Transcript WELCOME President’s Advisory Committee INAM Conference

WELCOME
President’s Advisory Committee
INAM Conference
Harper College
June, 2014
INAM College Presidents
College
College of DuPage
College of Lake County
Daley (City Colleges of Chicago)
Danville Area Community College
Elgin Community College
Harper College
Illinois Eastern Community College
Illinois Valley Community College
John Wood Community College
Joliet Junior College
Kankakee Community College
Kishwaukee College
Lincoln Land Community College
McHenry County College
Oakton Community College
Prairie State College
Richland Community College
South Suburban College
Southwestern Illinois College
Triton College
Waubonsee Community College
President
Dr. Robert Breuder
Dr. Jerry Weber
Dr. Jose Aybar
Dr. Alice Marie Jacobs
Dr. David Sam
Dr. Ken Ender
Mr. Terry Bruce
Dr. Jerry Corcoran
Mr. Michael Elbe
Dr. Debra Daniels
Dr. John Avendano
Dr. Tom Choice
Dr. Charlotte Warren
Dr. Vicky Smith
Dr. Margaret Lee
Dr. Terri Winfree
Dr. Gayle Saunders
Mr. Don Manning
Dr. Georgia Costello
Dr. Patricia Granados
Dr. Christine Sobek
Earn & Learn Model
Grant Strategy Flowchart
5 Core Elements for all
TAACCCT 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 Deliverables
1. 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 postenrollment.
Priorities & Strategies
Priority 1.0
Strategy 1.1
Strategy 1.2
Priority 2.0
Strategy 2.1
Strategy 2.2
Strategy 2.3
Strategy 2.4
Priority 3.0
Create educational plans that provide a clear pathway and lattice to industry-recognized credentials in advanced
manufacturing.
Develop educational plans outlining coursework and timelines.
Develop a mechanism for awarding academic credit for prior learning.
Implement programs along the career pathway and lattice that meet advanced manufacturing industry needs and result in
industry-recognized credentials and/or associate degrees.
Offer bridge programs in technical skills.
Offer programming leading to the National Career Readiness Certificate (NCRC).
Enhance programming in areas of specialization certificate programs.
Offer associate degree completion.
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.
Develop partnerships with employers that include paid internships and on-the-job training opportunities in advanced
Priority 4.0
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
Strategy 5.1
Strategy 5.2
Provide placement services that connect students to available jobs in advanced manufacturing.
Develop a platform that provides job posting capabilities for employers and résumé posting for students.
Enhance the image of advanced manufacturing.
Improve articulation of credit between two-year and four-year colleges to facilitate pursuit of additional education in
Priority 6.0
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?
What we know about INAM so far…
INAM Programs of Study among 18 Community
Colleges currently counting students
3%
Welding (Metalworking)
Student Demographics
Gender
Male
833
Female
69
5%
7%
Precision machining (CNC)
Age
33%
Certified production technician
(CPT)
Mechatronics
21%
Maintenance
Bridge
31%
Entering Education Level
Graduate school:
Four year degree:
Some college:
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
INAM Student Classification
585
General
Student
< 20
20 - 29
30 - 39
40 - 49
50 - 59
60 - 69
> 70
31
27
95
431
190
111
65
17
1
Race / Ethnicity
GED:
800
600
400
200
0
Average
Median
146
79
60
25
Incumbent
Worker
Dislocated
Worker
Veteran
TAA eligible
350
White
Hispanic/Latino
Black or African
American
Unknown
Asian
More than one race
American Indian or
Alaska
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
68%
13%
11%
4%
2%
2%
0.3%
0.1%
Budget Scorecard Snapshot
INAM Consortium Colleges
College of DuPage
College of Lake County
Daley City Colleges of Chicago
Danville Area Community College
Elgin Community College
Harper College
Illinois Eastern Community College
Illinois Valley Community College
John Wood Community College
Joliet Junior College
Kankakee Community College
Kishwaukee College
Lincoln Land Community College
McHenry County College
Oakton Community College
Prairie State College
Richland Community College
South Suburban College
Southwestern Illinois College
Triton College
Waubonsee Community College
TOTALS:
Total 4-Year
Grant Award
$ 520,015
$ 525,769
$
86,335
$ 525,654
$ 525,769
$ 515,000
$ 525,769
$ 525,769
$ 525,769
$ 525,769
$ 525,769
$ 525,616
$ 525,769
$ 525,743
$ 525,769
$ 525,769
$ 525,755
$ 525,769
$ 525,769
$ 522,306
$ 525,769
$ 10,581,421
Expended
To-Date
$ 158,172
$ 227,591
$
6,950
$ 116,133
$ 260,237
$ 426,396
$ 232,617
$ 82,230
$ 335,357
$ 247,623
$ 285,807
$ 185,480
$ 164,801
$ 311,792
$ 178,447
$ 275,026
$ 107,837
$ 347,268
$ 200,951
$ 269,357
$ 397,221
$ 4,817,291
Balance
Remaining
$ 361,843
$ 298,178
$ 79,385
$ 409,521
$ 265,532
$ 88,604
$ 293,152
$ 443,539
$ 190,412
$ 278,146
$ 239,962
$ 340,136
$ 360,968
$ 213,951
$ 347,322
$ 250,743
$ 417,918
$ 178,501
$ 324,818
$ 252,949
$ 128,548
$ 5,764,130
% of Goal
Achievement
30.42%
43.29%
8.05%
22.09%
49.50%
82.80%
44.24%
15.64%
63.78%
47.10%
54.36%
35.29%
31.34%
59.30%
33.94%
52.31%
20.51%
66.05%
38.22%
51.57%
75.55%
45.53%
Projections from Colleges
on DOL Deliverables
INAM Grant Consortium Unique
Participants Year 1 & 2
Consortium Members
College of DuPage
College of Lake County
Danville Area Comm. College
Daley-City Colleges Chicago
Elgin Comm. College
Illinois Eastern Comm. Colleges
Illinois Valley Comm. College
John Wood Comm. College
Joliet Junior College
Kankakee Comm. College
Kishwaukee College
Lincoln Land Comm. College
McHenry County College
Oakton Comm. College
Prairie State College
Richland Comm. College
South Suburban College
Southwestern Illinois College
Triton College
Waubonsee Comm. College
Wm. Rainey Harper College
TOTAL
27
40
0
55
49
0
49
79
75
11
87
50
58
24
7
34
10
55
27
0
130
Projected Students
Year1 + Year 2
10
13
30
62
112
91
89
103
82
86
57
82
133
100
78
42
86
45
69
20
80
867
1470
Students Enrolled
Difference in Participants
17
27
-30
-7
-63
-91
-40
-24
-7
-75
30
-32
-75
-76
-71
-8
-76
10
-42
-20
50
-603
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
EVALUATION OF INAM
Paul T. Bucci PhD, LLC;
Westat, Inc.; and
GEM Software Development, Inc.
JUNE 11, 2014
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
Year 1*
Indicator
Target
Year 2
Actual
Target
Actual
Four-year total
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 buyin.
• 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.
•
•
Project directors had mixed views of ed plans
•
•
•
•
•
•
Note: students’ course-taking patterns could be affected by
the educational plans even if students are not aware they are
getting something new.
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 programs
Source: 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 visits
30
Reasons Why Students Came to iNAM
Other
8%
I had a specific
career goal
that requires
more training
37%
I lost my job and wanted to
start working in a new area
13%
I wanted to
change from
my existing job
to a higher
paying job
35%
I lost my job
and decided I
needed more
training
7%
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%
39.1
Other
8%
32.0
Source: iNAM database; N=890; Data as of 6-4-14
32
Reasons Why Students Left iNAM
Reason
Completed certificate or degree
Number Percent
Mean
age
117
55%
30.1
Personal reasons
9
4%
32.1
Financial reasons
11
5%
30.0
Work requirements
15
7%
30.0
Poor academic performance
2
1%
25.0
New job
2
1%
23.5
Other
58
27%
30.1
Source: iNAM database; N=214; Data as of 6-4-14
33
Student Course-Taking
Measure
Mean Minimum
Maximum
Number of courses per student
3.2
1
12
Total credits attempted
9.0
0
36
Total credits earned
8.3
0
35
Of credits attempted, mean
percentage earned
92.5
0
100
Grade point average
3.2
0
4
Source: iNAM database; Data as of 6-4-14
34
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