1. CCTI Year Three Research Findings
League for Innovation
Atlanta, GA
March 20, 2006
1/17/2019

2. Who is JBL Associates?
Called in to help after previous contractor had to withdraw because of change in ownership
We have worked on similar projects
1/17/2019

3. What are we Trying to Do?
Provide continuation and improvement of the data collection and reporting in the current project
Provide help to colleges in using the data for internal management purposes
Develop a model based on longitudinal student-level data that other colleges can use
1/17/2019

4. Third Year Evaluation
1/17/2019

5. Building a Culture of Evidence
1/17/2019

6. More Ways to go Wrong than Right
Good Implementation
Good Pathway Design
Bad Implementation
Bad Pathway Design
1/17/2019

7. Objectives Decrease Remediation Improve Enrollment Persistence
Improve Academic Achievement
Increase the Number of Postsecondary Degrees
Increase Progress in Education or Work
1/17/2019

8. Objective 1: Decrease Remediation
Measures
Indicators of achievement of objective
Rate remediation decreases
Percentage decrease
Number of students in pathway
Total CCTI Summary for all Partner sites
Total number of CCTI and high school students in CCTI pathways
Key indicators
Percent needing remediation:
Math: %
Reading: 25.6%
Writing: %
Math: %
Reading: 18.5%
Writing: %
1/17/2019

9. Objective 2: Enrollment Persistence
Measures
Indicators of achievement of objective
Number and percentage persisting
Completion rates
NSSE/CESSE data on engagement
Total CCTI Summary for all Partner sites
Total number of CCTI pathway students persisting
Key indicators
Total enrollment 2,672
Total enrollment: 4,997
Up 87%
Site persistence: 70.7%
HS persistence: 38.7%
1/17/2019

10. Objective 3: Academic Achievement
Measures
Indicators of achievement of objective
Remedial test results
Improvement on GPA and course grades over time
College-level credit earned by high school students
Total CCTI Summary for all Partner sites
Total number of CCTI pathway students tested & entered pathways
Key indicators
65.5% of HS students earned college credit
67.3% of HS students earned college credit
1/17/2019

11. Objective 4: Postsecondary Degrees
Measures
Indicators of achievement of objective
Number of postsecondary degrees, certificates, or licenses earned
Pathway degrees vs. non-pathway degrees earned
Total CCTI Summary for all Partner sites
Total number of CCTI pathway students receiving degrees or certificates
Key indicators
No degrees yet awarded
1/17/2019

12. Objective 5: Further Education or Work
Measures
Indicators of achievement of objective
Transfer rates into further higher education
Job attainment numbers
Pathway student achievement vs. non-Pathway
Total CCTI Summary for all Partner sites
Total number of CCTI pathway students transferred, job entry
Key indicators
No graduates to date
1/17/2019

13. Aggregate Measures of Success
1/17/2019

14. Number of Participating High Schools40 48 55 20 60
Year
Number
Fall 2003
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
1/17/2019

15. Number of Enrollees at CCTI Partner High Schools by Grade (2004 and 2005)
888
903
1,145
1,627
466
524
743
758
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Number
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
9th Grade
10th Grade
11th Grade
12th Grade
2004 Total HS Enrollment
2,491
2005 Total HS Enrollment
Percent Increase
4,563
+83%
1/17/2019

16. Persistence from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Cohort 2
Percent
HS Graduates Spring 2005
Students in CCTI Sites Fall 2005
(No. of Enrollees/ No. of Graduates)
Anne Arundel Community College 44 17
38.6%
Maricopa Community Colleges 74 95
128.4%
Lorain County Community College
122 39
32.0%
Subtotal
240
151
62.9%
1/17/2019

17. Persistence from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005
HEALTH SCIENCE
Cohort 2
Percent
HS Graduates Spring 2005
Students in CCTI Sites Fall 2005
(No. of Enrollees/ No. of Graduates)
Ivy Tech CC of Indiana 30 6
20.0%
Miami Dade College
100.0%
Northern Virginia CC 33 3
9.1%
Subtotal 69 15
21.7%
1/17/2019

18. Persistence from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Cohort 2
Percent
HS Graduates Spring 2005
Students in CCTI Sites Fall 2005
(No. of Enrollees/ No. of Graduates)
Central Piedmont CC 87 10
11.5%
Corning Community College 43 3
7.0%
Southwestern Oregon CC 1
0.0%
Subtotal
131 13
9.9%
1/17/2019

19. Persistence from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005
LAW, PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY
Cohort 2
Percent
HS Graduates Spring 2005
Students in CCTI Sites Fall 2005
(No. of Enrollees/ No. of Graduates)
Fox Valley Technical College 53 15
28.3%
Prince George's CC 11 2
18.2%
San Diego CC District 82 34
41.5%
Subtotal
146 51
34.9%
1/17/2019

20. Persistence from Spring 2005 to Fall 2005
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS
Cohort 2
Percent
HS Graduates Spring 2005
Students in CCTI Sites Fall 2005
(No. of Enrollees/ No. of Graduates)
Lehigh Carbon Community College 45 32
71.1%
Sinclair Community College
121 44
36.4%
St. Louis Community College 39 0*
0.0%
Subtotal
205 76
37.1%
TOTAL
791
306
38.7%
1/17/2019

21. CCTI Enrollment Summary
2004
2005
High School Enrollment
2,491
4,563
Cohort 1 College Enrollment
181
128
Cohort 2 College Enrollment NA
306
Total CCTI Enrollment
2,672
4,997
1/17/2019

22. Remediation in Reading
Cohort 1 (Fall 2004) Versus Cohort 2 (Fall 2005):
% of CCTI Students Requiring Remedial Courses
25.6%
18.5% 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent
Fall 2004
(32 of 125 students)
Fall 2005
(43 of 232 students)
1/17/2019

23. Remediation in Writing
Cohort 1 (Fall 2004) Versus Cohort 2 (Fall 2005):
% of CCTI Students Requiring Remedial Courses
26.5%
21.4% 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent
Fall 2004
(32 of 121 students)
Fall 2005
(50 of 234 students)
1/17/2019

24. Remediation in Mathematics
Cohort 1 (Fall 2004) Versus Cohort 2 (Fall 2005):
% of CCTI Students Requiring Remedial Courses
33.8%
41.1% 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent
Fall 2004
(27 of 80 students)
Fall 2005
(81 of 197 students)
1/17/2019

25. Remediation in Algebra
Cohort 1 (Fall 2004) Versus Cohort 2 (Fall 2005):
% of CCTI Students Requiring Remedial Courses
36.1%
14.5% 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent
Fall 2004
(13 of 36 students)
Fall 2005
(10 of 69 students)
1/17/2019

26. Remediation by Occupational Cluster, 2005
 %/# of Students Requiring Remediation
Math/Algebra
Reading
Writing
Education and Training
41.6%
7.2%
15.2%
(57 of 137)
(9 of 125)
(19 of 125)
Health Science
31.6%
44.4%
(6 of 19)
(4 of 9)
Information Technology
88.9%
(8 of 18)
(8 of 9)
Law, Public Safety and Security
42.1%
(8 of 19)
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
16.4%
19.7%
15.1%
(12 of 73)
(14 of 71)
(11 of 73)
Total Percentage/
34.2%
18.5%
21.4%
Number of Students
(91 of 266)
(43 of 232)
(50 of 234)
1/17/2019

27. Primary Type of Improvement Plan
21.86%
18.58%
17.49%
12.57%
8.20%
6.01%
5.46%
3.28%
2.19%
1.64%
0.55% 0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Curriculum
Alignment and/or
Articulation
Professional
Development
Enrollment
Remediation
Career
Educational
Persistence
Employment/Work
Opportunities
Skills
Guidance
Counseling
Student
Perceptions
New Credential
Financial Aid
Primary Type of Improvement
Percent
1/17/2019

28. Summary
Small numbers of students in cohorts reduce reliability of findings
Most indicators show improvement
Enrollment is up, and remediation is down
Attention should be paid to remedial math
Aligning curriculum and professional development are the primary strategies being used by project sites
1/17/2019

29. Next steps Collect next year’s data and develop report
Consider new data elements to track improvement
Benchmark your improvements
Find ways for other colleges to participate
Help colleges integrate student tracking data into their management decisions
1/17/2019

30. For Further Help and Information
John Lee
JBL Associates, Inc. or
Sue Clery
1/17/2019

31. Any Questions or Comments?
1/17/2019