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
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
1
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
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
2
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
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
3
Top Reporting Issues from 2006-2008




Course Completers: The APR requires accurate
information regarding students that complete the
coursework but do not pass the GED and do not reenroll.
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% .
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
4
Solutions to Known Reporting Issues

Grantees carefully reviewed definitions and
entered data within EMAPS for electronic
Annual Performance Report (APR) with builtin “hints” for data quality checks.

Office of Migrant Education adjusted GPRA 1
formula…
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
5
Adjusted GPRA Measure 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:
GPRA Measure 1= total no. of HEP GED attainers
[total no. funded to be served minus
total no. of persisters]
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
6
Adjusted GPRA Measure 1 Formula
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]
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
7
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.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
8
Presentation of
National HEP Data
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
9
Performance:
Effective and Efficient



Overall performance on National GPRA
Overall performance on efficiency measures
Additional HEP research questions and
results
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
10
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.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
11
National GPRA Measure 1 Data
(Effectiveness):
National Goal Not Met
GPRA 1 Measure
Y
N
19 Grantees
23 Grantees
45% of all grantees
55% of all grantees
Let’s review the following slides, in order to explain
these data...
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
12
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
July 20-22 2010
= 65%
HEP 2009 Results
13
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
[Total no. actually served Total no. of persisters]
1,540
2,657
July 20-22 2010
1,540
(3,383-726)
= 58%
HEP 2009 Results
14
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
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
15
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%.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
16
National GPRA Measure 1 Data
Stratified GPRA 1 Chart
10
9
9
8
No. of Grantees = 42
8
7
7
7
6
6
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
17
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.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
18
National GPRA Measure 2 Data
(Effectiveness):
National Goal Not Met


National Goal = 80%, Performance = 74%
2,532 GED students placed
3,440 GED student attainers
GPRA Measure 2: Met/ Not Met
Y
N
July 20-22 2010
17
25
40.5%
59.5%
HEP 2009 Results
19
National GPRA Measure 2 Data
Stratified GPRA2 Chart
20
18
Total Grantees=42
16
14
11
12
9
10
8
6
6
3
4
2
0
1
4
4
2
2
0
0-9%
July 20-22 2010
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
HEP 2009 Results
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-100%
20
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.

July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
21
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
=
Total No. GED Attainers
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
Cost per GED
22
Efficiency Measure: Cost per GED
(Reported in PART)
No national targets yet.
Total HEP funding awarded
Total No. GED Attainers
students
$18,912,210 =
3,440
HEP efficiency measure
(Cost per GED): $5,498
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
23
Efficiency Measure: Cost per GED
(Reported in PART)
Cost Per GED
HEP Efficiency Measure
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
$4,961
$4,830
2005-2006
2006-2007
$5,359
$5,498
2007-2008
2008-2009
Year
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
24
Cost per GED Attainer Placed
(Not Reported in PART)

Cost per GED Attainer Placed is 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
=
Total No. GED Attainers Placed
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
Cost per GED
Attainer Placed
25
Cost per GED Attainer Placed
(Not Reported in PART)
No national targets yet
Total HEP funding awarded
Total No. GED Attainers Placed
$18,912,210 =
2,532 students
Average Cost per GED Attainer placed: $7,469
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
26
Cost per GED Attainer Placed
(not reported in PART)
Cost Per Student Served
Cost per GED Attainer Placed
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
$6,076
2005-2006
$7,461
$7,469
2007-2008
2008-2009
$6,464
2006-2007
Year
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
27
Number Funded vs. Number Actually
Served: Grantees Over-served by 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)
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
28
Number Funded vs. Number Actually
Served: Grantees Over-served by 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)
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
29
Number Funded and
Number Actually Served
8000
7016
7000
6354
6000
5665
5465
5000
2007-2008
4000
2008-2009
3000
2000
1000
0
No. Funded
July 20-22 2010
No. Served
HEP 2009 Results
30
Number Funded, Number Actually
Served, and GED Attainers
HEP Number Funded/Served
and GED Attainers/Placed
8000
7406
Number of Students
7000
6000
7016
6389
6311
5665
5000
4000
6354
6350
3721
3469
3457
5465
3440
3000
2000
3038
Number Funded
Number Served
GED Attainers
Number Placed
2846
2483
2532
2007-2008
2008-2009
1000
0
2005-2006
July 20-22 2010
2006-2007
HEP 2009 Results
31
Is there a relationship between
GPRA 1 results and costs?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
32
Is there a relationship between
GPRA 1 results and costs?
HEP Correlations
CostPerGED
Cost Per GED
Pearson Correlation
GPRA1
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
GPRA1
-.626**
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
42
42
-.626**
1
.000
N
42
42
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significantly (p<0.01) negative. As higher
percentages of students attain a GED, the costs of funding the
GED decline.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
33
Office of Migrant Education Research Questions

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
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
34
Commuter v. Residential v. Combination

42 Total HEP Programs



Commuter: 25 Programs
Residential: 3 Programs
Combination of Commuter/Residential: 14 Programs
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
35
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?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
36
Commuter /Residential/Combination (GPRA 1)
HEP ANOVA
GPRA1: Commuter-Residential-Combination
Between Groups
Sum of Squares
2884.755
df
Mean Square
2
1442.378
Within Groups
18979.721
39
Total
21864.476
41
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
F
2.964
Sig.
.063
486.660
37
Commuter /Residential/Combination (GPRA1)
HEP Report
HEP GPRA1
Commuter-Residential-Combination
1.00 - Commuter
Mean
66.0800
N
25
Std. Deviation
25.01653
2.00 - Residential
33.6667
3
1.52753
12.00 - Combination
65.3571
14
17.44268
Total
63.5238
42
23.09285
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
38
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?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
39
Commuter/Residential/Combination (GPRA 2)
HEP ANOVA
GPRA2: Commuter-Residential-Combination
Between Groups
Sum of Squares
1790.184
df
Mean Square
2
895.092
Within Groups
20698.221
39
Total
22488.405
41
F
1.687
Sig.
.198
530.724
•Do we see anything significant to the .05 level?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
40
Commuter/Residential/Combination (GPRA 2)
HEP Report
GPRA2
Commuter-ResidentialCombination
1.00 - Commuter
Mean
64.0800
N
25
Std. Deviation
25.66437
2.00 - Residential
84.3333
3
1.52753
12.00 - Combination
74.8571
14
19.38619
Total
69.1190
42
23.42003
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
41
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)
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
42
Commuter /Residential/Combination
(GPRA 1) Efficiency
GED Cost Efficiency
$20,000
$18,261
$15,000
$10,000
$7,118
$5,000
$5,498
$4,497
$0
Commuters
July 20-22 2010
Residential
Combination
HEP 2009 Results
Average
43
Commuter /Residential/Combination
(GPRA 1) Efficiency
Commuter-Residential-Combination Efficiency
$20,000
$17,886
$18,261
$15,000
Commuters
$10,000
Residential
$7,229
$7,118
$4,527
$4,497
GED Cost 2008
GED Cost 2009
Combination
$5,000
$0
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
44
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.)
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
45
Open v. Structured

44 Total HEP Programs


Open Enrollment: 30 Programs
Structured Enrollment: 12 Programs
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
46
Open v. Structured (GPRA 1)
Open-Structured Enrollment and GPRA 1
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
F
GPRA1
Equal variances
assumed
Sig.
1.566
Equal variances not
assumed
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
.218
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig.
(2-tailed)
40
.997
t
.004
df
.005
26.612
.996
47
Open v. Structured (GPRA 1)
Group Statistics
GPRA1
Open-Structured
Enrollment
1.00
2.00
30
Mean
63.5333
Std.
Deviation
24.86062
Std. Error
Mean
4.53891
12
63.5000
18.92809
5.46407
N
Anything significant to the .05 level?
Any conclusions we can make?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
48
Open v. Structured (GPRA 2)
Independent Samples Test
Open-Structured Enrollment
GPRA2
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
July 20-22 2010
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Sig.
t
3.991 .053 -1.318
-1.565
df
40
30.510
HEP 2009 Results
Sig. (2Mean
Std. Error
tailed) Difference Difference
.195 -10.45000
7.92850
.128 -10.45000
6.67814
49
Open v. Structured (GPRA 2)
Group Statistics
GPRA2
Open-Structured
Enrollment
1.00
2.00
N
30
12
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
Mean
66.1333
25.23508
4.60727
76.5833
16.74655
4.83431
Anything significant to the .05 level?
Any conclusions we can make?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
50
Large v. Small

42 Total HEP Programs

Large Programs: 15 Programs
(enrollment >=125 students funded)

Small Programs: 27 Programs
(enrollment <125 students funded)
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
51
Large v. Small (GPRA 1)
Independent Samples Test
Large – Small Grantee
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
F
GPRA1
Equal variances
assumed
.013
Sig.
.909
Equal variances
not assumed
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
t-test for Equality of Means
t
.472
Sig.
(2-tailed)
df
40
.640
.465
27.901
.645
52
Large v. Small (GPRA 1)
Group Statistics
GPRA1
Large –
Small
Grantee
1.00
2.00
N
15
27
Mean
Std. Deviation
65.8000
24.02439
62.2593
22.92394
Std. Error
Mean
6.20307
4.41171
Anything significant to the .05 level?
Any conclusions we can make?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
53
Large v. Small (GPRA 2)
Independent Samples Test
Large-Small
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
F
GPRA2
Equal variances
assumed
.539
Equal variances
not assumed
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
Sig.
.467
t-test for Equality of Means
t
-.487
df
40
Sig. (2tailed)
.629
-.463
25.000
.647
54
Large v. Small (GPRA 2)
Group Statistics
GPRA2
Large-Small
1.00
2.00
N
15
27
Mean
Std. Deviation
66.7333
26.32887
70.4444
22.05820
Std. Error
Mean
6.79809
4.24510
Anything significant to the .05 level?
Any conclusions we can make?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
55
Instructional Hours:
Do they make a difference in a student obtaining a
GED, and being placed?


Overall program - Correlation
The coefficient of determination (R-squared)
informs us as to how much of GED attainment
and placement is explained by the independent
variables (“1” explains a positive relationship,
“0” is no relationship, “-1” explains a negative
relationship).
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
56
Instructional Hours: Are they related to student
GED attainment (GPRA 1)?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
57
Instructional Hours: Are they related to student
GED attainment (GPRA 1)?
Correlations
GPRA1
GPRA1
Pearson Correlation
1
Avg. Instructional
Hours
.226
Sig. (2-tailed)
.150
N
Avg. Instructional Hours Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
42
42
.226
1
.150
N
42
42
Overall, a slightly positive relationship between
GED attainment and more hours of instruction.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
58
Instructional Hours: Are they related to the
placement of GED attainers (GPRA 2)?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
59
Instructional Hours: Are they related to the
placement of GED attainers (GPRA 2)?
Correlations
Avg. Instructional Hours
GPRA2
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Avg. Instructional
Hours
1
GPRA2
.154
.330
42
.154
.330
42
1
42
42
Slightly positive relationship does exist between
total student hours of instruction and GED
placement.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
60
English Learners (ELs)
What is the status of English Learners?
HEP Projects
English Language Needs
17
HEP Projects: English
Language Needs
25
HEP Projects: No
Reported Language
Needs
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
61
English Learners (ELs)
What is the status of English Learners?
HEP Projects: English Learners
1,363
21%
4,991
79%
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
Reported English
Proficient/No Data
Reported English Learners
62
English Learners (ELs)
What is the status of English Learners?
Number of HEP Projects with Reported ELs
6
8
ELL 0-24%: GPRA 1 69%
ELL 25-49%: GPRA 1 58%
ELL 50-74%: GPRA 1 82%
ELL 75-100%: GPRA 1 60%
1
2
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
63
English Learners (ELs)
What is the status of English Learners?



Seventeen out of a total of 42 HEP projects report that some HEP
students have English language needs.
A total of 1,363 HEP students have been identified as having English
language needs. This number represents 21% of the total HEP
population.
A breakdown of CAMP projects by EL percentage follows:

0-24% ELs: 6 projects, 69% average GPRA 1

25-49% ELs: 1 project, 58% average GPRA 1

50-74% ELs: 2 projects, 82% average GPRA 1

75%-100% ELs: 8 projects, 60% average GPRA 1
What does this information tell us?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
64
Is there a correlation between the percentage of
English Learners (ELs) and program effectiveness
(GPRA 1)?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
65
Is there a correlation between the percentage of
English Learners (ELs) and program effectiveness
(GPRA 1)?
Correlations
ELLGPRA1
ELLGPRA1
ELLPct
ELLPct
-.145
.579
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
1
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
17
-.145
.579
17
1
17
17
N
A slightly negative relationship does exist between
the percentage of English Learners and GED
attainment.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
66
Is there a correlation between the percentage of
English Learners (ELs) and placement of GED
attainers (GPRA 2)?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
67
Is there a correlation between the percentage of
English Learners (ELs) and placement of GED
attainers (GPRA 2)?
Correlations
ELLPct
ELLPct
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
ELLGPRA2
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
ELLGPRA2
1
-.509*
.037
17
17
*
-.509
1
.037
17
17
Moderately negative relationship does exist
between percent ELs and GED placement.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
68
Math Screening: Does a higher average screening
score correlate with GED attainment (GPRA 1)?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
69
Math Screening: Does a higher average screening
score correlate with GED attainment (GPRA 1)?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
70
Math Screening: Does a higher average screening
score correlate with GED attainment (GPRA 1)?
Correlations
GPRA1
MathScreening
English
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
MathScreening
English
GPRA1
1
.215
.262
42
29
.215
1
.262
29
29
Slightly positive relationship does exist between
higher Math screening levels and GED attainment.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
71
Math Screening: Does a higher average screening
score correlate with GED attainment (GPRA 1)?
Correlations
GPRA1
GPRA1
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
MathScreening
Spanish
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
1
42
.514**
.007
26
MathScreening
Spanish
.514**
.007
26
1
26
Moderately positive relationship does exist between
higher Math screening levels and GED attainment.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
72
Reading Screening: Does a higher average
screening score correlate with GED attainment
(GPRA 1)?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
73
Reading Screening: Does a higher average
screening score correlate with GED attainment
(GPRA 1)?
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
74
Reading Screening: Does a higher average
screening score correlate with GED attainment
(GPRA 1)?
Correlations
GPRA1
ReadingScreening
English
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
ReadingScreening
English
GPRA1
1
.272
.146
42
30
.272
1
.146
30
30
Slightly positive relationship does exist between
higher reading screening scores and GED
attainment.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
75
Reading Screening: Does a higher average
screening score correlate with GED attainment
(GPRA 1)?
Correlations
GPRA1
GPRA1
Pearson Correlation
ReadingScreening
Spanish
1
.364
Sig. (2-tailed)
.062
N
ReadingScreening
Spanish
42
27
Pearson Correlation
.364
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.062
N
27
27
Moderately positive relationship does exist between
higher reading screening scores and GED
attainment.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
76
What are other characteristics of HEP Projects?
HEP Students (N=6,354)
3,316
>25 Yrs.
3,038
<=25 Yrs.
3,676
Female
2,678
Male
0
July 20-22 2010
1,000
2,000
3,000
HEP 2009 Results
4,000
77
What are other characteristics of HEP Projects?
HEP Students (N=6,354)
52
Educational Impairments
831
Commute 20+miles
706
Moved 1+ times
0
July 20-22 2010
200
400
HEP 2009 Results
600
800
1,000
78
What are other characteristics of HEP Projects?
Time to Completion for GED Attainers (N=3,440)
75
No. of GED attainers in >2 yrs.
315
No. of GED attainers in 1+ yr. <2 yrs.
3,050
No. of GED attainers in 1 yr.
0
July 20-22 2010
500
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
HEP 2009 Results
79
INTRODUCING…
Top 10 Programs
for
GPRA 1 & GPRA 2
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
80
Top 10 Programs for GPRA 1 & GPRA 2
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
81
Top 10 Projects for GPRA 1

Highest performing HEP grantees for GED attainers.

Four grantees are new to this list for 2008-2009, and are
denoted by an asterisk (*).

Five grantees have placed on both lists, and they are
underlined in dark blue.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
82
Top 10 Performing Programs for GPRA 1











El Paso Community College (99%)*
Treasure Valley Community College (95%)*
Heritage University (94%)
Somerset Community College (94%)
Crowder College (93%)*
University of South Florida (92%)
Wake Technical Community College (91%)
Chemeketa Community College (90%)
Kansas State University (88%)*
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College (76%) tie
University of Colorado at Boulder (76%)
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
83
Top 10 Projects for GPRA 2

Highest performing HEP Grantees for GED attainers that
are placed.

MUST have met the GPRA 1 national target of 69%.

Seven grantees are new to this list for 2008-2009, and are
denoted by an asterisk (*).

Five grantees have placed on both lists, and they are
underlined in dark blue.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
84
Top 10 Performing Programs for GPRA 2










Chemeketa Community College (100%)
Northern New Mexico Community College (100%)*
University of Colorado at Boulder (97%)
Fort Scott Community College (89%)*
Wake Technical Community College (88%)
Central Washington University (81%)*
Kansas State University (81%)*
Heritage University (79)*
Texas State Technical College at Harlingen (79%)*
University of Oregon (74%)*
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
85
Efficient and Effective
Met both GPRA 1 and GPRA 2 targets, and efficiency
measure (cost per GED) was below the average,
$5,498.





University of Colorado: $1,274
Wake Technical Community College: $3,523
Chemeketa Community College: $3,534
Central Washington University: $4,226*
Northern New Mexico Community College: $5,143*
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
86
Summary: What are program costs?
Year
No. Funded
HEP Funding
Cost Per GED
2005-2006
6,389
$18,459,591
$4,961
2006-2007
6,311
$18,397,791
$5,303
2007-2008
5,665
$18,526,796
$5,359
2008-2009
5,465
$18,912,210
$5,498
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
87
Summary: What are the results (GPRA 1)?
HEP GPRA 1 Results: 2008-2009
841,
13%
1,097, 17%
GED Attainers
Persisters
3,440,
55%
Withdrawals
Course Completers
928,
15%
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
88
Summary: What are the results (GPRA 2)?
HEP GPRA 2 Results: 2008-2009
44,
2%
907,
36%
Post-Secondary or Training
1,581,
62%
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
Upgraded Employment
Military
89
Summary: Conclusions
What we know:






GPRA 1 NOT met, 61% with a national target of 69%.
GPRA 2 NOT met, 74% with a national target of 80%.
Percentage of students served in HEP is 116%.
Program costs are rising slightly, per student
funded/served.
Students in projects that over-serve, in general, are not
as successful in GED attainment as those that serve
less than or equal to the number funded.
Pure residential projects significantly underperform
combination and commuter projects.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
90
Summary: Conclusions
What we know:
 GPRA 1 results of projects with open enrollment and
structured enrollment do not differ. Structured projects
tend to place more students.
 There are no differences between GPRA 1 results for
large and small projects.
 There is a slightly positive relationship between the
number of hours a project provides to students, as they
seek a GED.
 Twenty-one percent of HEP students are reported as
English Learners, and projects with a higher percentage
of ELs tend to place less students.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
91
Summary: Conclusions
What we know:
 There is slightly positive relationship between higher
scores in Math and Reading screening assessments,
and GED attainment and subsequent placement.
 The majority of HEP students are 25 years of age and
older, female, and 15% of HEP students commute more
than 20 miles, one-way, to classes.
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
92
Summary
What we don’t know:

The level to which grantees’ practices
affect GPRA 1 and GPRA 2 results
Next Steps: Pilot Student-Level Data
July 20-22 2010
HEP 2009 Results
93
OME Mission

The mission of the Office of Migrant Education is to
provide
 Excellent leadership,
 Technical Assistance, and
Financial Support
…to improve the educational opportunities and academic
success of migrant children, youth, and agricultural
workers and fishers, and their families.


July 20-22 2010
THANK YOU for your hard work and improving the lives of
6,354 HEP students!
HEP 2009 Results
94