a new, proactive and more personalized pathway from high school to Harper and through Harper to graduation.

Mathematics Partnership…



Why did we do this?

   Shared data opened doors for communication.

Districts were not aware that about 56% of their graduates who came to us were placing into developmental math.

Districts were not aware that there existing “catch-all” senior math course had the wrong topics.

  Districts were not aware that about 1/3 of their graduates were coming to Harper.

Common Core.

Mathematics Partnership…

How did we start?

Harper and District 211 begin COMPASS testing of high school juniors

Mathematics Partnership…



Course Alignment Begins



Project to align high school algebra 2 and Harper’s intermediate algebra.



Shared syllabi and final exams.



Math faculty from all 12 feeder high schools and Harper jointly write a test bank for a common final (for high school and Harper students.) Common final given in May 2012.



Results helped to foster more communication.

Mathematics Partnership…



Need math senior year Development Math

051: Arithmetic 055: Pre-Algebra 060: Beginning Algebra 080: Intermediate Algebra

Percentage with no senior math class

74% 42% 53% 39%

Mathematics Partnership…



Used Compass math test in junior year to encourage senior math enrollment Percentage of Juniors Who Enrolled in Senior Math

Year Fall 2009 College Track Algebra 2 Junior Year 85% Regular Track Algebra 2 Junior Year 76% Fall 2010 89% 89%

Mathematics Partnership…



Need developmental math option for senior year.

 Many students have “passed” high school algebra 1, geometry and algebra 2 but do not meet requirements for AP or dual credit coursework senior year.

 New senior math course created. Replaced high school trig/stat class with Harper’s MTH080 class.

 Only 4 trig questions on ACT out of 60 questions.

Mathematics Partnership…



1 st Check: Freshmen Year

 Communicate to parents that their child will need 4 years of high school math.  In 1973, 72% of jobs required a high school diploma or less. That dropped to 41% in 2007 and is projected to drop to 38% in 2018.

 Many certificate and 2-year programs require some sort of math competency.

Mathematics Partnership…



2 nd Check: Junior Year End

o Look at multiple measures o ACT math score o Compass placement score o MTH080 final exam score o Place in correct senior math o Upper STEM: AP Calc o Upper Non-STEM: AP Stats o STEM: dual credit MTH103 o Non-STEM: dual credit MTH101 (Quant Lit) o Those not ready: MTH080

Mathematics Partnership…



3rd Check: Senior Mid-Year

o Over 90% of the district seniors are enrolling in senior math, but completion rates are a concern. o Intervention needed with student, counselor and parent(s).

o Not successfully completing a math course senior year costs time and money. MTH060 + MTH080 + repeat = $1470.

o Waste 3 semesters getting to college-level math and many never get there when they have to repeat high school-level coursework.

o Of those students who start in the lowest 2 developmental math classes, only about 14% make it out of developmental math.

Mathematics Partnership…



4th Check: End of Senior Year for those taking MTH080 and going to Harper after graduation

o If they pass the MTH080 final, they are told to register right away for a college-level math course.

o If they do not pass the MTH080 final, they are given access to MyMathTest to help prep for the Compass placement exam.

o o

7% increase in college-level math 11% decrease in the lowest developmental math class (050 level classes)

Bridge to Harper… for the underprepared.

REACH Summer Bridge…

Student Profile

 Two developmental courses or a sequence of developmental courses  Emphasis on students of color 

Program Intensive, two-week program

   Pre and Post COMPASS exam 6 cohorts grouped by math level Academic workshops by faculty   Math, Reading and Writing Workshops by counselors  Personal, financial and social issues associated with attending college

REACH Summer Bridge…

Desired Outcomes: Improve placement scores Overall performance:

   11% tested into ALL college-level courses 34% tested into at least one college-level course 80% increased placement scores in at least one area

Content area performance:

   26% tested OUT of Reading 32% tested into college-level ENG101 11% tested into a college-level Math course

REACH Summer Bridge…

Desired Outcomes: Increase the number of students who immediately start the developmental sequence.

 98% testing into developmental RDG began the sequence (ATD comparison group - 60%)  73% testing into developmental ENG began the sequence (ATD comparison group - 54%)  86% testing into developmental MTH began the sequence (ATD comparison group - 43%)

REACH Summer Bridge…

Desired Outcomes: Increase the success rate of students who enroll in developmental courses.

 90% of students taking a

developmental RDG099

course successfully completed (ATD comparison group – 62%)  53% of students taking a

developmental ENG100

course successfully completed (ATD comparison group – 60%)  48% of students taking a

developmental MTH080

course successfully completed. (ATD comparison group – 22%)

REACH Summer Bridge…

Desired Outcomes: Increase the progression of developmental students through the developmental sequence.

 64% of students successfully completing

RDG090 enrolled in RDG099

(ATD comparison group – 47%)  88% of students successfully completing

ENG098 enrolled in ENG100

(ATD comparison group – 39%)  80% of students successfully completing (ATD comparison group – 72%)

MTH050 enrolled in MTH060

 60% of students successfully completing (ATD comparison group – 67%)

MTH060 enrolled in MTH080

REACH Summer Bridge…

Desired Outcomes: Success and Persistence

 64% of the REACH students obtained a 2.0 or higher Fall GPA (ATD comparison group - 45%)  The Fall to Spring persistence rate of REACH students - 80% (Institutional average is 73.1%)

REACH Summer Bridge…

Desired Outcomes: Increase student engagement with & understanding of college

 97% more familiar with campus resources  97% could identify reasons for being in college   89% felt a sense of community and belonging 97% understood Harper’s educational policies and procedures

REACH Summer Bridge…

Institutionalization

 Growth of Student Cohort    from a 34 student pilot to 125 students Scaling to 225 – meeting the needs of district high schools Expanding to integrate with the high schools-- reach juniors  Incremental Growth Model     Manage cohort size Increase faculty involvement Facility management Incremental budget requests

REACH Summer Bridge…

Transformation

  From Summer to Fall Fall enrollment in First Year Seminar   time management; study skills; career planning; and transfer/educational Planning Math, Reading, English ‘mini’ cohorts   Learning Communities Mandatory Meetings with Counselors – Case Management  Tracking students during Spring semester and beyond  Involvement in Early Alert

Project Success: Early Alert …



Target Population

 First-year students who are recent high school graduates  Place and enroll in two or more developmental courses or levels of developmental courses  Approximately 800 – 900 identified  335 students chosen for Fall 2011 Pilot

Project Success: Process

Faculty sent surveys at Week 4 and Week 6 to “flag” students in need of assistance “Flagged” students assigned a counselor and meet with counselor to develop a success plan Counselors refer students to other support services as needed, continue to monitor student progress and “close the loop” with faculty

Project Success: Results

278 faculty had one or more of the 335 pilot students in their classes 191 (69%) of the faculty in the pilot completed the survey 189 (56%) of the pilot students were flagged for concerns 145 (77%) of flagged students met with their counselor

Project Success: Results

 Pilot students persisted Fall-to-Spring at a higher rate than students in the Control Group 

80% for Pilot students; 77.2% for Control Group

 Pilot students had a higher Completer Success Rate for All Courses than students in the Control Group 

60.6% for Pilot students; 58.4% for Control Group

 Pilot students overall had a slightly higher Completer Success Rate for Developmental Courses than students in the Control Group 

62% for Pilot students; 61% for Control Group

Project Success: Results



More pronounced positive results when compare students who saw counselors vs. those who did not

Fall-to-Spring Persistence

Cohort

PS – Flagged PS - Not Flagged Control Group

Counselor

82.1% 94.8% 88.3%

No Counselor

47.7% 83.0% 67.1%

Difference

34.4 11.8

21.2

Project Success: Results

Completer Success Rate – All Courses

Cohort

PS – Flagged PS - Not Flagged Control Group

Counselor

58.6% 72.3% 70.1%

No Counselor

28.6% 72.7% 46.8%

Difference

30 -.4

23.3

Completer Success Rate – Developmental Courses

Cohort

PS – Flagged PS - Not Flagged Control Group

Counselor

58.6% 76.8% 74.4%

No Counselor

31.9% 75.5% 48.6%

Difference

26.7

1.3

25.8

Project Success: Lessons Learned



What worked…

 Faculty Participation - Liaison  Project Success Specialist  Counselor – Student Appointment 

What we changed for 2012/2013 Pilot…

 Pre-assign counselors to all pilot students  Include all REACH students  Monitor for the full year  Revise survey timing: 1) Weeks 4-6 and 2) Week 11  Add faculty referrals to academic support services  Use “Kudos” feature in Starfish

Project Success: Results Fall ‘12

300 faculty had one or more of the 389 pilot students in their classes 189 (63%) of the faculty in the pilot completed the survey 245 (63%) of the pilot students were flagged for concerns 182 (74%) of flagged students met with their counselor

Awarded more than 4,400 degrees and certificates for FY2012, an increase of more than 600 from last year.

Discussion Time

Thank You!!

Joan Kindle [email protected]

Kimberley Polly [email protected]

Laura LaBauve [email protected]

Kathi Nevels [email protected]