Promoting College Rention of Low-Income and First-Generation Students (Part 2)

1,094 views

Published on

In this workshop, Bottom Line will discuss the importance of supporting students not only through the college application process, but also during college. By learning about the results of an external study and best practices from Bottom Line’s College Success model, participants will gain tips on how to best contribute to the success of low-income and first-generation college students.

Published in: Education
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,094
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Promoting College Rention of Low-Income and First-Generation Students (Part 2)

  1. 1. Kolajo Paul Afolabi kolajo_afolabi@mail.harvard.edu Harvard Graduate School of EducationNational Partnership for Educational Access Conference A il 28 2011 April 28, 1 Hourglass labor market Enrollment rising, but (Carnevale, Smith, & (Carnevale Smith completion rate falling Strohl, 2010) (Turner, 2004) BA recipients earn 66% At 4-yr colleges, 46% more over their obtain a BA in 5 yrs lifetimes (Baum, Ma, & Payea, 2010) ◦ Proportion lower for Civic Ci i engagement and t d students of color and health benefits (Curie low-income students & Moretti, 2003; Dee, (NCES, 2003) 2004) In Boston, 35% of Boston Increased tax revenues students obtain a BA in (NCPPHE, 2004) 6yrs (BPIC, 2008)Economic & Social College CompletionBenefits Realities 2
  2. 2. Lots of research, few apples-to-apples research apples to applescomparisons◦ Myers (2003); Turner (2004)Recent rigorous research has focused on 2yr andnontradtional students◦ Scrivener & Weiss (2009); Richburg Hayes et al Richburg-Hayes al. (2009); Bettinger & Baker (2011)Integration to college and access to informationand◦ Tinto (1993); Cushman (2006)Information key for low income and first low-incomegeneration students◦ Kane & Avery (2004)◦ Person, Rosenbaum, & Deil-Amen (2006) 3Q1: Who participates in Bottom Line’s Accessand Success programs?Q2: How do students describe their reasonsfor leaving college?Q3: When do Access-Only students leavecollege?Q4: What is the effect of the Success programon the probability on degree attainment? p y g 4
  3. 3. Boston-based college Counseling starts access and success summer before college program enrollment Access program serves p g DEAL framework: roughly 500 students Degree, Employment, at 38 high schools Aid, and Life Success Program Two one-on-one one on one serves 750 students at campus visits a month 18 target schools Also connect over phone, phone email Student SuccessProgram Overview g O Counseling 5 All participants in N=2068 Bottom Line’s B Li ’ Participants have a P i i h programs 2002- GPA>2.5 and are 2008 either low-income or low income Data from program first generation databases, National All start at 4yr Student colleges ll Clearinghouse, IPEDS 3 cohorts with 6 yrs Notes from Success of data (n=606) (n 606) counselors on 5 cohorts with 4 yrs students of data (n=1355)Data Sample 6
  4. 4. Q1: Described who Bottom Line’s participants were and where they went to college d h h ll Q2: Explored how students describe leaving college by analyzing counselor logs from Bottom Line’s database for the Success participants who left college Q3: Looked at when Access-Only students left college by analyzing enrollment data for students who only participated i th A t d t h l ti i t d in the Access Program 7VariableV i bl Access Students A St d t Success Students S St d tHS GPA (out of 4) 2.89 3.03SAT (02 05, max 1600) (02-05, 892 852SAT (06, max 2400) 1296 1293Percent low-income 57% 77%Percent first gen 75% 87%Percent black 55% 52%Percent female 70% 74%Percent Hispanic/Latino 25% 28%PPercent i private college t in i t ll 72% 51%Percent in suburban college 46% 39%Percent in urban college 45% 61% 8
  5. 5. Twenty-six percent of students whoparticipate only in the Access Program obtaina college degree within four years, and 45percent obtain a degree within six years. yearsOf the students who leave college, only abouthalf leave by the end of their first year.Enrollment data show that students areleaving college at all points in their post-secondary years. 9Students described their reasons for leavingcollege as being related to:◦ Issues external to their campus life◦ A d i transition Academic ii◦ Economic frustration◦TTemporary administrative roadblocks. d i i t ti dbl k 10
  6. 6. Enrollment in Bottom Line’s Success programwas only available to students who enrolled at l il bl t t d t h ll d ta “target” institutionStudents who participated in the Accessprogram but did not attend a targetinstitution make an arguably good controlgroupSuccess program participants were matchedto their Access-only counterparts using y p gnearest neighbor propensity score matching(with replacement) 1 1Outcomes◦ GRAD6YRi: obtained a degree within 6yrs of enrollment◦ GRAD4YRi: obtained a degree within 4yrs of enrollmentTreatment◦ SUCCESSi: Participated in the Success programMatching Variables◦ BACKGROUNDi◦ ACADEMICi◦ COLLEGEj 1 2
  7. 7. Propensity Score Estimation 1 Pr[ SUCCESSi =1] = ( − β0 +β1BACKGROUND +β2ACADEMICSi +β3COLLEGEj ) 1+e i ◦ For the ith student at the jth college Average Treatment Effect Ymatch = ∑ ⎡(Yi SUCCESS = 1) − (Y j SUCCESS = 0 ) ⎤ ˆ 1 nt ⎣ ⎦ ◦ Where Y is obtaining a degree, i indexes the treated cases, and j indexes the control cases , 1 3 Ana Maya Participated in Participated in Access Access -First-generation -First-generation -Latina -Latina -HS GPA = 2.9 -HS GPA = 3.1Target Non target Non-targetschool = -Enrolls in 4-yr, -Enrolls in 4-yr, school = noSuccess mid-size, public, large, public, Successcounseling g selective college selective college counseling g Propensity to be p y Propensity to be p y in Success = .75 in Success = .73 1 4
  8. 8. Success Access Difference 6yr grad rate 73% 45% 28%Unmatched 4yrgrad rate 45% 27% 18% 6yr grad rate 81% 39% 43%MatchedM h d 4yrgrad rate 42% 23% 19% 6yr grad rate y g 82% 48% 34%ParametricEstimates 4yrgrad rate 57% 37% 20% 15 Limitations of propensity score matching ◦ PSM only produces unbiased estimates when l d bi d ti t h assignment to treatment conditional on the covariates is independent of the outcome (Dehejia & Wahba, 1999; Diaz & Handa, 2006 ) ◦ Self-selection into target schools Would negatively bias my estimates Generalizability ◦ Already self-selected group y g p ◦ Mixed evidence on effectiveness of counseling with other populations (Bettinger & Baker, 2011; Scrivener & Weiss, 2009) Weiss 16
  9. 9. Evidence continues to gather that information and counseling can be key in helping students to li b k i h l i d access and succeed in higher education ◦ Bettinger & Baker (2011) g ( ) ◦ Bettinger, Long, Oreopoulos, & Sanbanmatsu (2010) ◦S i Scrivener & Weiss (2009) W i ◦ Richburg-Hayes et al. (2009) Need to establish importance of well-identified well identified assignment mechanisms in demonstrating program effectiveness 17Avery, C. & Kane, T. (2004). Student perceptions of college opportunities:The Boston COACH program. In Caroline Hoxby (Ed.), College choices: Theeconomics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 355-391).Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. h h f hBaum, S., Ma, J., Payea, K. (2010). Education pays 2010; The benefits ofhigher education for individuals and society. New York: The College Board.Bettinger, EBettinger E. & Baker, R (2011) The effects of student coaching in college: Baker R. (2011).An evaluation of a randomized experiment in student mentoring. NBERWorking Paper No. 16881. National Bureau of Economic Research.Bettinger, E. P., Long, B. T., Oreopoulos, P., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2009). Therole of simplification and information in college decisions: Results from theH&R Block FAFSA experiment. NBER Working Paper No. 15361. NationalBureau of Economic Research.Boston Private Industry Council. (2008). Getting to the finish line: Collegeenrollment and graduation; A seven year longitudinal study of the BostonPublic Schools class of 2000. Boston, Massachusetts: Author. 18
  10. 10. Carnevale, A.P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help wanted: Projections ofjobs and education requirements though 2018. Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniversity Center on Education and the Workforce.Currie, J. & Moretti, E. (2003). Mother’s education and the intergenerationaltransmission of human capital: Evidence from college openings. QuarterlyJournal of Economics, 118(4), 1495-1532.Cushman K. (2006). First in the family: Your college years Providence RI:Cushman, K (2006) years. Providence,Next Generation Press.Dee, T. S. (2004). Are there civic returns to education? Journal of PublicEconomics, 88(9-10), 1697-1720. (9 10), 1697 1720.Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (1999). Causal effects in nonexperimentalstudies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of theAmerican Statistical Association, 94(448), 1053–1062.Diaz, J. J., & S. Handa. (2006). An assessment of propensity score matchingas a nonexperimental impact estimator: Evidence from Mexicos PROGRESAprogram. Journal of Human Resources, 41(2), 319-345 19Meyers, R. D. (2003) College Success Programs. Washington, DC: PathwaysM R D C ll S P W hi t DC P thto College Network.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2004). College Persistenceon the Rise? Changes in 5 Year Degree Completion and Postsecondary 5-YearPersistence Rates Between 1994 and 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education.National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (NCPPHE). (2004.Policy alert: The educational pipeline: Big investment, big returns.Washington, DC: Author.Person, A., Rosenbaum, J., & Deil-Amen, R. (2006). Student planning andinformation problems in different college structures Teachers College structures.Record, 108, 374–396.Richburg-Hayes, L., Brock, T., LeBlanc, A., Paxson, C., Rouse, C.E., & Barrow,L. (2009) Rewarding persistence: Effects of a performance-based scholarship ( ) gp p pprogram for low-income parents. New York, NY: MDRC.Scrivener, S., & Weiss, M. J. (2009). More Guidance, Better Results? New York:MDRC. 20
  11. 11. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of studentTi t V (1993) L i ll R thi ki th d f t d tattrition (2nd ed.). Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.Turner, S. E. (2004). Going to college and finishing college: Explainingdifferent educational outcomes. In Caroline Hoxby (Ed.), College choices: Theeconomics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 13-56).Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 21 Roughly 22% of students who attend target schools don’t participate in Success Doesn’t really effect 6yr estimate, but 4yr attenuates significantly Exclude –PSM Exclude - PM ITT - PSM6yr 32% 41% 20%4yr 5% 22% 0% 22
  12. 12. Bentley College Salem State CollegeBoston College Smith CollegeBoston University Suffolk UniversityBridgewater State College Tufts UniversityClark University (MA) U Mass-AmherstCollege of The Holy Cross U Mass-BostonMassachusetts College ofLiberal Arts U Mass-Dartmouth Mass DartmouthNortheastern Foundation Worcester PolytechnicYear InstituteNortheastern University Worcester State College 23Class Access Only Success Total2002 118 90 2082003 118 68 1862004 145 67 2122005 293 98 3912006 215 143 3582007 209 143 3522008 190 171 361Total 1288 780 2068 24

×