Friday, October 28, 2011

Guest Post: The Michigan Center for Student Success--Accelerating Innovation

Today, it’s all about state policy connections. Chris Baldwin, executive director of the Michigan Center for Student Success, describes how statewide approaches can work—even in decentralized systems.

Mounting evidence leaves little doubt that a postsecondary credential will be a prerequisite for a majority of jobs in the future. Policymakers, experts, and foundations across the country are responding with calls to dramatically increase educational attainment. Michigan is not immune from these pressures and community colleges across the state have responded by intensifying efforts to improve student outcomes through initiatives like Achieving the Dream. The challenge, given the decentralized nature of higher education in Michigan, has been that college innovations often occur in isolation leaving each college to re-invent the wheel with limited or no support.

To address this disconnect and provide greater opportunities for colleges to collaborate, the Michigan Community College Association established the Center for Student Success  through a generous grant from the Kresge FoundationThis Center provides state-level support to Michigan’s 28 community colleges by serving as a hub connecting leaders, administrators, faculty, and staff in their emerging and ongoing efforts to improve student outcomes. By deliberately linking practice, research, and policy the Center will help to shorten the time it takes colleges to implement practices that work. Center activities are guided by four overarching goals:

  1. To enhance existing and establish new student success communities of practice through the regular exchange of information at convenings and professional development opportunities
  2. To promote innovation and continuous improvement through the appropriate collection and use of data and performance metrics
  3. To develop a sustained student-success research agenda based on the needs of Michigan community colleges and key issues correlated with improved student outcomes
  4. To identify areas where collective, state-level policy action is warranted to enhance collaborative college efforts to innovate toward improved student outcomes
The Michigan Center for Student Success is an emerging model for other states to consider. By connecting college practitioners around effective practices, supporting colleges’ efforts to share data with key faculty and staff, establishing a robust statewide student success research agenda, and identifying crucial issues to advance as a student success policy agenda, this new Center provides critical state-level capacity to support colleges efforts to move the needle on student outcomes.

Chris Baldwin is executive director of the Michigan Center for Student Success (cbaldwin@mcca.org)

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Hot Off the Presses!

Back in the early days of Accelerating Achievement, we featured a guest post from Julian Alssid of the Workforce Strategy Center (WSC) outlining their response to giving lower-skill/lower-wage workers the boost they need to get the educational credentials necessary for higher-skill/higher-wage jobs. This week, WSC released a new report, What Works: BridgeConnect Stories from the Field, that showcases for successful programs that help low-income adults connect to postsecondary credentials. From the WSC release:


This report breaks new ground for WSC in that it features numerous video clips of practitioners and participants, who share first-hand the positive impacts of these programs. Viewers can see powerful examples of how these programs-- in North Carolina, Chicago, and New York City-- move people from hopelessness to stable employment.
WSC has also scheduled an interactive webinar on November 15th for practitioners interested in learning more about these programs. Check it out!

Thursday, October 20, 2011

New JFF publication on Virginia Dev Ed Redesign

Want to see a DEI state policy team in action? Yesterday, Jobs for the Future released a new publication detailing the Virginia Community College System’s developmental education redesign. From the JFF release:
Innovation at Scale—written by Rose Asera for Jobs for the Future—describes Virginia’s process of redesigning developmental education to increase college readiness and student success across the state’s 23 community colleges and 40 campuses. Innovation at Scale was released today to the Chancellor of the Virginia Community College System's Advisory Council of Presidents.
You can download the report here.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Linky, Linky!

  • Jay Matthews in the WaPo returns to community college placement and remediation with a follow-up to his commentary on Sarah Headden’s call for an entirely new approach.
  • We know some of you were on the debate team. Relive your glory days and hone your arguments with this NPR coverage of a debate about whether too many high school grads go to college.
  • Get Ready! A new MDRC study, Getting Ready for College, looks at the early impacts of developmental summer bridge programs in Texas. The final report on these programs won’t be released until next year, but preliminary results show promise.
  • Joanne Jacobs links to a John Locke Foundation study which shows that “as North Carolina’s high school graduation rate rose by 2.3 percent from 2006 to 2009, the community college remediation rate increased by 7 percent.”The report goes one to call out “low academic standards and expectations” as “one of a number of factors that provide marginal students an easier path to graduation.” We’d like to point out that the increase in remediation is also due to an influx of workers dislocated by the recession who haven’t been in school for years. The issue is more about alignment of standards between high school exit and college entrance than it is about lowering standards. North Carolina is already hard at work on this issue; the state was an early adopter of the Common Core Standards and one of the N.C. DEI State Policy team’s policy priorities is the alignment of standards for high school graduation, aiming to reduce the need for developmental education for recent high school graduates.
  • There’s a lot of different ways to approach the readiness question, of course. Check out this EdWeek article about a pilot program seeking to restructure high schools for college readiness.

Friday, October 14, 2011

Guest Post: Saving for Completion

Today, Dan Broun, a program director at MDC, puts a finer point on the difference between financial literacy and financial capability—and what that difference can make for student retention and completion.

While developmental education can be a key to helping students reach their educational goals, the reasons so many community college students drop out before completion often have nothing to do with academics. Indeed, a recent Public Agenda study found that 54 percent of students who stopped school cited “having to work and make money” as the primary reason for leaving before attaining a credential, and 60 percent described the cost of non-tuition fees as a major barrier to completion. 

And it is not just the lack of money that is making it hard for students to finish: it also can be a fundamental lack of understanding on how to manage one’s finances. In 2008, Jump$tart Coalition found that among high school students the level of financial literacy was only 48 percent; among college students the figure was 62 percent. 

With these disturbing trends in mind, many colleges are addressing students’ “financial capability” as way to increase student success. The term “financial capability” is actually not just a turn of phrase with limited meaning—it is the idea that mere financial literacy, the term of choice for many years, is not enough. Whereas literacy implies just giving students information about basic finances, financial capability equips students with the tools to change long-term behavior.  While no standard definition of financial capability exists, this one from the Center for Financial Services Innovation captures the standard elements:
  • Being able to cover monthly expenses with income
  • Tracking spending
  • Planning ahead and saving for the future
  • Selecting and managing financial products and services
  • Gaining and exercising financial knowledge.”
While financial literacy instruction may help students learn the differences between credit and debit cards, savings and checking accounts, and loans and grants, building financial capabilities affects students’ behavior over the long term by helping them learn how to apply financial management knowledge.

So how can a community college begin to build financial capability among its students? Many colleges are finding that using an integrated service delivery approach is the best way. Using the Center for Working Families approach, colleges provide students with access to financial coaching, college and community-based support services, and assistance in applying for public benefits such as food and nutrition programs, financial aid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. (This model has appeared on Accelerating Achievement before.) In some cases, students use online systems, to apply for multiple types of benefits with one application. Students also may receive assistance obtaining traditional financial services, such as savings and checking accounts. At Central New Mexico Community College, students have access to a financial coach, financial workshops, and other supports to help them establish a checking, savings, and matched savings program. In this CWF example, financial coaches provide one-on-one help with budgeting, setting financial goals, and identifying additional financial resources.

The impact of financial capability programs such as the CWF on students and institutions can be profound, especially when measured by retention. At Des Moines Area Community College, students participating in financial education programs boast an 80 percent retention rate, far surpassing the college’s overall rate of 57 percent. At Central New Mexico Community College, an integrated service delivery approach to build financial capability has had a significant impact – 61 percent of students who received multiple services through their program reached a short-term goal such as receiving a scholarship or staying in school, compared to 16 percent of students who only received one service.

With the growing realization that community colleges can play a significant role in the nation’s economic recovery and success, they are being asked to sharpen their focus on accelerating student progress all the way to completion. That makes the importance of increasing student financial capability no small matter. Academic skills and financial aid are not enough. In order for students to make it all the way through, they must be able to understand and manage their finances. Acquiring and applying financial tools, skills, and knowledge, and building financial capability, leads to financial empowerment, a path students need to establish in order to ensure a promising future for themselves and their families.

Dan Broun is a program director at MDC.


To learn more about CWFs, download this Annie E. Casey Foundation report: An Integrated Approach for Fostering Family Success:  How Three Model Sites Are Implementing the Center for Working Families Approach.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Guest Post: Supplemental Instruction Leaders Don't Do Optional Either

In the first of our in-depth look at each of the seven SCALERS drivers, staffing, Ruth Silon of Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C) delves into staffing a supplemental instruction (SI) program. The SCALERS staffing driver calls for effective use of resources to meet personnel needs, from administration to faculty to student services to student employees. In this candid post, Ruth describes the ups and downs of Tri-C’s approach to training student SI leaders in a one-credit special topics course.

 “Students don’t do optional.”

Where have we heard this before? It certainly applies to many developmental students’ use of the tutoring labs, optional orientations, and attendance at Supplemental Instruction (SI) sessions.

But what about the SI leaders themselves? Although we at Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C), have a well thought out hiring and training process, I have found that if we do not have a very concrete way to manage and observe our SI leaders, they, too, will not do optional.

In June 2010, I attended the International Conference on Supplemental Instruction, and listened to Joyce Zaritsky from LaGuardia Community College discuss her one credit class for SI leaders. This approach seemed to make sense. The students could not be leaders unless they attended a weekly SI course. Here was the place where leaders could share and debrief and experience ongoing training.

During fall 2010, faculty and SI staff met to design the course and it was first implemented in spring 2011 as a special topics course – one session at each campus. The course would meet once a week for one credit.
  • First Problem: The students had to pay for the course, which at that time cost $84.00.
         Solution: Pay SI leaders for an extra hour and hope that is enough to offset the
         cost of the course. 

  • Second Problem: One of our leaders had already graduated.
         Solution: She still had to attend the class in order to be an SI leader. 
  • Third Problem: There was not a common time available for all the leaders to take the course.
         No good solution here: Not all the leaders attended, but about 80 percent
         did participate.

Meeting every week was a great experience, both for me, the teacher, and the leaders. I got to know almost everything that was going on in the SI-supported classes and the related sessions. I learned firsthand about the struggles leaders were having with their students and also with the classroom teachers. The class was more like a support group for the leaders than an academic class. This learning is really important as we are asking students to perform tasks that may be well out of their comfort zone. If we talk to each other about our students and our pedagogy, shouldn’t SI leaders be afforded that same experience?

This was a course, so the students had to complete certain tasks to get a grade. I asked them to turn in weekly journals, telling me what happened in their sessions. (This could be the basis of our conversations each week.) They also had to visit each other’s classes and write up an observation. At the end of the semester, they wrote an essay to a new SI leader, explaining the high and low points of the job and offering the new leader advice. The end result was twofold: a deeper understanding of what goes on in SI for both me and the leaders, and a very supportive environment to help the leaders do a better job.

Even though the course went well, we decided not to offer it this semester. Why not? I did not want to make SI leaders pay for the course again. I did not want to ask for more money for the SI leaders. And I thought “Last semester’s meetings went well. Of course this semester’s leaders will come to a weekly session, even if it’s not for credit!”

I was wrong. Sadly, I forgot that students, SI leaders included, may not do optional! Just like in any other class, some student leaders come every week, some attend occasionally, and others never show up at all. I am sorry to have to have learned the same lesson again: accountability is everything. But I have learned the lesson, so next semester we’ll be offering the course for our SI leaders again.

Ruth Silon is an associate professor of English and DEI project director at Cuyahoga Community College.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

S-C-A-L-E-R-S: Round 2

One of our favorite topics here on Accelerating Achievement is scaling up. Regular readers will remember our multi-week SCALERS series. Originally created by Paul Bloom, the SCALERS model identifies seven organizational capacities that support the successful scaling of a social enterprise: Staffing, Communicating, Alliance-building, Lobbying, Earnings Generation, Replicating Impact, and Stimulating Market Forces. In the Accelerating Achievement SCALERS blog series, we translated the model for application at community colleges.

Next week, we’ll launch a new SCALERS series. Each month, we’ll have a guest post from a DEI college about how a particular SCALERS driver has contributed to their scaling efforts. A little less conversation, a little more action! Today, we’re applying all seven SCALERS to a program from Chaffey College that has successfully scaled up. Thanks to Ricardo Diaz at Chaffey sharing his story with us!


The goal of Opening Doors to Excellence (ODE) at Chaffey College in Rancho Cucamonga, C.A., is to move students off of academic probation and back into good standing with the college. Participants develop an educational plan with an advisor, take a student success course, and complete a series of directed activities in the college’s student success center. Chaffey defined scale as an institutionalized program that, when fully implemented, would serve all students on academic probation college-wide; by this definition, the program is, in fact, scaled up. According to Ricardo Diaz, ODE coordinator, the successful expansion of the program has required attention to all seven SCALERS drivers:

Staffing. Since there are 300 to 400 students in the program each semester, Diaz is able to meet with each student only once prior to enrolling in the student success course. To address the need for continuous student follow-up, ODE is staffed by counselor apprentices. These counselors are paid graduate students from local universities who use the experience to complete required clinical hours for their program of study. Chaffey’s Human Resources department provides structure and support for hiring the apprentices; program leadership and coordination functions have been integrated into existing staff workloads.

Communicating. To expand ODE, Chaffey embarked on a strategic planning process that drew together key parties from across the college. The plan they constructed involved integrating services into existing programs, rather than creating a program with a stand-alone structure. During program development, the core planning committee held regular discussions with governance departments.

Alliance-Building. As mentioned above, ODE was developed with input from college-wide representatives. The program had the support of the president and board of trustees from the beginning. A crucial alliance for ODE was the purposeful collaboration between academic affairs and student services.

Lobbying/Demonstrating Impact. Chaffey’s Institutional Research department collaborated with MDRC to establish outcomes and evaluate ODE as part of MDRC’s Opening Doors project. When MDRC concluded their study, Chaffey’s institutional research continued. The strength of the evaluation allowed the program to obtain additional resources, recognition, and support for expansion.

Earnings Generation/Resource Generation. The initial MDRC funding for the program was matched by college funding commitments. With future expansion in mind, Chaffey integrated the core expenditures for the program into the college’s general fund. The MDRC grant was used as start-up money, funding program development, paraprofessional staff, books, supplies, travel, and training.

Replicating Impact. As the program grew, the core planning committee developed a continuous improvement process. Student learning outcomes and focus group feedback were used to refine program design. The committee encouraged regular sharing of practices among instructors along with professional development activities.

Stimulating Market Forces/Sustaining Engagement. Because ODE was integrated into the college’s core operational components from the beginning, it quickly became a regular function of how the college operates. Students embraced the program because enrollment incentives were put into place. The MDRC study allowed for easy dissemination of the model to other colleges. This gained national recognition for Chaffey, which ensured continued buy-in from leadership and the campus community.

What’s next? Chaffey has created a solution to their initial problem: ODE moves students from academic probation back into good standing. However, an MDRC study looking at ODE’s impact on moving students to completion revealed that the intervention does not result in increased rates of graduation or certificate attainment. While not the original intent of this intervention, it is none the less a critical objective that presents a new challenge in program development and scaling.  Now that Chaffey has a broad strategy that reaches the entire target population, it’s time to look at ways to scale the depth of the program’s impact, intensifying the intervention to amplify the impact or reach a new aim. The college intends to reconvene the core planning committee to explore strategies that can improve the likelihood that students who overcome their probationary standing also complete a degree and/or certificate.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

This Just In!

Jobs for the Future published two briefs this week, highlighting how Florida is leading the way in college-readiness reform and improving outcomes for students who arrive at college unprepared for college-level coursework. From the JFF release:
Testing Ground
Florida is turning to a familiar tool of education reform—assessment—as a valuable lever to tackle the national imperative of improving college readiness. A new brief written by Pamela Burdman for Jobs for the Future (JFF)—Testing Ground—describes how Florida’s Division of Colleges worked with K-12 partners to design, plan, and launch an ambitious college-readiness agenda with a new college placement test as its centerpiece. By using data to create a sense of urgency and making faculty central players, Florida’s education system is well on its way to implementing major college-readiness reforms. Download Testing Ground.

High Flyers
Florida’s statewide developmental education policies also shed light on potential ways to improve the success of students who begin their college careers in developmental education. A case study produced by BTW Informing Change and published for the Developmental Education Initiative—High Flyers—uses a framework of five characteristics of high-performing colleges to analyze the colleges’ strategies and then explores how key developmental education policies influence institutional practice. Download High Flyers.
It’s great to see DEI states moving this work forward across their systems—and demonstrating how innovation can happen statewide!

Monday, October 3, 2011

Links!

  • Last Monday, Inside Higher Ed ran an article about CUNY’s “Reimagining Community Colleges” event. Speakers encouraged colleges to “lean on innovation rather than waiting for better budgets to return.” Wise council. But it sure would be nice if those better budgets came back, too.
  • Over at Getting Past Go, Bruce Vandal is recapping August’s online jam “Turning Around Failure: System Triage for Severely Under-Prepared Adults in Higher Education,” which was hosted by the Education Commission of the States, Jobs For the Future, and Knowledge in the Public Interest. Check out the full report and the blog series based on the jam highlights.
  • Complete College America’s big news last week was the release of a report, Time is the Enemy, chock full of useful data and state profiles. Here’s some of that data, featured in the New York Times article on the report: “The numbers are stark: In Texas, for example, of every 100 students who enrolled in a public college, 79 started at a community college, and only 2 of them earned a two-year degree on time; even after four years, only 7 of them graduated. Of the 21 of those 100 who enrolled at a four-year college, 5 graduated on time; after eight years, only 13 had earned a degree.” CCA names five essential steps states should take to increase college completion including “transforming remediation so that students get into full-credit classes and on the graduation track as soon as possible.”