Math Performance Success Program – 10 years of success!

1. Math Performance Success Program – 10 years of success! Barbara Illowsky Herminio Hernando De Anza College

2. Outcomes for Today’s Webinar Participants will learn how to: • Develop and implement a model that works on their campuses • Calculate the costs of running such a program • Market the course to their stakeholders, including the high risk students • Navigate the internal political processes of piloting a program • Assess and evaluate the program on their campuses

3. Background: challenges • Low developmental education mathematics single course success rate (pre-alg., elem. alg., interm. alg.) • Low progression rate through developmental ed courses to reach transfer course • Students starting in devel. ed. mathematics courses not reaching their educational goals

4. Solution • Develop a program that incorporates intensive student services • Same course content at same level as other sections • Same faculty teach both MPS and non-MPS sections • Throughout: evaluate faculty success in MPS versus faculty success in “status quo” • Must be sustainable, scalable and adaptable

5. History • 1999 – pilot for African-American males • 2000 – opened to all students with 2+ failures in starting course • 2002 – CA Community Colleges Exemplary Program Award • 2006 – added pre-algebra starting course

6. History (cont.) • 2008 – added non-fall starting cohorts • 2008 – Hewlett Foundation Student Success Award (statewide) • 2009 – part-time faculty offered sections • 2009 – MPS listed as a BSI model program

8. Program Structure High risk students • Demonstrated history – lack of success in mathematics • Low self-confidence • Majority of students from special programs (EOPS, DSS, Puente, Umoja, …) • High percent of diagnosed & undiagnosed learning disabilities • Over representation from under represented groups • Referrals from instructors, counselors, …

9. Program Structure Counseling • Application • Program Orientation • Contract • Explicit student expectations • In-class • Pull-outs • Academic & personal • Frequent contacts • Student success workshops • Noncompliance  termination

10. Program Structure Student tutors • In-class: daily • Tutorial Center: ≈ 50 hours/week • Individual attention • Study groups • Consistent • Mandatory attendance when grades < 70% at any point in term • Many former tutors are former MPS student

11. Program Structure Active learning • Mini-lectures followed by group work • Time for practice • Time for students to help each other • Small group discussion • Collaborative learning • Time for instructors to review work for every student, every day

12. Program Structure Cohorts • 2 course sequences • Elem. Alg.  Interm. Alg.  Statistics (transfer) • Pre-Alg.  Elem. Alg.  Interm. Alg.  Statistics (transfer) • Start each quarter • Bonding & sense of common purpose • Instructor follows cohorts • Relationships lead to motivation to succeed

13. Program Structure Double time • 2 hours per day • Double load for instructor • Same number of units for students • Double WSCH (CA funding) • Required student attendance

14. Program Structure Team approach • Faculty: instructors & counselors • Faculty: weekly meetings • Plan activities • Discuss common problems • Give & get advice • Support group • Common exams & assessments • Speakers

15. MPS video http://nebula.deanza.edu/PSME_Division/MPS-Videos.html (all part of URL with no spaces or returns)

16. Quote - counselor “Students in MPS develop a higher level of self-confidence once they are successful in math.  This increase in self-confidence carries over to other classes they are taking.  In short, MPS students' success in math helps them to develop the skills, attitudes and self-confidence necessary to be successful in their other classes.” Herminio Hernando, Counselor for MPS

17. Student testimonial School wise MPS is the best thing that has happened in my life. Math is a difficult subject, but thanks to the professor, tutors, and counselors, I am completing my math requirements for my major. The teachers and tutors really make math a lot less complicated and make it somewhat fun. I strongly recommend the program to students that don’t have a strong background in math. Saul Gembe

18. Student testimonial When I first started out, I had no idea how intense the class was going to be. The labs, Homework, projects, exams, quizzes, etc…were overwhelming to me, but, as the weeks went by I understood why all this was necessary. I began to understand why and how things in the program worked. I was no longer overwhelmed and felt confident again that I am smart enough for math. Emily Ikuta

19. Student testimonial The MPS Program has definitely helped me understand Math. In the past, it was very difficult to grasp different concepts. Now, I find myself at times helping other people with it. Godfrey Ramos

20. Research questions Given that the same content and material must be mastered: • How do the grades of students in the MPS program compare with the grades for students not in the program for the same course and term? • Do MPS students persist through to higher level math courses at a higher rate than students not in the program?

21. Cumulative data: 2001 – 2010

22. Cumulative “Pass”: 2001 – 2010

23. Individual “Star” Faculty

25. Growing Pains Instructors • Must commit to a cohort for year • Emotionally exhausting • 15 different full & part-time faculty to date • Can’t do the “same ol’ thing”

26. Growing Pains Training • Weekly – faculty & tutors • Common available times • Extensive for part-timer faculty • Recruiting tutors

27. Growing Pains Counselors • Need additional • Dilution of services • Fall 2010 – 750+ applications for 220 spots

28. Growing Pains Facilities • Rooms needed for double time • Each additional MPS section means another regular section NOT offered • Shortage of classrooms on campus • Evening sections means 4 nights/week

29. Growing Pains Politics • Conflicting philosophies among administrators • Battle of turf – “mis”distribution of resources • Need to admit that in expansion, lower success rates are inevitable

30. Math Performance Success Program:Too Costly or Really Profitable?

31. Program costs:initial investment • Double faculty time (double the load) • But double the contact hours generated for state aid • Dedicated counselor time (estimated at $100,000 per year) • Peer tutoring dollars ($15,000 per year)

32. Traditional Economic Reality • Colleges, especially community colleges, are set up to think in terms of fiscal periods (usually fiscal years) • Simplistically, this year’s salaries, fixed costs, & variable costs seemingly need to be offset by this year’s revenues from FTES apportionment

33. Return on Investment Model http://www.cccbsi.org http://rpgroup.org Developed by Dr. Robert Johnstone, RP Group, as a part of the California Community Colleges Basic Skills Initiative

34. A Different (?) Way of Thinking • We could think about deviating from our “traditional” model toward a return-on-investment (ROI) approach • Under this approach, we use our “traditional” model as the baseline for costs and revenue

35. Incremental Revenue • Successful alternate programs have the following outcomes: • Increased course retention • Increased course success rates • Increased persistence • Increased progression to college-level work • Increase in overall units attempted / earned

36. How do we calculate ROI? • FTES (full-time equivalent student) • In California, community colleges generate ≈$4,500 per FTES in apportionment Note: Model applies in states where state apportionment is combined with tuition, etc. • The incremental FTES generated in successful alternative programs can, in many cases, offset the incremental costs

37. Caveats … • This approach runs into an issue if a system caps college enrollments and the college is at or near its enrollment cap • Bumping up against the cap number as a result of newly successful basic skills students would be a good problem to have

38. Other disciplines • English, reading, ESL • Extra in-class time: peer editing, small group conversations, public speeches, research in libraries • Other components remain the same

39. Planning for scalability, including navigating the politics • EDUCATE, EDUCATE, EDUCATE!!! • Student Body Grant funders • Counselors Administration • Data – Institutional Researcher is BFF • ROI – dispute Perceived Cost of scaling and show financial incentive • Moral, ethical and societal reasons • Concrete plan

40. Assessment • Extremely complicated • Compare faculty against themselves • Goals: • large n • variety of faculty • variety of times of day • over several years

41. Assessment (cont.) • Assistance of Instructional Researcher • Acknowledge non-randomness • student self-selection • lower success rates than comparison group (previous failures) • Try not to be defensive!

42. Resources Free downloads at: http://www.cccbsi.org/literature-review http://rpgroup.org Literature Review: Basic Skills as a Foundation for Student Success in California Community Colleges (pdf) Cost-Revenue Tool (Excel) illowskybarbara@deanza.edu hernandoherminio@deanza.edu You can do it!