improving college access and success: lessons from institutions on the performance frontier

IMPROVING COLLEGE ACCESS AND SUCCESS: Lessons from Institutions on the Performance Frontier

Statewide Education ForumBaton Rouge, Louisiana February, 2007

You’ve come here today to talk together about how you can improve both access to and success within higher

education in Louisiana.And, given the numbers, many of

you are especially concerned about changing patterns for low-

income students and African Americans.

At this meeting, you’ll be discussing mounting

initiatives aimed at both overall increases and at

cutting in half the gaps—in both access and success—

that separate these students from other young

Louisianans.

For some of you, at least, there’s a very big question: what does all of this have to

do with me?

Isn’t improving college going and college success—

especially among low-income and minority students—mostly about better high

school preparation and more generous student financial

aid?

Yes, these things matter and they matter a lot.But it turns out that what you

do matters a lot, too.

This morning:• Review the data on achievement

and attainment patterns, K-16;• Identify some institutions that are

exceptions to those patterns;• Share what we’re learning from

those institutions about action steps that really matter.

First, some good news.After more than a decade of fairly flat achievement and stagnant or growing gaps, we appear to be

turning the corner.

NAEP Reading, 9 Year-Olds:Record Performance for All

Groups

150

170

190

210

230

250

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Ave

rage

Sca

le S

core

African American Latino White

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic ProgressNote: Long-Term Trends NAEP

NAEP Math, 9 Year-Olds: Record Performance for All

Groups

150

170

190

210

230

250

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Ave

rage

Sca

le S

core



Bottom Line:When We Really Focus on

Something, We Make Progress

Clearly, much more remains to be done in elementary and

middle schoolToo many youngsters still

enter high school way behind.

But at least we have some traction on these

problems.

The Same is NOT

True of High School

Age 17: Math and Science NAEP Long-Term Trends

280285290295300305310315

1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Scal

e Sc

ore

MathScience

Source: NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress and NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress.Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP

Age 17: Reading and Writing NAEP Long-Term Trends

250255260265270275280285290295300

1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Scal

e Sc

ore

READINGWRITING

Source: NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress.Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP

Gaps between groups wider today than in 1990

NAEP Reading, 17 Year-Olds

220

240

260

280

300

320

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Ave

rage

Sca

le S

core


21 29


NAEP Math, 17 Year-Olds

220

240

260

280

300

320

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Ave

rage

Sca

le S

core


20 28


Value Added in High School Declined During

the Nineties

Value Added Declining in High School Math...

36 36 34

2530354045505560

Scal

e Sc

ore

Gain

Age 17 in 1990 Age 17 in 1994 Age 17 in 1996

Scale Score Growth, From Age 13 to Age 17

Source: NCES, 1999. Trends in Academic Progress. Data from Long Term Trend NAEP

Note: Scale score gains reflect the difference between the scale scores of 17-year-olds and the scale scores of 13-year-olds four years prior.

... Still

36

29

2530354045505560

Math

Scal

e Sc

ore

Gain

Grade 12 in 1996 Grade 12 in 2000

Scale Score Growth, From Grade 8 to Grade 12

Source: NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde

Note: Scale score gains reflect the difference between the scale scores of 12 th Graders and the scale scores of 8th Graders four years prior.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde

Reading: Students Entering High School Better Prepared, But Leaving

Worse

211 212

46 48

33 28

0

290

1984-1992 1988-1996

NA

EP S

cale

Sco

re G

ains Ages 13-17 Growth

Ages 9-13 GrowthAge 9 Score

Total= 290 Total= 288

Source: NCES, 1999. Trends in Academic Progress. Data from Long Term Trend NAEP

Hormones?

Students in Other Countries Gain far More in

Secondary School TIMSS

PISA 2003: US 15 Year-Olds Rank Near The End Of The

Pack Among 29 OECD Countries

U.S. RANK READING 20TH MATH 24TH SCIENCE 19TH

Source: NCES, 2005, International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics, Literacy and Problem Solving: 2003 PISA Results.NCES 2005-003

2003: U.S. Ranked 24th out of 29 OECD Countries in Mathematics

300

350

400

450

500

550

Finl

and

Kor

eaN

ethe

rland

sJa

pan

Can

ada

Bel

gium

Sw

itzer

land

New

Zea

land

Aus

tralia

Cze

ch R

epub

licIc

elan

dD

enm

ark

Fran

ceS

wed

enA

ustri

aG

erm

any

Irela

ndO

EC

D A

vera

geS

lova

ck R

epub

licN

orw

ayLu

xem

bour

gP

olan

dH

unga

ryS

pain

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Por

tuga

lIta

lyG

reec

eTu

rkey

Mex

ico

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results , data available at http://www.oecd.org/

http://www.oecd.org/

Problems are not limited to our high-poverty and high-

minority schools . . .

U.S. Ranks Low in the Percent of Students in the Highest Achievement Level (Level 6)

in Math

0

2

4

6

8

10

Bel

gium

Kor

eaJa

pan

Finl

and

Net

herla

nds

New

Zea

land

Sw

itzer

land

Aus

tralia

Can

ada

Cze

ch R

epub

licIc

elan

dD

enm

ark

Sw

eden

OE

CD

Ave

rage

Aus

tria

Ger

man

yFr

ance

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Nor

way

Irela

ndP

olan

dLu

xem

bour

gH

unga

ryU

nite

d S

tate

sIta

lyTu

rkey

Spa

inP

ortu

gal

Gre

ece

Mex

ico

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s



U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29 OECD Countries in the Math Achievement of the Highest-

Performing Students*

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

Belg

ium

Japa

nK

orea

Sw

itzer

land

Net

herla

nds

New

Zea

land

Finl

and

Aust

ralia

Can

ada

Cze

ch R

epub

licD

enm

ark

Sw

eden

Ger

man

yO

EC

D A

VER

AG

EA

ustri

aIc

elan

dFr

ance

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Nor

way

Hun

gary

Luxe

mbo

urg

Irela

ndP

olan

dU

nite

d S

tate

sS

pain

Italy

Turk

eyP

ortu

gal

Gre

ece

Mex

ico

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

* Students at the 95th PercentileSource: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results , data available at http://www.oecd.org/




U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29OECD Countries in the Math

Achievement of High-SES Students

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Bel

gium

Net

herla

nds

Finl

and

Cze

ch R

epub

licC

anad

aJa

pan

Kore

aS

witz

erla

ndA

ustra

liaG

erm

any

New

Zea

land

Fran

ceD

enm

ark

Sw

eden

Aust

riaH

unga

ryO

EC

D A

VE

RA

GE

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Luxe

mbo

urg

Irela

ndIc

elan

dP

olan

dN

orw

ayU

nite

d S

tate

sS

pain

Por

tuga

lIta

lyG

reec

eTu

rkey

Mex

ico

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore





Problems not limited to math, either.

PISA 2003: Problem-Solving, US Ranks 24th Out of 29 OECD

Countries

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Kor

eaFi

nlan

dJa

pan

New

Zea

land

Aus

tralia

Can

ada

Bel

gium

Sw

itzer

land

Net

herla

nds

Fran

ceD

enm

ark

Cze

ch R

epub

licG

erm

any

Sw

eden

Aus

tria

Icel

and

Hun

gary

OE

CD

Ave

rage

Irela

ndLu

xem

bour

gS

lova

k R

epub

licN

orw

ayP

olan

dS

pain

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Por

tuga

lIta

lyG

reec

eTu

rkey

Mex

ico

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

Source: NCES, 2005, International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics, Literacy and Problem Solving: 2003 PISA Results.NCES 2005-003

More than half of our 15 year olds at problem-solving level

1 or below.

Source: OECD Problem Solving for Tomorrow’s World. 2004

One measure on which we rank high?

Inequality!

*Of 29 OECD countries, based on scores of students at the 5th and 95th percentiles.

PISA 2003: Gaps in Performance Of U.S.15 Year-Olds Are Among the Largest of OECD Countries

Rank in Performance Gaps Between Highest and Lowest Achieving

Students *

Mathematical Literacy 8th

Problem Solving 6th





These gaps begin before children arrive at the

schoolhouse door.But, rather than organizing our

educational system to ameliorate this problem, we organize it to

exacerbate the problem.

How?

By giving students who arrive with less, less in school, too.

Some of these “lesses” are a result of choices that policymakers make.

Nation:Inequities in State and Local

Revenue Per StudentGap

High Poverty vs. Low Poverty Districts

-$907 per student

High Minority vs. Low Minority Districts

-$614 per student

Source: The Education Trust, The Funding Gap 2005. Data are for 2003

Not Just K-12: In higher education, we spend less per student in the

institutions where most low-income students start.

Expenditures per student

2 Year Colleges $9,183

4 Year Colleges $27,973

Source: NCES Digest of Education Statistics, 2003

But some of the “lesses”–indeed, perhaps the most

devastating ones—are a function of choices that

educators make.

Choices we make about what to expect of whom…

Source: Prospects (ABT Associates, 1993), in “Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes”, PES, DOE, 1997.

Students in Poor Schools Receive ‘A’s for Work That Would Earn ‘Cs’ in Affluent

Schools87

35

56

34 41

22 21

11

0

100

Per

cent

ile -

CTB

S4

A B C DGrades

Seventh Grade Math

Low-poverty schools High-poverty schools

Choices we make about what to teach whom…

Source: CCSSO, State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education, 2005

Fewer Latino students are enrolled

in Algebra 1 in Grade 8

2429

0

50

2003

Perc

ent E

nrol

led

LatinoWhite

Source: CCSSO, State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education, 2001

Fewer Latino students are enrolled

in Algebra 2

45

62

0

80

1998

Perc

ent E

nrol

led

LatinoWhite

And choices we make about Who

teaches whom…

More Classes in High-Poverty, High-Minority Schools Taught By Out-of-

Field Teachers34%

19%

29%

21%

0%

50%

Perc

ent o

f Cla

sses

Tau

ght b

y O

ut

of F

ield

Tea

cher

s

*Teachers lacking a college major or minor in the field. Data for secondary-level core academic classes.Source: Richard M. Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania. Original analysis for the Ed Trust of 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey.

High poverty Low poverty High minority Low minorityNote: High Poverty school-50% or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low-poverty school -15% or fewer of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch.

High-minority school - 50% or more of the students are nonwhite. Low-minority school- 15% or fewer of the students are nonwhite.

Poor and Minority Students Get More Inexperienced*

Teachers20%

11%

21%

10%

0%

25%

Perc

ent o

f Tea

cher

s W

ho A

re

Inex

perie

nced

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “Monitoring Quality: An Indicators Report,” December 2000.

*Teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience.

High poverty Low poverty High minority Low minority

Note: High poverty refers to the top quartile of schools with students eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low poverty-bottom quartile of schools with students eligible for free/reduced price lunch. High minority-top quartile; those schools with the highest concentrations of minority students. Low minority-bottom quartile of schools with the lowest concentrations of minority students

Results are devastating.

Kids who come in a little behind, leave a lot behind.

By the end of high school?

African American and Latino 17 Year-Olds Do Math at Same Levels

As White 13 Year-Olds

0%

100%

200 250 300 350

Average Scale Score

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

White 13 Year-Olds African American 17 Year-Olds Latino 17-Year Olds

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress

Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP

African American and Latino 17 Year-Olds Read at Same Levels As

White 13 Year-Olds

0%

100%

150 200 250 300 350

Average Scale Score

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

White 13 Year-Olds African American 17 Year-Olds Latino 17 Year-Olds

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress

Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP

And these are the students who remain in

high school.What do those numbers look

like?

Students Graduate From High School At Different Rates

* 4-Year Graduation Rates

55%

72%

53%

78%

0%

100%

Perc

ent

of S

tude

nts

Gra

duat

ing

in 4

Yea

rs

African American Asian Latino White

Source: Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters, The Manhattan Institute, 2006. Leaving Boys Behind: Public High SchoolGraduation Rates.

Data is for the class of 2003.

True, Among High School Graduates, College-Going is

Increasing

Immediate College-Going Increasing for All Groups:

1980 to 2002

0102030405060708090

100

Year

Perc

ent G

oing

to C

olle

ge


Source: U.S. Dept. of Education, NCES, The Digest of Education Statistics 2002 (2003), Table 183 AND U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey Report, October 2002.

College Going Increasing for High School Grads at All Income Levels

0102030405060708090

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Low* Middle High

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, October Current Population Surveys, 1972-2000, in US DOE, NCES, The Condition of Education 2002, p.166.

*Due to small sample sizes, 3-year averages used for Low-income category

But though college going up for minorities, gains among whites have been greater

And though college going up for low-income students, they still haven’t reached rate of

high income students in mid-seventies.

Highest Achieving Low-Income Students Attend Postsecondary at Same Rate as Bottom

Achieving High Income Students Achievement Level (in quartiles)

Low-Income

High-Income

First (Low) 36% 77% Second 50% 85% Third 63% 90% Fourth (High) 78% 97%

Source: NELS: 88, Second (1992) and Third Follow up (1994); in, USDOE, NCES, NCES Condition of Education 1997 p. 64

But access isn’t the only issue:

There’s a question of access to what…

And what about graduation?

Black and Latino Freshmen Complete College at Lower Rates

(6 Year Rates; All 4-Year Institutions) 59%

41% 41%

64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

White Black Latino AsianSource: U.S. DOE, NCES, 1995-96 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-Up (BPS: 96/01) in U.S. DOE, NCES, Descriptive Summary of 1995-96 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Six Years Later. Table 7-6 on page 163.

Overall rate: 55%

The result?

Increases in college completion not

commensurate with increases in college going.

College Going vs. Completion of BA or Higher, Whites

0102030405060708090

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

White College-Going White Completion

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, October Current Population Surveys, 1972-2000, in US DOE, NCES, The Condition of Education 2002, p.166 and 174.

19

10

College Going vs. Completion of BA or Higher, Blacks

0102030405060708090

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Black BlackCompletion


21

7

College Going vs. Completion of BA or Higher, Hispanics

0102030405060708090

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Hispanic Hispanic Completion


Internationally?After decades of leading all other

developed countries in both college going and college

completion, we are no longer first in either.

Moreover, while college graduates have stronger literacy and quantitative

skills than non-graduates…

2003 NAAL Prose Literacyby Educational Attainment

133

39

14

44

53

4

31

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

High School Graduate College Graduate

Perc

ent o

f Adu

lts

ProficientIntermediateBasicBelow Basic

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2005. Available at : http://nces.ed.gov/NAALSome college refers to adults who attended a post-secondary institution but did not obtain a degree

2003 NAAL Quantitative Literacy

by Educational Attainment

244

42

22

29

43

5

31

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

High School Graduate College Graduate

Perc

ent o

f Adu

lts

ProficientIntermediateBasicBelow Basic

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2005. Available at : http://nces.ed.gov/NAALSome college refers to adults who attended a post-secondary institution but did not obtain a degree

Too few are proficient, too many are basic or below, and

in both categories the numbers are getting worse.

2003 NAAL Percent of College Graduates Proficient

40 373131

2531

0

20

40

60

80

100

Prose Document Quantitative

Perc

ent o

f Adu

lts

19922003

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2005. Available at : http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL

2003 NAAL Percent of College Graduates Basic

10 9

2114 11

22

0

20

40

60

80

100

Prose Document Quantitative

Perc

ent o

f Adu

lts

19922003

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2005. Available at : http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL

ADD IT ALL UP...

Of Every 100 White Kindergartners:

94 Graduate from high school

66 Complete at least some college

34 Obtain at least a Bachelor’s Degree

(25-to 29-Year-Olds)

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. March Current Population Surveys, 1971-2003, in The Condition of Education 2005. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2005/section3/indicator23.asp#info

Of Every 100 African American Kindergartners:

89 Graduate from High School

51 Complete at Least Some College

18 Obtain at Least a Bachelor’s Degree

(25-to 29-Year-Olds)

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. March Current Population Surveys, 1971-2003, in The Condition of Education 2005. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2005/section3/indicator23.asp#info

Of Every 100 Latino Kindergartners:




(25-to 29-Year-Olds)Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. March Current Population Surveys, 1971-2003, in The Condition of Education 2005. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2005/section3/indicator23.asp#info

Of Every 100 American Indian/Alaskan Native

Kindergartners:

(25 Years Old and Older)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, We the People: American Indians and Alaska Natives in the United States. Data source: Census 2000, www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/censr-28.pdf




http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/censr-28.pdf

College Graduates by Age 24

Young People From High Income Families

75%

Young People From Low Income Families

9%

Source: Tom Mortenson, Postsecondary Educational Opportunity.

So What Can We Do?

Many educators have concluded that we can’t do

much.

What We Hear Many K-12 Educators Say:

• They’re poor;• Their parents don’t care;• They come to schools without

breakfast; • Not enough books• Not enough parents . . .

The Postsecondary Equivalent?

• They enter without the necessary skills;

• They have to work to support their families;

• Their peers and families don’t support and value their struggle…

But if they are right, why are low-income students and

students of color performing so high in some schools…

M. Hall Stanton ElementaryPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

M. Hall Stanton ElementaryPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

• 487 students in grades K-6• 100% African American• 86% Low-Income

Source: Philadelphia School District, https://sdp-webprod.phila.k12.pa.us/school_profiles/servlet/

Rapid Improvement at StantonGrade 5 Reading Over Time

12

70

57 61

0

20

40

60

80

100

2002 2006

Perc

ent P

rofic

ient

or A

dvan

ced

StantonPennsylvania

Source: School Information Partnership, http://www.schoolmatters.com Pennsylvania Department of Education, http://www.pde.state.pa.us

Rapid Improvement at StantonGrade 5 Math Over Time

21

83

53

67

0

20

40

60

80

100

2002 2006

Perc

ent P

rofic

ient

or A

dvan

ced

StantonPennsylvania

Source: School Information Partnership, http://www.schoolmatters.com Pennsylvania Department of Education, http://www.pde.state.pa.us

Capitol View ElementaryAtlanta, Georgia

Capitol View ElementaryAtlanta, Georgia

• 252 students in grades K-5• 95% African American• 88% Low-Income

Source: Georgia Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, http://reportcard2006.gaosa.org/

High Achievement at Capitol View

2006 Grade 5 Reading100 100 100

8172 73

0

20

40

60

80

100

Overall AfricanAmerican

Low-Income

Perc

ent M

eets

or E

xcee

ds

Capitol ViewGeorgia


High Achievement at Capitol View

2006 Grade 5 Math100 100 100

8983 83

0

20

40

60

80

100

Overall AfricanAmerican

Low-Income

Perc

ent M

eets

or E

xcee

ds

Capitol ViewGeorgia


Elmont Memorial Junior-Senior High School

Elmont Memorial Junior-Senior High School

Elmont, New York

• 1,966 Students in Grades 7-12• 75% African American• 12% Latino

Source: New York State School Report Card, http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/reportcard/

Elmont MemorialHigher Percentage of Students Meeting

Graduation Requirements than the State, Class of 2004 Regents English

99 99 100 100 9985

74 72 75

88

0

20

40

60

80

100

All AfricanAmerican

Latino Poor Non-Poor

Perc

ent M

eetin

g G

radu

atio

n R

equi

rem

ents

ElmontNew York


Elmont MemorialHigher Percentage of Students Meeting

Graduation Requirements than the State, Class of 2004 Regents Math

96 95 94 94 96

83

68 68 72

86

0

20

40

60

80

100

All AfricanAmerican

Latino Poor Non-Poor

Perc

ent M

eetin

g G

radu

atio

n R

equi

rem

ents

ElmontNew York


University Park Campus School

University Park Campus School

Worcester, Massachusetts• 220 Students in Grades 7-12• 9% African American• 18% Asian• 35% Latino• 39% White• 73% Low-Income

Source: Massachusetts Department of Education School Profile, http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/

University Park Results: 2004

• 100% of 10th graders passed MA high school exit exam on first attempt.

• 87% passed at advanced or proficient level.

• Fifth most successful school in the state, surpassing many schools serving wealthy students.

University ParkHigher Percentage of Students at Proficient and

Advanced than the State2005 Grade 10 Math

1511

2437

27

5335

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

University Park Massachusetts

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

AdvancedProficientNeeds ImprovementWarning/Failing

Source: Massachusetts Department of Education School Profile, http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/

Guess What?Also very big differences in

college results…even among those who serve “same”

kinds of students.

Higher education institutions graduation rates

Some of these differences are clearly attributable to

differences in student preparation and/or

institutional mission.But not all…

Some colleges are far more successful than their

students’ “stats” would suggest.

Doc/Research Institutions With Similar Students Getting

Different ResultsMedian SAT

Size % Pell

Overall 6 Yr-Grad Rate

White/URM Grad Rate Gap

Penn State 1195

33,975

19%

83% -14%

Univ of Wisconsin

1240

27,711

12%

76% -21%

Texas A & M

1185

33,901

14%

75% -9%

Univ of Washington

1185

25,059

21%

71% -11%

Univ of Minnesota

1145

28,273

16%

54% -19%

Masters Level Institutions With Similar Students Getting Different

ResultsMedian SAT

Size % Pell Overall 6 Yr-Grad Rate

URM 6-Yr Grad Rate

Millersville U of PA

1055 6369

19% 66% 46%

SUNY at Plattsburgh

1045 5130

33% 59% 52%

NW MO State

1010 5043

27% 53% 44%

Northern Michigan U

1010 7831

32% 45% 38%

Bac General/Masters Institutions With Similar Students Getting

Different ResultsMedian SAT

Size % Pell Overall 6 Yr-Grad Rate

URM 6-Yr Grad Rate

Elizabeth City (NC)

810 2039 60% 51% 54%

Kentucky State

825 1827 49% 39% 44%

Fayetteville State (NC)

865 3820 55% 38% 39%

U of Ark Pine Bluff

775 2918 68% 31% 31%

Coppin State (MD)

875 2691 57% 22% 22%

College Results Online

Bottom Line:At Every Level of Education, What We Do Matters A Lot!

MOVING FORWARD

1. Improving Preparation: Four things higher education

can do

A. Don’t be bashful about pressing for all students to

graduate high school “college ready.”

High impact schools aim high for all students. Even when they start with high dropout rates, they aim

students toward college and careers.

That’s Good, Because Education Pays: 2000 U.S. Median Earnings

$15,000

$21,000 $22,700

$28,200

$36,000

$0

$20,000

$40,000

Less ThanHigh School

High SchoolGraduate

Some College AssociateDegree

BaccalaureateDegree

2000

U.S

. Med

ian

Earn

ings

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Public Use Microdata Samples (based on the 2000 Decennial Census)

Growing Need for Higher Levels of Education:

Projections of Education Shortages and Surpluses in 2012

-4,000,000 -3,000,000 -2,000,000 -1,000,000 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000

Less Than HighSchool

High School

Associates Degree

Some College

Shortage Surplus

Source: Analysis by Anthony Carnevale, 2006 of Current Population Survey (1992-2004) and Census Population Projection Estimates

Bachelor’s Degree

NEW STUDY FROM ACT:College ready, workforce

training ready=same thing

B. Add your voice to the movement to make the

“college prep” curriculum the default curriculum for all

students.

Single biggest predictor post-high school success is

QUALITY AND INTENSITY OF HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Source: Cliff Adelman, 2006, The Toolbox Revisited, U.S. Department of Education.

High School Curriculum Intensity is a Strong Predictor of Bachelor’s Degree

Completion82

9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Most Intense Curriculum Least Intense Curriculum

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s C

ompl

etin

g a

Bac

helo

r's D

egre

e

Source: Clifford Adelman, U.S. Department of Education, The Toolbox Revisited, 2006.

Curriculum quintiles are composites of English, math, science, foreign language, social studies, computer science, Advanced Placement, the highest level of math, remedial math and remedial English classes taken during high school.

College prep curriculum has benefits far beyond

college.

Students of all sorts will learn more...

Source: USDOE, NCES, Vocational Education in the United States: Toward the Year 2000, in Issue Brief: Students Who Prepare for College and Vocation

*Grade 8-grade 12 test score gains based on 8th grade achievement.

Low Quartile Students Gain More From College

Prep Courses*19

16

28

20

0

30

Math Reading

NELS

Sco

re G

ain

Vocational College Prep

They will also fail less often...

Challenging Curriculum Results in Lower Failure Rates, Even for Lowest Achievers

1623

47

31

0

50

Quartile I (Lowest) Quartile 2

Perc

ent E

arni

ng "

D"

or "

F"

College Prep Low Level

Source: SREB, “Middle Grades to High School: Mending a Weak Link”. Unpublished Draft, 2002.

Ninth-grade English performance, by high/low level course, and eighth-grade reading achievement quartiles

And they’ll be better prepared for the

workplace.

Leading districts, states making college prep the

default curriculum.Texas, Indiana, Arkansas,

Michigan, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Kansas.

C. Getting All Students in Courses With the Right

Labels Isn’t Enough.

Higher education can be strong partner in quality assurance strategies.

Fertile ground for P-16 work:High quality assignments,

lessons, units, end-of-course assessments.

D. Good teachers matter big time.

LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS IN TN GAIN MORE WITH EFFECTIVE TEACHERS: One Year Growth

14

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

low highSanders and Rivers, Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Academic Achievement, 1998.

Cumulative Teacher Effects On Students’ Math Scores in

Dallas (Grades 3-5)76

27

0102030405060708090

100

Aver

age

Perc

entil

e Ra

nk

Dallas StudentsAssigned to 3Highly EffectiveTeachers in aRow

Dallas StudentsAssigned to 3IneffectiveTeachers in aRow

Source: Heather Jordan, Robert Mendro, and Dash Weerasinghe, The Effects of Teachers on Longitudinal Student Achievement, 1997.

Beginning Grade 3Percentile Rank= 55

Beginning Grade 3Percentile Rank= 57

But some students don’t get their fair share of strong

teachers.

More Classes in High-Poverty, High-Minority Schools Taught By Out-of-

Field Teachers34%

19%

29%

21%

0%

50%

Perc

ent o

f Cla

sses

Tau

ght b

y O

ut

of F

ield

Tea

cher

s

*Teachers lacking a college major or minor in the field. Data for secondary-level core academic classes.Source: Richard M. Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania. Original analysis for the Ed Trust of 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey.

High poverty Low poverty High minority Low minorityNote: High Poverty school-50% or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low-poverty school -15% or fewer of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch.

High-minority school - 50% or more of the students are nonwhite. Low-minority school- 15% or fewer of the students are nonwhite.

Poor and Minority Students Get More Inexperienced*

Teachers20%

11%

21%

10%

0%

25%

Perc

ent o

f Tea

cher

s W

ho A

re

Inex

perie

nced

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “Monitoring Quality: An Indicators Report,” December 2000.

*Teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience.

High poverty Low poverty High minority Low minority

Note: High poverty refers to the top quartile of schools with students eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low poverty-bottom quartile of schools with students eligible for free/reduced price lunch. High minority-top quartile; those schools with the highest concentrations of minority students. Low minority-bottom quartile of schools with the lowest concentrations of minority students

Does any of this matter to college preparation?

Teacher Quality in Illinois and Its

Impact on College Readiness

College Readiness at High Poverty, High Minority Schools by TQI

26%

3%

73%

38%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Lowest TQI Upper Middle TQI

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

More/Most Ready

Not/Least Ready

Presley, J. and Gong, Y. (2005). The Demographics and Academics of College Readiness in Illinois. http://ierc.siue.edu/documents/College%20Readiness%20-%202005-3.pdf

http://ierc.siue.edu/documents/College%20Readiness%20-%202005-3.pdf

Percent of Students More/Most Ready by High School TQI and

Highest Math Level

6 616

11

25

48

18

42

67

20

52

76

21

57

81

0102030405060708090

Algebra II Trigonometryor other

advancedmath

Calculus

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

Lowest 10%11-25%Lower Middle TQIUpper Middle TQIHighest TQI

Presley, J. and Gong, Y. (2005). The Demographics and Academics of College Readiness in Illinois. http://ierc.siue.edu/documents/College%20Readiness%20-%202005-3.pdf

http://ierc.siue.edu/documents/College%20Readiness%20-%202005-3.pdf

Because of pioneering work of Blue Ribbon Commission, Louisiana already out ahead on building necessary data systems, looking at value-

added by source college. But it’s important for you to ACT

on what you learn here.

So far, talked mostly about how you can help spur and support improvements in

high schools.

But while those efforts take root, there are many, many things you can do to turn

your numbers around now.

2. Improving Access and Success in College. Five

places to focus.

A. Leadership Matters

A lot of campuses add learning communities,

“freshman experiences”, learning centers and the

like…and then wonder why their numbers don’t improve.

These things can help.

But student access and success must become a high priority for all academic units.

That’s why presidential and provost leadership is so

important.Leadership role can’t simply

be “delegated down.”

B. Helps to set stretch goals on student success, track progress, reward results.

And the data need to be used.

Factor in presidential evaluation in CSU, ULS, USG,

UMS.

C. Take a look at how you are deploying institutional

aid.

Both the federal government and state governments have

shifted more and more of their aid resources toward

more affluent students.

Maximum Pell Grant Coverage of Cost of College

36%

84%

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1975 2005

EastWest

But the shifts away from poor students in institutional aid

money are MORE PRONOUNCED than the shifts

in government aid.

Are you truly meeting legitimate need of low-

income students or shifting precious resources to

compete for high-income students?

D. Momentum matters. It is critically important to identify and fix “choke points” in student

progression—courses where availability and/or

disproportionate failureis blocking student progression.

Best examples: University of Northern Iowa; also, Univ of Alabama and others in NCAT

course redesign initiative.

E. Go after students who left in good standing without a

degree, and invite them back.

e.g. University of New Mexico Graduation Project.

The Education TrustDownload this Presentation

www.edtrust.orgWashington, DC: 202-293-1217

Oakland, CA: 510-465-6444

improving college access and success: lessons from institutions on the performance frontier

Documents

longterm trends naepage

longterm trends naepvalue

longterm trends naepgaps

naep reading

longterm trends naepnaep

academic progressnote

scale scores

naep data explorer