DEI: What We Know

States and colleges in the Developmental Education Initiative (DEI) completed their grant program last December. While they are all moving ahead with many of their expanded developmental education efforts, we took some time to look back on what we’ve all learned over the past three years about scaling up successful innovations and the importance of strong leadership at the top. In a two-part publication, What We Know, MDC lifts up the successes of the DEI colleges from the perspective of presidents and project directors. The two pieces are summarized here:

What We Know: Reflections from Developmental Education Initiative Presidents
Edited by Madeline Patton
The Developmental Education Initiative asked 15 college leaders to take what they’d learned in early Achieving the Dream efforts and apply that to the challenge of scaling up: what resources, policies, and practices are essential to scaling up effective developmental education efforts? Finding ways to move more students through developmental education more quickly—or bypass it altogether—while maintaining successful student outcomes required leadership and commitment from every level of the organization. In this essay collection, the presidents of the 15 DEI colleges reflect on what they learned about building, embedding, and maintaining systemic change in their institutions—particularly in the difficult field of developmental education—through work with their trustees, students, faculty, staff, and community. They discuss how they and their colleges took on identifying successful innovations and scaling them up in the midst of leadership transitions, serious reductions in financial resources, and major changes in organizational structure.

What We Know: Lessons from the Developmental Education Initiative
In February 2012, MDC convened DEI college teams composed of faculty, administrators, and presidents. We mixed them up—different colleges, different states, different roles—and asked them to create the ideal path for underprepared students to get from college entry to credential completion. Drawing on their collective knowledge, particularly what they’d learned during DEI, the teams considered four points of interaction with students or potential students: early intervention and access, advising and support services, developmental education instruction, and alignment with credential and degree programs. Six teams and six hours later, we had six designs that displayed a remarkable amount of consensus about the programs, policies, and institutional supports needed to help any student be successful on the path from college enrollment to credential completion. This piece synthesizes our DEI college teams’ recommended best program bets and related critical institutional policies for helping all students succeed at what they set out to accomplish in community college.

We’re grateful to the presidents and college project directors for their contributions to and hard work on both of these pieces. We hope you’ll read them, share them, and make connections to your own work and learning. You can download copies of both What We Know pieces here on the MDC website.

Y'all Have Been Busy!

We want to make sure you know about three new publications that have come out in the last few weeks, all courtesy of our DEI state policy partner, Jobs for the Future (and some of their esteemed colleagues):

• In Ahead of the Curve: State Success in the Developmental Education Initiative, David Altstadt presents the major reforms that the six DEI states enacted over the course of the three-year initiative. The report follows the DEI State Policy Framework, with examples of policy change on all three fronts: data-driven improvement, commitment to innovation, and policy supports. Each of the six states is featured in a case study; Altstadt also includes an analysis of the states’ progress as measured by the DEI State Policy Framework Self-Assessment Tool. You can read about new data systems, new curriculum, and new assessment practices, all deployed across states, that are paving the way for college innovation and improved outcomes for students who are underprepared for postsecondary study.

 

• In Cornerstones of Completion: State Policy Support for Accelerated, Structured Pathways to College Credentials and Transfer, Lara K. Couturier recommends ten state policies that can support colleges who are creating “accelerated, structured pathways to completion” (just like the title says!). Using the colleges participating in Completion by Design as a backdrop, the report begins by contrasting the current experience of a typical community college student with what that student might experience in a more structured pathway program. Couturier then lays out the ten policy recommendations—from transfer agreements, to use of labor market information, to faculty professional development—and backs each one up with a summary of recent research. 

 

• Just yesterday, Jobs for the Future, along with the Charles A. Dana Center, Complete College America, Education Commission of the States, released Core Principles for Transforming Remedial Education: A Joint Statement. The statement lays out seven principles for a new approach to ensure “that all students are ready for and can successfully complete college-level work that leads to a postsecondary credential of value.” Many of the principles will be familiar to those that have been following DEI states and colleges and other national reform efforts, among them more accurate assessment and course options that accelerate students’ progression through remediation to gateway courses. The challenge will be to provide the institutional and state support for faculty, staff, and administration as they find the mix of policy and practice that works best for their students. Also imperative is ensuring that new methods of assessment and instruction don’t leave students with the most significant barriers to education and training without a way to access postsecondary training. You can read more commentary on the statement in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education.

Coming Soon: Publications Highlight Lessons Learned from the Developmental Education Initiative

The three-year Developmental Education Initiative (DEI) is drawing to a close. While the participating colleges and states are moving ahead with many of their expanded developmental education efforts, this also is a time to reflect on what we’ve learned over the last three years. We wanted to alert you to four upcoming publications from DEI partners that will delve into questions about success, challenges, and insights into where college, state, and funder priorities ought to be going forward. These publications, summarized below, will be released over the next three months. We’ll alert you when they hit the streets! We hope you’ll read them, share them, and make connections to your own work and learning.
 
Bringing Developmental Education to Scale: Lessons from the Developmental Education Initiative
Janet C. Quint, Shanna S. Jaggars, D. Crystal Byndloss, and Asya Magazinnik, MDRC and Community College Research Center
This second and final report from the official evaluation of the DEI colleges examines the degree to which the institutions scaled up their chosen developmental education reforms to serve more students, the factors that affected their ability to expand these programs and practices, and the extent to which these strategies were associated with improved student outcomes. It also considers ways that participation in DEI influenced the colleges more broadly. For these reasons, it may be of interest to other colleges looking to scale-up reforms, especially those related to instruction and the provision of student supports, as well as to funders concerned about how best to help community colleges bring promising ideas to scale. The evaluation, conducted by MDRC and its partner, the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University, draws on both qualitative data (primarily interviews with key personnel at all 15 institutions) and quantitative data (information on participation and on student outcomes that the colleges regularly collected).
 
Ahead of the Curve: State Success in the Developmental Education Initiative
David Altstadt for Jobs for the Future
Building on their work through Achieving the Dream, six states and 15 community colleges joined the Developmental Education Initiative in 2009 to take on the daunting challenge of improving the success of students who enter the community college academically underprepared. Teams from the six DEI states— Connecticut, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia —working with Jobs for the Future, which has managed the DEI state policy effort, co-developed an ambitious, evidence-based state policy framework to guide large-scale, multi-faceted reforms in how community colleges provide underprepared students with the skills they need to succeed in college courses. Three years later, with the initiative winding down, these states have made significant progress in adopting the DEI policy recommendations and, as a result, they have augmented, accelerated, and spread developmental education systems change across their community colleges. Ahead of the Curve spotlights the major policy accomplishments of the Developmental Education Initiative by profiling specific innovations in each of the six states and by documenting the degree to which these states have pursued common strategies and policy levers contained in the initiative’s systems-change framework.
 
Presidential Reflections: What DEI Taught Us
Edited by Madeline Patton for MDC
The Developmental Education Initiative asked 15 college leaders to take what they’d learned in early Achieving the Dream efforts and apply that to the challenge of scaling up: what resources, policies, and practices are essential to scaling up effective developmental education efforts? Finding ways to move more students through developmental education more quickly—or bypass it altogether—while maintaining successful student outcomes required leadership and commitment from every level of the organization. In this essay collection, the presidents of the 15 DEI colleges reflect on what they learned about building, embedding, and maintaining systemic change in their institutions—particularly in the difficult field of developmental education— through work with their trustees, students, faculty, staff, and community. They discuss how they and their colleges took on identifying successful innovations and scaling them up in the midst of leadership transitions, serious reductions in financial resources, and major changes in organizational structure.

What We Know: A Synthesis of DEI College Learning
Abby Parcell, MDC, and Cynthia Ferrell, Community College Leadership Program
In February 2012, MDC convened DEI college teams composed of faculty, administrators, and presidents. We mixed them up—different colleges, different states, different roles—and asked them to create the ideal path for underprepared students to get from college entry to credential completion. Drawing on their collective knowledge, particularly what they’d learned during DEI, the teams considered four points of interaction with students or potential students: early intervention and access, advising and support services, developmental education instruction, and alignment with credential and degree programs. Six teams and six hours later, we had six designs that displayed a remarkable amount of consensus about the programs, policies, and institutional supports needed to help any student be successful on the path from college enrollment to credential completion. What We Know is a synthesis of our DEI experts’ recommended best program bets, and related critical institutional policies for helping all students succeed at what they set out to accomplish in community college.

New Workshop Helps Peer Leaders Keep Students On Course!

Today’s post comes from Ruth Silon, executive director of the Ohio Association of Community Colleges’ Student Success Center and former DEI director and English faculty member at Cuyahoga Community College (CCC). Ruth describes how CCC combined what they learned from two of their DEI initiatives to increase the impact of student leaders on their campuses.

As Cuyahoga Community College’s Developmental Education Initiative (DEI) grant came to an end, making good use of the remaining funds was not a challenge. The College’s grant used peer leaders in two of its major initiatives: Supplemental Instruction (SI) and Peer Mentoring. For another initiative, a redesign of Math 0850, Skip Downing’s On Course principles were a major part of the course. Most math faculty who taught the course attended On Course Level I and II workshops during the college’s involvement with Achieving the Dream and DEI. During DEI, the workshops were offered to all faculty.

Two occurrences led us to the decision to hold an On Course workshop for student peer leaders. First, during the second year of DEI, English professor Mary Ward, who used On Course in her class, asked if her SI leader, Tiffany, could be trained. Having Tiffany in the workshop with the faculty was a real benefit as her presence added a valuable perspective to the training. Instead of just talking about On Course in an abstract setting, we talked about its principles and their value for students with a student. Tiffany then went on to promote On Course as an SI Leader with students in her English class. Then, during the third year of DEI, Robin Middleton from Jamestown Community College (JCC) facilitated the Level II workshop. From her we learned about a new workshop “Creating a Culture of Success: On Course for Front Line Staff.” In order to promote culture change across the college, front-line staff who work in admissions and financial aid were trained in On Course principles and techniques. Although a workshop for front-line peer student leaders had not been tested, Skip and Robin agreed to put it together.

On September 7, 2012, over forty student leaders from multiple Cuyahoga Community College (CCC) campuses attended the one-day workshop. The students were supplemental instruction leaders, student ambassadors, peer advocates with the C2C program, student coaches with Cleveland Transfer Connection, and an AmeriCorps coach. The students dove deep into discussions about the following topics: “Eight Choices of Successful Students,” “On Course Core Beliefs,” “The Language of Responsibility,” “Victim versus Creator Language,” and “Staying On Course When at a Fork in the Road of Life.” They practiced working with each other on the wise choice process and the problem resolution process. One of the students told me that she worries about students who are very belligerent: “They don’t know how to react to anything except by getting angry and using their street behavior.”  Student leaders quickly saw that using the wise choice process would slow down students’ reaction process and get them to think more critically. Another student said, “I think On Course will help me save my marriage!” 

The group activity that impressed many attendees was “Creating a Mission Statement for Front Line Staff.”  The task was to create a statement of “purpose you would be proud to post in your work space for all to see…. a Mission Statement that will guide your important work with students.”  Below are a few statements from the student collaboration:

• To serve as a support system with students to help them get their Associate’s Degree and achieve a rewarding career
• To provide an environment where students feel that they are part of a community
• Help students to learn and achieve the tools to be successful students and citizens

Giving these leaders the opportunity to put into words what their goals are and recognize how important their position is was quite moving. They felt empowered and then would go off to empower students. Clearly, this is a workshop that other colleges should think about bringing to their institution.

It is also important to mention that staff who work with these student leaders attended the workshop and many have attended On Course Level I and II training. If this program for student leaders is to work, trained staff will have to continue the conversation with them and encourage the use of On Course principles and methods.

Often as a grant ends, you find yourself saying, “We wish we knew then what we know now; we could have done some things differently or sooner.”  Blending together two of our initiatives, using student leaders and On Course training, was a great example of the culmination of our learning. I am so pleased that we were able to make it happen.

A President's Reflection: Scaling with Fidelity

Last week, we discussed different ways to describe the return on investment from a particular program. A convincing ROI can go a long way in generating support for a scaling strategy. In today’s post, Sanford C. “Sandy” Shugart, president of Valencia College, reminds us of how important it is to keep testing that ROI. The returns from a pilot might change dramatically when you expand to more people and disciplines. Maintaining fidelity to the proven model is essential if you want to maintain (and continuing improving) results.

Valencia College entered DEI with a history of innovation and a clear sense of areas to scale for effect in developmental programs. Specifically, the college planned to:

• expand dramatically the use of supplemental instruction (SI) in developmental mathematics and other gateway courses 
• grow the number of paired courses designed to function as learning communities 
• expand the offering of student success courses while embedding the success strategies in other first-year courses 
• expand a transition program for certain at-risk students called Bridges to Success

In the early going, we believed the initial stages of scaling—clarifying the model, recruiting adopters from the faculty and students, training the implementers, and having the will and support to reallocate scarce resources—would present the greatest challenges. We were wrong. Early stages of implementation were marked by enthusiasm, collaboration, and high expectations for success. The performance data were eagerly anticipated each term and became important levers in the conversations and revisions to the programs that followed.

Scaling went rather well, with each treatment showing positive early results and the general trend in student performance moving toward accelerated success—more credit hours earned in fewer academic terms by each succeeding cohort of students. With this success and the word of mouth among both students and faculty about the work, recruiting adopters became much easier. In fact, demand for SI-supported sections quickly grew beyond the initial disciplines and courses selected. (Valencia served more than 11,000 students in SI-supported course sections last year.) These were generally positive signs. However, as we scaled to greater and greater numbers of course sections, faculty, and students, we began to discover a new set of challenges.

SI will serve as an example, though we had similar challenges in other innovations. As we reviewed data from the SI sections versus “non-SI” sections, we began to find significant differences in the effect on indicators like student persistence to the end of course and grade distribution. Some of these seemed almost random, while others clearly showed a pattern (by campus, by discipline, etc.). Deeper inquiry revealed that the effect for students who actually participated in the supplemental activities that make SI effective were almost uniformly high for all students. What the discrepancy in the data revealed were major differences in implementation. It seems some faculty had found ways to encourage, perhaps even require, active student engagement in supplemental learning activities, while others had managed to achieve very little of this engagement. These differences existed in spite of aggressive training efforts prior to implementation.

Similarly, we found that while SI was especially effective in many of the mathematics gateway courses, the effect was much less striking in many of the courses to which it was added in the later years of our work (economics, political science, etc.) Again, we inquired more deeply and discovered not only differences in methods, but very different understandings among the faculty (and students) about the purposes of SI and the outcomes we were seeking.

We had, as our projects reached maturity, encountered the problem of scaling with fidelity to the model. It seems that our discipline of innovation needs to include ongoing evaluation of the purposes and steps to implementation, continuing staff training, and rigorous data analysis to assure that the treatment in which we are investing doesn’t take on a life of its own after institutionalization. A useful lesson!