1 / 17

Implementation Findings from the First Year of Accelerating Opportunity Part II

Implementation Findings from the First Year of Accelerating Opportunity Part II. Theresa Anderson Lauren Eyster Robert I. Lerman The Urban Institute Maureen Conway Marcela Montes The Aspen Institute Carol Clymer Penn State University. How Much Does AO Cost?.

levi
Download Presentation

Implementation Findings from the First Year of Accelerating Opportunity Part II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementation Findings from the First Year of Accelerating OpportunityPart II Theresa Anderson Lauren Eyster Robert I. Lerman The Urban Institute Maureen Conway Marcela Montes The Aspen Institute Carol Clymer Penn State University

  2. How Much Does AO Cost?

  3. Personnel Was the Most Expensive Aspect of AO • Across 30 colleges (3 excluded): • The distribution:

  4. We Estimated Cost Per Student and Per Credit Note: The average cost per student was misreported in the original webinar. The number presented here is correct.

  5. Summing Up • Much of the first year was devoted to start-up activities • AO seems to be serving the target population, but many students have secondary school credentials • The change in Pell rules affected recruitment strategies • Pathways were primarily concentrated in manufacturing and healthcare

  6. Summing Up • Many students in AO expressed satisfaction with the program and tried to recruit others to join • Some colleges IL and NC used bridge programs for AO-eligible students in the 6th to 8th grade adult education levels • Team teaching approaches ranged from a high level of integration to the adult education instructor acting as a teacher’s aide

  7. Summing Up • Team teaching presented a financing challenge to states and colleges • Many support services were provided, but differentiation for AO was moderate • Almost all colleges had connections with workforce agencies, but information about employer engagement was mixed

  8. Summing Up • Personnel was the most expensive aspect of AO programs • The cost per student is approximately $4,546, and the cost per credit is likely somewhere between $226 and $565 • The cost data are still being developed and will improve throughout the evaluation Note: The average cost per student was misreported in the original webinar. The number presented here is correct.

  9. Future Questions • What were student outcomes? How many completed pathways, obtained credentials, became employed in their area of training, and experienced wage increases? • How did AO impact the student outcomes relative to what they would have achieved otherwise? • Did cultural change occurred as a result of AO, on either the state or college level? Did AO result in policy changes? • Did AO achieve scale? Which aspects of AO were seen as most sustainable?

  10. Contact Information Theresa AndersonAO Project ManagerThe Urban Institutetanderson@urban.org(202) 261-5847

  11. Almost All Colleges Targeted Students Already in Adult Education and with Interest in One of the Pathways

  12. Almost All Colleges Targeted Students Already in Adult Education and with Interest in One of the Pathways

  13. All Four States Had Pathways in Manufacturing, Health, and Automotive

  14. Illinois Had the Most Team Teaching on Average Excluded: 0 100%: 3 0%: 1 Excluded: 3 100%: 1 0%: 2 Excluded: 4 100%: 0 0%: 0 Excluded: 7 100%: 0 0%: 7 Excluded: 14 100%: 4 0%: 10

  15. Complementary-Supportive Teaching Was the Most Common Team Teaching Method • 82% of colleges used Complementary-Supportive Teaching • 70% of colleges used Monitoring Teacher • 55% used Traditional Team Teaching • 4 colleges reported that there was no team teaching in Year 1, all in NC

  16. The Level of Specialized Support Services for AO Varied Colleges

  17. Colleges Mostly Used Existing Relationships and Connections to Reach Out to Employers

More Related