The Impact Of Project GRAD (Graduation Really Achieves Dreams)

The Impact Of Project GRAD (Graduation Really Achieves Dreams)

Presented By:

Tony Hastings

Audra Wells

Presented By:

Tony Hastings

Audra Wells

Facts About Project GRADFacts About Project GRAD

Non-Profit educational reform Started in Houston, Texas in 1992 Used in grades K-12 Delivers research based results on national

scale. Currently serving 132,000 students Now being utilized in 211 of the nations

disadvantaged schools

Non-Profit educational reform Started in Houston, Texas in 1992 Used in grades K-12 Delivers research based results on national

scale. Currently serving 132,000 students Now being utilized in 211 of the nations

disadvantaged schools

History of Project GRADHistory of Project GRAD

1988, Tenneco Company funds four year college scholarships for Davis High School in Houston, Texas

1991, Number of graduates in Davis High School quadruples

1991-1993, Development of the full Project GRAD model

1993, Principals and teachers vote to adopt Project GRAD

Today, Project GRAD in Houston effects more than 51,000 students in 74 schools nationally

1988, Tenneco Company funds four year college scholarships for Davis High School in Houston, Texas

1991, Number of graduates in Davis High School quadruples

1991-1993, Development of the full Project GRAD model

1993, Principals and teachers vote to adopt Project GRAD

Today, Project GRAD in Houston effects more than 51,000 students in 74 schools nationally

Some of the Districts Implementing the

Project GRAD Program Some of the Districts Implementing the

Project GRAD Program Alaska

Kenai Peninsula California

Los Angeles Texas

Houston Brownsville

Ohio Columbus Akron Cincinnati Lorain

Tennessee Knoxville

New York Long Island

New Jersey Newark

Georgia Atlanta

Alaska Kenai Peninsula

California Los Angeles

Texas Houston Brownsville

Ohio Columbus Akron Cincinnati Lorain

Tennessee Knoxville

New York Long Island

New Jersey Newark

Georgia Atlanta

What Is Project GRAD?What Is Project GRAD?

Innovative model for economically disadvantaged youth College prep Challenging curricula Opportunities for college scholarships

Innovative model for economically disadvantaged youth College prep Challenging curricula Opportunities for college scholarships

Mission Of Project GRADMission Of Project GRAD

To ensure quality public education for all at risk children in economically disadvantaged communities To increase the graduation rates these

communities To prepare students to enter and have a

successful college experience

To ensure quality public education for all at risk children in economically disadvantaged communities To increase the graduation rates these

communities To prepare students to enter and have a

successful college experience

Goals of Project GRADGoals of Project GRAD

To have the following results: 80% students graduate from high school 50% students enter and graduated from college Provide long term support for the students in

districts Works to achieve sustainable systematic change

To have the following results: 80% students graduate from high school 50% students enter and graduated from college Provide long term support for the students in

districts Works to achieve sustainable systematic change

The Five Pillars of Project GRAD

The Five Pillars of Project GRAD

The Feeder System Existing Assets Community Collaboration Project GRAD USA Local Grad Sites

The Feeder System Existing Assets Community Collaboration Project GRAD USA Local Grad Sites

Components of Project GRADComponents of Project GRAD

Mathematics Literacy Classroom Management Social Services /Parent Involvement High School Programs

Mathematics Literacy Classroom Management Social Services /Parent Involvement High School Programs

Project GRAD DemographicsProject GRAD Demographics

% of Minority Students

91%

60%

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

%of GRAD Minority Population % Charter School Minority Population % of US Public School MinorityPopulation

GRAD Demographics Compared to US and Charter Schools

% o

f M

inori

ty S

tud

en

ts

%of GRAD Minority Population % Charter School Minority Population % of US Public School Minority Population

% of Minority Students

91%

60%

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

%of GRAD Minority Population % Charter School Minority Population % of US Public School MinorityPopulation

GRAD Demographics Compared to US and Charter Schools

% o

f M

inori

ty S

tud

en

ts

%of GRAD Minority Population % Charter School Minority Population % of US Public School Minority Population

GRAD Program’s Student Ethnicity GRAD Program’s Student Ethnicity

GRAD Program's Student Ethnicity

0.40%

38.20%

52.20%

8.60%

0.40% 0.20%0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Asian Afrian Amerian Latino White Multi-racial Alaska Native andNative American

Ethnic Background

% o

f S

tud

en

ts

Asian Afrian Amerian Latino White Multi-racial Alaska Native and Native American

Project GRAD Demographics Cont.

Project GRAD Demographics Cont.

% of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch

85%

63%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

% of GRAD Free/Reduced Lunch % of Charter Free/Reduced Lunc % of US Public Free/Reduced

Category of Students

% o

f S

tud

en

ts

% of GRAD Free/Reduced Lunch % of Charter Free/Reduced Lunc % of US Public Free/Reduced

% of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch

85%

63%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

% of GRAD Free/Reduced Lunch % of Charter Free/Reduced Lunc % of US Public Free/Reduced

Category of Students

% o

f S

tud

en

ts

% of GRAD Free/Reduced Lunch % of Charter Free/Reduced Lunc % of US Public Free/Reduced

Graduation Rate Comparison From 1999-2005

Graduation Rate Comparison From 1999-2005

Graduation Rate Comparison From 1999-2005

64

195 192

112

98

265256

135

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Columbus, Ohio Houston, Texas Atlanta, Georgia Knoxville, Tennessee

Cities

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

den

ts

1999 Graduation Rates 2005 Graduation Rates

Graduation Rate Comparison From 1999-2005

64

195 192

112

98

265256

135

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Columbus, Ohio Houston, Texas Atlanta, Georgia Knoxville, Tennessee

Cities

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

den

ts

1999 Graduation Rates 2005 Graduation Rates

Rate of Students Attending College in Columbus, OhioRate of Students Attending College in Columbus, Ohio

% of Students Attending College

27.20%

39.80%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

1999-2002 % of Graduates Attending College 2005 % of Graduats Using GRAD Scholarships to AttendCollege

National and Columbus, Ohio GRAD Comparison

% o

f S

tud

en

ts

1999-2002 % of Graduates Attending College 2005 % of Graduats Using GRAD Scholarships to Attend College

% of Students Attending College

27.20%

39.80%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

1999-2002 % of Graduates Attending College 2005 % of Graduats Using GRAD Scholarships to AttendCollege

National and Columbus, Ohio GRAD Comparison

% o

f S

tud

en

ts

1999-2002 % of Graduates Attending College 2005 % of Graduats Using GRAD Scholarships to Attend College

Project GRAD Students Attending College in 2006

Project GRAD Students Attending College in 2006

Current % of Students Attending College in 2006

Atlanta13%

Columbus4%

Houston59%

Knoxville6%

Los Angeles9%

Newark9%

Atlanta Columbus Houston Knoxville Los Angeles Newark

Current % of Students Attending College in 2006

Atlanta13%

Columbus4%

Houston59%

Knoxville6%

Los Angeles9%

Newark9%

Atlanta Columbus Houston Knoxville Los Angeles Newark

Results of Project GRADResults of Project GRAD

Number of high school graduates increased by 94%

Number of students going to college has increased 400%

Graduates are completing college at a rate that is 70% higher than national average

Number of high school graduates increased by 94%

Number of students going to college has increased 400%

Graduates are completing college at a rate that is 70% higher than national average

Cost of Project GRADCost of Project GRAD

Average cost is $500 per student 5% of the total amount spent to educate a

public school student

Costs are covered by reallocating existing funds

Administrative costs are 8% of Project GRAD’s overall cost

Average cost is $500 per student 5% of the total amount spent to educate a

public school student

Costs are covered by reallocating existing funds

Administrative costs are 8% of Project GRAD’s overall cost

Advantages to Project GRAD(mdrc 2006)

Advantages to Project GRAD(mdrc 2006)

Uses a “feeder” program structure Encourages the push for students to be

better prepared for Project GRAD high schools

Provides financial support for college Strives to change the learning environment Plans for long range reform

Uses a “feeder” program structure Encourages the push for students to be

better prepared for Project GRAD high schools

Provides financial support for college Strives to change the learning environment Plans for long range reform

Disadvantages to Project GRAD(mdrc 2006)

Disadvantages to Project GRAD(mdrc 2006)

Lacks curriculum reform Does not address specific skill deficits of students Lacks staff development for instructional content Is not having the anticipated quick improvement

for student achievement Has not dealt with the “leaks” in the feeder system

Students moving into the high school that did not have the advantage of the feeder school

Transitions of families in and out of the schools

Lacks curriculum reform Does not address specific skill deficits of students Lacks staff development for instructional content Is not having the anticipated quick improvement

for student achievement Has not dealt with the “leaks” in the feeder system

Students moving into the high school that did not have the advantage of the feeder school

Transitions of families in and out of the schools

What Do We Belive About Project GRAD?

What Do We Belive About Project GRAD?

Appears to be too good to be true Too young of a reform to make a solid judgment

on the program Rated as a moderate reform program Has the potential to be a great reform program for

a school system if the program addresses missing attributes

The reform addresses the whole child not just the academic portion

Appears to be too good to be true Too young of a reform to make a solid judgment

on the program Rated as a moderate reform program Has the potential to be a great reform program for

a school system if the program addresses missing attributes

The reform addresses the whole child not just the academic portion

ResourcesResources

Project GRAD USA (2006 update), “Project GRAD Houston, Texas”. November 12, 2006 http:www.projectgrad.org

Snipes, J., Holton, G., Doolittle, F., Sztejnberg, L., (July 2006) “Striving for Student Success”, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC). November 12, 2006 http:www.mdrc.org

Interview with Ms. Montina Jones, Knoxville County School District, Knoxville, Tennessee

Project GRAD USA (2006 update), “Project GRAD Houston, Texas”. November 12, 2006 http:www.projectgrad.org

Snipes, J., Holton, G., Doolittle, F., Sztejnberg, L., (July 2006) “Striving for Student Success”, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC). November 12, 2006 http:www.mdrc.org

Interview with Ms. Montina Jones, Knoxville County School District, Knoxville, Tennessee