22
Cranbrook Horizons-Upward Bound Dayna Asante-Appiah, MSW/M.Ed. student & Caytlynn Schotten, MSW student College Readiness Outcome Report November 30, 2016 Do HUB students outperform their peers?

HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

Cranbrook Horizons-Upward Bound

Dayna Asante-Appiah, MSW/M.Ed. student &Caytlynn Schotten, MSW student

College Readiness Outcome Report

November 30, 2016Do HUB students outperform their peers?

Page 2: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

About the authors● Team Member 1: Caytlynn Schotten

○ Second year Master of Social Work student ■ IP/Children & Youth

○ Interested in working within K-12 school settings.○ Identified as White, female○ Is a current HUB donor and regular part-time employee

● Team Member 2: Dayna Asante-Appiah○ Second year dual degree master’s student studying Social Work and

Higher Education○ Interests include college access issues for low-income students

of color○ African-American, female

Page 3: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

AcknowledgementThis evaluation was conducted in partnership with CKHUB to examine the college readiness outcomes between CKHUB participants and nonparticipants in the general DPSCD population. Specifically, looking at ACT/SAT standardized scores and postsecondary enrollment rates.

We would like to acknowledge and thank the executive director: Dr. Taylor, as well as the HUB Administrative team for their assistance and support of this project.

Page 4: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

Executive summaryOverall, CKHUB participants have higher ACT/SAT scores and postsecondary enrollment rates when compared to the general student population of DPSCD. For the most recent graduating class (2016), CKHUB participants scored approximately 4 points more than peers. In the 2015 graduating class, CKHUB students enrolled in a postsecondary education at almost twice the rate.

A primary theme that emerged from this project is the need for a more thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of CKHUB, such as collecting and comparing student samples from both populations.

Page 5: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

The overall mission of HUB“…To prepare students who have limited opportunities from the Detroit Metropolitan area to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. We academically support the efforts of the student's home school by providing services that assist students in pursuing and achieving their dreams and goals for their academic endeavors and beyond.” (Cranbrook HUB, n.d.).

Programming is organized by two sessions; Summer and Winter- during the academic year.

Page 6: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

The Problem - There is a significant achievement gap of high school

graduation and college graduation for students of color coming from high poverty areas, are at academic-risk, and/or first-generation college students.

Page 7: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

The Hypotheses- H1- “Participant students of Cranbrook HUB are more

likely to have higher ACT composite and subtest scores as compared to non-participant DPSCD students”

- H2- “Participant students of Cranbrook HUB are more likely to have a higher rate of post-secondary enrollment within six months of graduating as compared to non-participant DPSCD students”.

Page 8: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

Evaluation Design- Quasi-experimental

- Middle rigor level- Two comparison groups, not randomized

- No specific sampling sizes or number of participants taken into consideration; used averages for 2011-2016 graduating years

Page 9: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

Data collection- A review of CKHUB graduating participants for the years

2011-2016 provided an average of ACT scores and postsecondary enrollment information.

- ACT scores and post-secondary enrollment information from DPSCD High Schools for the 2011-2016 graduating years was gathered through the Michigan Department of Education database website; MIschooldata.org

Page 10: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

H1: ACT ComparisonGraduating Year

DPSCD ACT average composite scores

HUB ACT average scores HUB Difference

2011 15.5 20.5 5

2012 15.5 20.5 5

2013 16.6 19.58 2.98

2014 16.4 22 5.6

2015 16.5 19.5 3

2016 16 19.7 3.7

Overall Average

16.1 20.3 4.2

Page 11: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

H1: ACT Comparison

N=6

Page 12: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

H1: ACT Comparison DATA ANALYSIS- CKHUB ACT scores are high every year compared to their

peers

- DPSCD test scores have remained steady, averaging a score of 16.1

- HUB average test scores of 20.3

- Utilized T-Test, independent

- P(value)= 0.0005

Page 13: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

H1: ACT Comparison Findings- P(value) confirms gain is not by chance

- The intervention has a statistically significant impact

Page 14: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

H2: PostSecondary Enrollment ComparisonGraduating Class HUB percentage

enrolled in postsecondary

DPS percentage enrolled in postsecondary

HUB Difference

2011 98% 51% 47%

2012 92% 53% 39%

2013 94% 58% 36%

2014 83% 57% 26%

2015 93% 45% 48%

Overall Average 92% 53% 39%

Page 15: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

H2: PostSecondary Enrollment Comparison

Page 16: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

H2: PostSecondary Enrollment Comparison Data Analysis- CKHUB student enrolled in at higher rate into

postsecondary education every year for the 5 years

- DPSCD average postsecondary enrollment rate of 53%

- HUB average postsecondary enrollment rate is 92%

- Utilized Chi Square

- P(value)= .942

Page 17: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

H2: PostSecondary Enrollment Comparison Findings- The intervention is not statistically significant- A larger sample size is need to statistically confirm the

conclusion that HUB postsecondary enrollment is that due to chance.

Page 18: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

Limitations- The limited time for this evaluation did not allow us to

pull individual data for HUB students due to the time constraints of the team members and HUB staff.

- The evaluators had limited access to data from the comparison group; DPSCD; specifically regarding direct student population information.

- A lack of a larger sample size

Page 19: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

how to strengthen our findings- Findings could be strengthen by confirming findings with

examining the two hypotheses with a large sample of specific student information

- An experimental survey with a group of students over a longer period of time would yield stronger findings that could evaluate more specifically how HUB as an intervention works

- Comparing HUB participant and home school within DPSCD system sample of student GPAs

Page 20: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

Lessons Learned- Patience when working with organization when an outsider

- Time Consuming!

- Importance of being realistic with evaluation expectations

Page 21: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

Questions?

Page 22: HUB Evaluation Report Presentation

CitationsCranbrook Education Community. (2012). 2012 CKHUB Federal Upward-Bound Program Grant

Proposal [unpublished].

Cranbrook Horizons-Upward Bound. (n.d.) About Us. Retrieved from: http://schools.cranbrook.edu/Page/About-Us/Horizons-Upward-Bound/About-HUB

Detroit City School District. 2015-16 College Readiness Trend: Total Score-All Students. Retrieved from: MIschooldata.org

Detroit City School District. College Enrollment by High School Trend: 2014-15- College Type (All by Category)-within 6 Months-Gender-All Genders. Retrieved from: MIschooldata.org