Download
high school equivalent program hep results for 2008 2009 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
High School Equivalent Program (HEP) Results for 2008-2009 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
High School Equivalent Program (HEP) Results for 2008-2009

High School Equivalent Program (HEP) Results for 2008-2009

121 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

High School Equivalent Program (HEP) Results for 2008-2009

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. High School Equivalent Program (HEP) Results for 2008-2009 US Department of Education Office of Migrant Education OME Conference Philadelphia, PA November 15-19, 2010 HEP 2009 Results

  2. Outline of Presentation • Introduction • Solutions to Previous Years’ Challenges • Assumptions and Limitations • Research Assumptions • Research Limitations • Presentation of HEP Data • “Top 10 Programs” for GPRA 1 & 2 Results • Summary and Conclusions • Next Steps HEP 2009 Results

  3. Introduction: “Why are we here?” Share HEP 2009 APR program results 2009 “snapshot” data, using national HEP data 2009 comparison data, using data from groups of HEP projects 2006-2009 longitudinal data, using national HEP data Recognize high performing projects After our session, share ideas for program improvement 3 HEP 2009 Results

  4. Course Completers: The APR requires accurate information regarding students that complete the coursework but do not pass the GED and do not re-enroll. Data Quality Checks: The APR requires use of data quality checks, in order to ensure a level of accuracy within the report. Over-Served: When HEP projects served more students than they were funded, the GPRA 1 for projects could exceed 100%. Persisters: When HEP projects reported large numbers of persisters, the GPRA 1 for projects could exceed 100%, or go below 0% . Top Reporting Issues from 2006-2008 4 HEP 2009 Results

  5. Grantees carefully reviewed definitions and entered data within EMAPS for electronic Annual Performance Report (APR) with built-in “hints” for data quality checks. Office of Migrant Education adjusted GPRA 1 formula… Solutions to Known Reporting Issues 5 HEP 2009 Results

  6. Option A:For grantees who actually serve LESS than the number funded to be served or serve exactly the total number funded to be served: GPRA Measure 1= total no. of HEP GED attainers [total no. funded to be served minus total no. of persisters] Adjusted GPRA Measure 1 Formula 6 HEP 2009 Results

  7. Option B:For grantees who actually serve MORE than the number funded to be served: GPRA Measure 1= total no. of HEP GED attainers [total no. actually served minus total no. of persisters] Adjusted GPRA Measure 1 Formula 7 HEP 2009 Results

  8. Research Assumptions and Limitations • Assumptions: • Accurate data is entered by grantees on APR. • 100% fidelity to implementation of program objectives and corresponding services. • Limitations: • The total number of HEP programs in this analysis is statistically small (42), and a more effective analysis will necessarily involve student-level data. 8 HEP 2009 Results

  9. Presentation of National HEP Data HEP 2009 Results

  10. Performance: Effective and Efficient • Overall performance on National GPRA • Overall performance on efficiency measures • Additional HEP research questions and results HEP 2009 Results

  11. National GPRA Measure 1 Data (Effectiveness): National Target Not Met • The percentage of HEP program exiters receiving a General Educational Development (GED) diploma. • National Goal = 69% of students attain a GED • 2008-2009 National Performance = 61% • Performance results reflect, for the first time, accurate data and a “baseline” for the future. HEP 2009 Results

  12. National GPRA Measure 1 Data (Effectiveness): National Goal Not Met GPRA 1 Measure Y 19 Grantees 45% of all grantees N 23 Grantees 55% of all grantees Let’s review the following slides, in order to explain these data... 12 HEP 2009 Results

  13. National GPRA Measure 1 Data (Effectiveness): National Goal Not Met GPRA 1 Formula, Option A. For grantees who actually serve LESS than the number funded to be served or serve exactly the total number funded to be served: Total no. of HEP GED attainers 1,900 [Total no. funded to be served minus Total no. of persisters] (3,111-202) 1,900 2,909 = 65% 13 HEP 2009 Results

  14. National GPRA Measure 1 Data (Effectiveness): National Goal Not Met GPRA 1 Formula, Option B. For grantees who actually serve MORE than the number funded to be served: Total no. of HEP GED attainers 1,540 [Total no. actually served - Total no. of persisters] (3,383-726) 1,540 2,657 = 58% 14 HEP 2009 Results

  15. National GPRA Measure 1 Data (Effectiveness): National Goal Not Met GPRA 1 Formula. No. of students funded in =/under-served HEP projects = 3,111 (48% of total students) No. of students served in over-served HEP projects = 3,383 (52% of total students) Total = 3,111 + 3,383 students, = 6,494 students 15 HEP 2009 Results

  16. National GPRA Measure 1 Data (Effectiveness): National Goal Not Met National GPRA 1 Formula. 65% (Met GPRA 1 through Option A) * .48 (weighted value) = 31.20% 58% (Met GPRA 1 through Option B) * .52 (weighted value) = 30.16% 31.20% (Served/Under-Served) + 30.16% (Over-served) 61.36%, or 61%. 16 HEP 2009 Results

  17. National GPRA Measure 1 Data 17 HEP 2009 Results

  18. National GPRA Measure 2 Data (Effectiveness): National Goal Not Met • The percentage of HEP GED recipients who enter postsecondary education programs, upgraded employment, or the military. HEP 2009 Results

  19. National GPRA Measure 2 Data (Effectiveness): National Goal Not Met GPRA Measure 2: Met/ Not Met Y 17 40.5% N 25 59.5% National Goal = 80%, Performance = 74% 2,532 GED students placed 3,440 GED student attainers 19 HEP 2009 Results

  20. National GPRA Measure 2 Data 20 HEP 2009 Results

  21. HEP: How effective when compared to a comparable national program? • About one-third of adult education program clients stay long enough to advance to the next level of instruction. • Unit costs vary by type of service component. Average costs per client-hour in ESL were a relatively low $4.28, compared to $6.11 for all ABE clients and $5.12 for those in ASE. • Few local programs maintain client-specific records. As a result, the accuracy of program data reported by States is of concern. HEP 2009 Results

  22. Efficiency Measure: Cost per GED (Reported in PART) • Project efficiency ratios are calculated as, per budget period, the total budget awarded for that budget period divided by the number of GED Attainers. Total HEP Budget = Cost per GED Total No. GED Attainers HEP 2009 Results

  23. Efficiency Measure: Cost per GED (Reported in PART) No national targets yet. Total HEP funding awarded $18,912,210 = Total No. GED Attainers 3,440 students HEP efficiency measure (Cost per GED): $5,498 HEP 2009 Results

  24. Efficiency Measure: Cost per GED (Reported in PART) 24 HEP 2009 Results

  25. Cost per GED Attainer Placed (Not Reported in PART) • Cost per GED Attainer Placedis calculated as, per budget period, the total budget awarded for that budget period divided by the number of GED Attainers who enter postsecondary education programs, upgraded employment, or the military. Total HEP Budget = Cost per GED Total No. GED Attainers Placed Attainer Placed HEP 2009 Results

  26. Cost per GED Attainer Placed (Not Reported in PART) No national targets yet Total HEP funding awarded $18,912,210 = Total No. GED Attainers Placed 2,532 students Average Cost per GED Attainer placed: $7,469 HEP 2009 Results

  27. Cost per GED Attainer Placed (not reported in PART) 27 HEP 2009 Results

  28. Number Funded vs. Number Actually Served: Grantees Over-servedby 16% • Total number funded to be served, per applications: 5,465 • Total number actually served: 6,354 • 116% students served, compared to funded (a reduction of 8% from 2007-2008) HEP 2009 Results

  29. Number Funded vs. Number Actually Served: Grantees Over-servedby 16% • Total number funded to be served, per applications: 5,465 • Total number actually served: 6,354 • 116% students served, compared to funded (a reduction of 8% from 2007-2008) HEP 2009 Results

  30. Number Funded and Number Actually Served 30 HEP 2009 Results

  31. Number Funded, Number Actually Served, and GED Attainers 31 HEP 2009 Results

  32. Is there a relationship between GPRA 1 results and costs? 32 HEP 2009 Results

  33. Is there a relationship between GPRA 1 results and costs? Correlation is significantly (p<0.01) negative. As higher percentages of students attain a GED, the costs of funding the GED decline. 33 HEP 2009 Results

  34. What service models have the most positive outcomes for GPRA 1 and GPRA 2, and are the most efficient? Commuter vs. Residential Open vs. Structured Small vs. Large What do we know about… Students requiring remediation The relationship between instructional hours and GPRA results The relationship between the percentage of English Learners (ELs) and GPRA results The relationship between screening scores and GED attainment Other baseline data Office of Migrant Education Research Questions HEP 2009 Results

  35. Commuter v. Residential v. Combination 42 Total HEP Programs Commuter: 25 Programs Residential: 3 Programs Combination of Commuter/Residential: 14 Programs 35 HEP 2009 Results

  36. Commuter/Residential/Combination (GPRA 1) • ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) compares the means of the three populations: • Commuter projects • Residential projects • Combination projects. • Do we see anything significant to the .05 level? 36 HEP 2009 Results

  37. Commuter /Residential/Combination (GPRA 1) 37 HEP 2009 Results

  38. Commuter /Residential/Combination (GPRA1) 38 HEP 2009 Results

  39. Commuter /Residential/Combination (GPRA1) • When we review the means (averages) of the three groups • Group 1 = Commuter • Group 2= Residential • Group 3 = Combination • What can we tell about the GED attainment rates for these groups of students? 39 HEP 2009 Results

  40. Commuter/Residential/Combination (GPRA 2) • Do we see anything significant to the .05 level? 40 HEP 2009 Results

  41. Commuter/Residential/Combination (GPRA 2) 41 HEP 2009 Results

  42. Commuter/Residential/Combination (GPRA 2) • When we review the means (averages) of the three groups • Group 1 = Commuter • Group 2= Residential • Group 3 = Combination • What can we tell about the placement rates for these groups of students? • Last year: • Commuter: Low (67%) • Combination: High (71%) • Residential: Mid (NA – “N”of 1) 42 HEP 2009 Results

  43. Commuter /Residential/Combination (GPRA 1) Efficiency 43 HEP 2009 Results

  44. Commuter /Residential/Combination (GPRA 1) Efficiency 44 HEP 2009 Results

  45. Commuter /Residential/Combination (GPRA 1) Efficiency • Commuters: From $4,527 to $4,497 • (Efficiency increased. Costs decreased by $30.) • Residential: From $17,886 to $18,621 • (Efficiency decreased. Costs increased by $735.) • Combination: From $7,229 to $7,118 • (Efficiency increased. Costs decreased by $111.) 45 HEP 2009 Results

  46. Open v. Structured • 44 Total HEP Programs • Open Enrollment: 30 Programs • Structured Enrollment: 12 Programs 46 HEP 2009 Results

  47. Open v. Structured (GPRA 1) 47 HEP 2009 Results

  48. Open v. Structured (GPRA 1) Anything significant to the .05 level? Any conclusions we can make? 48 HEP 2009 Results

  49. Open v. Structured (GPRA 2) 49 HEP 2009 Results

  50. Open v. Structured (GPRA 2) Anything significant to the .05 level? Any conclusions we can make? 50 HEP 2009 Results