Skip repetitive navigational links
View: Next (less recent) message | Previous (more recent) message
Next (less recent) in topic | Previous (more recent) in topic
Next (less recent) by same author | Previous (more recent) by same author
Previous page (January 2014) | Back to main LRNASST-L page
Join or leave LRNASST-L (or change settings)
Reply | Post a new message
Search
Log in
Options:   Chronologically | Most recent first
Proportional font | Non-proportional font

Subject:

From Carnegie

From:

Norman Stahl <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Open Forum for Learning Assistance Professionals <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:20:46 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

Three Organizations to Collaborate to Improve Student Success in Mathematics



January, 2014


Initiative Announced at January 16 White House Event on College Opportunity
 
In early 2014, Achieving the Dream, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and Jobs for the Future will jointly explore with community colleges, higher education organizations, philanthropy, and other stakeholders the feasibility of creating a "Breakthrough Collaborative" to address the alarming failure rate of students in post-secondary remedial mathematics or “gateway” courses.
This is not a trivial problem. Eighty percent of students who place into developmental mathematics do not complete a college-level course within three years. Many spend long periods of time repeating courses and most simply leave college without a credential. As a consequence, millions of students each year are not able to progress toward their career and life goals. Equally important, these students lack command of the math that matters for personal life in an increasingly quantitative age and to be critically engaged citizens. In addition, a disproportionate number of these students come from traditionally underserved populations.
Achieving the Dream (ATD) provides expertise in institutional change. Carnegie provides expertise in faculty engagement and curriculum reform. Jobs for the Future (JFF) provides expertise in policy development and implementation.
The Breakthrough Collaborative is a strategy that has proven to be a powerful structure for broad-scale quality improvement in healthcare and has the potential, with appropriate modifications, for turning the same power loose for educational improvement. In this case, it will join colleges willing to collect common data and progress markers to learn together as they implement and improve promising practices that accelerate progression through remediation and gateway courses.
The idea of a Breakthrough Collaborative is to: (1) identify the specific targeted (and measureable) problems to be solved; (2) generate a short list of “promising solutions” per target; (3) develop a shared working theory of practice improvement (i.e., what specific problems will need to be solved in order to integrate effectively any one or more of these change ideas into any given institution); (4) engage members willing to commit individually and as a community to measurable progress—“what outcomes to be accomplished by when” with regular data feedback as to “how are we doing?”; (5) agree to operate as a networked community using the disciplined methods and tools of improvement research to generate practice-based evidence to guide progress toward these measurable targets; and (6) agree to participate as a leadership learning community that assembles a few times a year to learn from each other and use this in turn to accelerate improvement together.
The three organizations would function as a hub for this leadership learning community. Presumably it would have three strands: (1) state-level policy and capacity-building to enable this innovative activity to occur (JFF); (2) institutional leadership to motivate, catalyze and support this improvement activity within each college (ATD); and (3) an improvement research learning center (Carnegie) and analytic hub (Carnegie).
Together, the organizations would assemble for the Collaborative the necessary policy, institutional leadership, and instructional expertise to move work forward (including regular reporting on progress as a mechanism for internal accountability and local incentive). The key idea is to exploit the capacity of structured networks to develop practice-based evidence to accelerate improvement rather than each place going it alone.
The initiative builds on the Carnegie Foundation’s efforts that in the first two years have tripled the success rate of students who placed into developmental mathematics courses in half the time. Carnegie formed a network of community colleges, professional associations, and educational researchers to develop and implement the Community College Pathways Program, organized around two structured pathways, known as Statway® and Quantway®. Students and faculty are now joined in a common, intensive year-long experience toward the shared goals of achieving college math credit in one year and reclaiming their mathematical lives for a lifetime.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Year Two Success in Math Pathways Illustrates the Power of Networks
Written by Carnegie Staff, Posted in What We Are Learning




In its second year, Carnegie’s Community College Pathways (CCP) program sustained its high level of student success while also experiencing a growth in the number of students enrolled and the number of campuses teaching Pathways courses. The Community College Pathways: 2012-2013 Descriptive Report provides detailed student outcomes as well as insights into the challenges and improvements in the second year of Pathways implementation.
The Pathways were developed to address the alarming failure rates of students in developmental math in community colleges. Over 60 percent of the nation’s 14 million community college students are required to take at least one developmental mathematics class before they are eligible to enroll in college-credit courses (Achieving the Dream, 2006; Bailey, Jeong, and Cho 2010). However, 80 percent of the students who place into developmental math do not successfully complete any college-level mathematics courses within three years (Bailey, Jeong, and Cho, 2010). Instead, many students spend long periods of time repeating courses and leave college without a credential. This means that millions of students each year fail to acquire essential mathematics skills and are unable to progress toward their career and life goals.
Working through a Networked Improvement Community (NIC), Carnegie put into the field two new mathematics pathways, Statway® and Quantway®. Both aim to simplify the path through the development mathematics sequence for students. Rather than a seeming random walk through a maze of possible course options (Zeidenberg and Scott, 2011), Statway and Quantway reduce the number of courses required while improving the content and pedagogy for developmental mathematics.
Carnegie believes that working in NICs and focusing on continuous improvement in classroom practice were key reasons for the repeated positives outcomes for students in Year 2.
The NIC realized the following results in its second year of operation:
Statway

52 percent of the 853 Statway community college students successfully completed the year-long pathway (received a grade of C or better in the final term). This is consistent with the results of 49 percent in Year 1 (2011-2012).
Statway expanded to two additional colleges within the California State University (CSU) system adding a total of 204 students.
75 percent of CSU Statway students successfully completed the pathway, comparable with 74 percent in Year 1.

Quantway

The number of students enrolled in Quantway 1 tripled from Year 1 for a total of 1,402 enrolled.
Quantway 2, the second semester of the pathway, was launched for the first time at three community colleges with 49 students.
52 percent of students successfully completed Quantway 1, demonstrating continued positive outcomes with 56 percent in Year 1.
In its first semester, 68 percent of students successfully completed Quantway 2.

With considerably more students enrolled, the Year 2 data indicate that the Pathways offer the opportunity for students in a variety of contexts to gain key mathematical skills and reach their academic goals.
For more information on the Year 2 results, download Community College Pathways: 2012-2013 Descriptive Report.
****************************************************************************************


ROI Study Shows Colleges Gain Revenue from Implementing Carnegie’s Math Pathways
Written by Gay Clyburn, Posted in What We Are Learning




Carnegie’s two pathways — Quantway® and Statway® — for students placing into development mathematics have had notable success in their first implementation. Over 51 percent of Statway students successfully completed the entire pathway, including earning a college-level credit in statistics in one year, compared to 6 percent of a baseline comparison group attempting the traditional sequence in a year. Even when expanding the timeframe for the traditional group to three years, only 20 percent of the entering cohort achieved transfer-level success, again compared to the Statway rate of 51 percent. These results represent a 250 percent increase in one year success over the conventional approach extended to three years. For the eight colleges starting Quantway in spring 2012, results were just as heartening.
Achieving results like these generated a good deal of interest from institutions and faculty members. But as Rob Johnstone, with the National Center for Inquiry and Improvement, writes in a Carnegie-commissioned Return on Investment (ROI) study, “While programs such as Statway and Quantway may very well demonstrate an impressive improvement in student outcomes, a significant concern still emerges from a college standpoint: Can we afford to do this at scale?” Johnstone finds that Statway and Quantway very well may make money for an institution. For a relatively modest initial investment of upfront costs that very often is less than the costs of boutique programs, Statway and Quantway can be implemented at scale for the entire range of students needing such an alternate approach rather than for the handful of students served by most boutique programs.
Generally these returns on investment are due to the increases in realized tuition and state apportionment funding from subsequent course taking, and Johnstone employs an ROI model that uses a number of inputs that allow a college to customize it to their local situation, including:

Salaried personnel costs
Hourly personnel costs
Other incremental fixed costs for Statway and/or Quantway implementation (e.g., Carnegie subscription fees, travel to a summer forum and winter regional meetings, supplies, recruiting, etc.)
College tuition
State-level apportionment funding per FTEs
Number of students in Statway and/or Quantway at the college, either as a pilot or at scale
Predicted increase in FTEs from Statway and/or Quantway

When Johnstone studied the six Pathways colleges who were selected to  participate in the ROI modeling exercise, he found that even with relatively conservative estimates on downstream FTEs generated by successful Statway and Quantway students, the model generated a positive return on investment with an associated positive net revenue figure every time.
Figure 1 provides the modeled net revenue figures over a three-year period for each of the six colleges associated with a single Statway or Quantway cohort, ranging from $6,744 to $177,905.

After calculating these incremental net revenue figures using the model noted in Figure 1, Johnstone also calculated a classic ROI rate. In Figure 2, ROI is calculated by taking the incremental net revenue associated with a program and dividing it by the total incremental program costs.

The ROI rates produced by the model, even with reasonably conservative estimates, were all positive, and ranged from 12 percent to 334 percent.  Note that even the 12 percent ROI indicates that the college would generate net revenue that is 12 percent higher than the incremental program costs. From industry standards, ROI rates that are above 50 percent (achieved in three of the six sampled colleges) are considered quite high and those over 100 percent (as observed in three of the six) are extremely high.
Taken together, the results of these ROI models are quite positive, Johnstone notes, concluding that in addition to the more important outcome of getting 2.5 times as many students to succeed in transfer-level mathematics in one year as a traditional group did in three years, the ROI models suggest that Statway and Quantway will likely be able to achieve this outcome at a net revenue gain to these colleges.
In addition, Johnstone also modeled other fiscal impacts such as cost per completer, student tuition and books savings, and student wage gains, finding in each case that a successful Statway / Quantway program would positively impact these key fiscal factors. The study found that “if Statway and Quantway can help get students through their community college pathway one year sooner, these students are estimated to register a nearly immediate $24,600 wage gain. Clearly, the catalytic effect of this gain to transform our students’ lives and accelerate their momentum upward on their career path is remarkable.”





Norman Stahl
[log in to unmask]




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web browser to
http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager