• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Us college access programs complex adaptives system nov2011
 

Us college access programs complex adaptives system nov2011

on

  • 384 views

AEA Presentation explores US college access education system as a complex system with a special focus on inequality. Simple models are included using vensim of achieving Obama goals of US being first ...

AEA Presentation explores US college access education system as a complex system with a special focus on inequality. Simple models are included using vensim of achieving Obama goals of US being first in college attainment by 2020

Statistics

Views

Total Views
384
Views on SlideShare
384
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
5
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Worked as evaluator of federal programs—seeped in experimental and quasi-experimental linear modeling of program effectivenessInterest for a long time is systems work---but qualitative thinking ---no attempt to specify these relationships mathematicallySocial systems---Multiple loop non-linear feedback systems---dynamic mathematical modelsExplore using tools of dynamic systems modeling in evaluation of policy decisions potential outcomes.Using Vensim Software Tool—much like Stella
  • High inequality—schools very segregated by SES and growing more soLow and decreasing proportion of public financing—roughly –53 percent family/student; 8 percent feds; 38 percent state and localRising costs—higher than inflation—reduction in Pell buying power---$12,000 in 1973 when started in todays dollars compared to $5000 Debt burden increasing in amountLink to employment-major determinant of income differentialsGrowth in poor (50 percent eligible for free or reduced in 2009)Growth in children with diagnosed disabilities (11 percent---20 percent in high poverty schools)Growth in at-risk minorities
  • Levels are also known as stocks, accumulations, or state variables. Levels change their values by accumulating or integrating rates. This means that the values of Levels change continuously over time even when the rates are changing discontinuously. Rates, also known as flows, change the value of levels. The value of a rate is not dependent on previous values of that rate; instead the levels in a system, along with exogenous influences, determine the values of rates. Intermediate concepts or calculations are known as auxiliaries and, like rates, can change immediately in response to changes in levels or exogenous influences.

Us college access programs complex adaptives system nov2011 Us college access programs complex adaptives system nov2011 Presentation Transcript

  • AEA November 2011 Anaheim CaliforniaTreating the US Educational System as a Complex Adaptive Systemand Investigating Computational Simulation of Federally-Funded Access Program Impacts Prepared by: Margaret Cahalan Margaret.Cahalan@pellinstitute.org Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education Council for Opportunity in Education (COE)
  • Topics----Invitation to: Explore systems concepts Use what for me is a new tool to help in understanding policy choices---dynamic modeling software—Vensim Tool Walk through examples in college access—specifically related to President Obama’s goals to make US once again be first in college attainment
  • Definitions of key terms System—Greek word –susiatani— “cause to stand together” Complex system is a system that consists of a large number of agents that interact with each other in various ways System is adaptive if these agents change their actions as a result of events in the process of interaction (Vriend, 1994) Social systems are complex dynamic non-linear with multiple feedback loops
  • Relevant Complex SystemsConcepts Nested or fractal quality—  Entrainment (competitors become patterns replicate at levels more alike) Self similarity—parts & whole  Ultrastability—change internal to similar adapt Attractors and basins what settles  Sensitivity to initial conditions- down to over time and attracted to small differences large impacts Feedback—negative dampens-  Chaos-deterministic –patterns positive amplifies emerge-- sensitive to initial conditions  Disconnect between proximity in Saddle points—unstable-areas -- time and cause and effect—small direction may be more important can bring massive change and large than strength-tipping seemingly less—unintended and Bifurcation-new systems—sudden unforeseen jumps  Importance of timing and Self-organization—self iteration direction Emergent behavior of system-  Synchronicity-” temporally patterns emerge—different rule sets coincident occurrences of acausal events”-Jung
  • Steps in Modeling (Andrew Ford—Modeling the Environment 2010)1. Get to know system 5. Estimate the2. Get specific about parameter values dynamic problem 6. Run reference model3. Construct—stock 7. Check units and (level) and flow Sensitivity diagram 8. Experiment or test4. Draw causal loops potential impact of policies
  • Know systems and get specific aboutproblem of Obama’s 2020 Goals Lift US to be first in college attainment—once again US ranked 12th of 36 in percent of 25 to 34 with Tertiary (BA and associate) degrees---Korea first, Canada second Increase 25 to 34 year olds with college from 15 million to 26 million Increase work force 25 to 64:  College 46 million to about 63 million--college  BA and above from about 32 million to about 45 million
  • Obama’s goals are adaptive to wider global systemsbut to achieve nested systems must change Global US State City - Neighborhood School Home Stud ent
  • Five major features of system tocapture in models1. Dynamic large increases in attainment high school and postsecondary over last 60 yrs.2. High levels of inequality characterize system3. Role of education sorting in keeping equilibrium of work value inequality and legitimizing through the meritocracy and income stratification4. Role of government in mediating the inequality effects—closing the gaps –mission of US Department of education—equal access---Pell and College access support programs (TRIO, Gear UP)5. Education driver of innovation role for jobs
  • Inequality Meritocracy Stability Education and Class Innovation and Workforce System and Changeequilibrium Opportunity and mobililty
  • Dynamic change ---Note Large Increase OverTime in High School Diploma—Saturation—leveling—S curve Figure 1. Percent of population 25 years of age and older who have a high school diploma or equivalent by race/ethnicity: Decennial Census Data 1940- 2000 90 84 80 78 72 70 69 63 60 55 51 52 50 50 43 44 40 36 30 31 26 20 22 14 10 8 0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Black Hispanic White Note: Based on Decennial census. White category does not exclude those of Hispanic Origin. Hispanic Origin can be of any race. SOURCE: U.S. Census Population Division Census 2000 PHC-T-41. A Half-Century of Learning: Historical Statistics on Educational Attainment in the United States, 1940 to 2000
  • Note Some Convergence in State Variation Figure 3. Percent of total population 25 and older with high school diploma or equivalent by state: 1940-2000 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 NOTE: This distribution ranged from 15 percent in Arkansas to 41 percent in the District of Columbia and 37 percent in California in 1940; and ranged from 73 percent in Mississippi to 88 percent in 4 states, Utah, Wyoming, Minnesota, and Alaska in the year 2000. SOURCE: U.S. Census Population Division Census 2000 PHC-T-41. A Half-Century of Learning: Historical Statistics on Educational Attainment in the United States, 1940 to 2000
  • Exit exams and high school graduation: Cohort Survival Rate9080 78 76 76 75 75 74 74 74 73 73 7470 71 70 70 69 69 68 67 68 67 67 67 68 67 66 66 66 64 65 64 64 64 656050403020100 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 US Mean of states without exit exams Mean of states with exit exams
  • Note Large Increase in BA, but larger gaps Figure 2. Percent of population 25 years of age and older who have a BA degree: Decennial Census Data 1940-2000 30 27 26 25 22 22 20 17 15 14 11 11 10 10 9 8 8 8 7 5 5 4 4 2 1 0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Hispanic Black White White non-Hispanic Note: Based on Decennial census. White category does not exclude those of Hispanic Origin. Hispanic Origin can be of any race. SOURCE: U.S. Census Population Division Census 2000 PHC-T-41. A Half-Century of Learning: Historical Statistics on Educational Attainment in the United States, 1940 to 2000
  • Rising BA and above Expectations in all SESgroups NCES high school longitudinal studies(HS&B, NELS, ELS) BA and above expectations 100 92.9 90 86.6 80 78.7 70.3 70 58.8 66.2 60 50 40 36.6 36.6 30 22.0 20 10 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Lowest SES Middle SES Highest SES
  • Composite achievement test scoreand educational expectations of BA 100 95.5 90 88.3 87.7 79.4 80 71.8 68.3 75.7 70 60 55.8 59.5 50 47.5 43.7 40 40.6 32.3 30 27.2 20 19.4 10 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Lowest quartile Second quartile Third quartile Highest quartile All
  • Progress---One of TRIO Eligibility Criteria—First Generation NCES Data on Percent of High School Students with at Least one Parent with a BA Degree (Data from NLSY and ELS:2002) 1972 2002 % changeAll 21% 38% 81%AM. Indian or AK. Native 11% 29% 164%Asian 23% 52% 126%Black 8% 31% 288%Hispanic or Latino 7% 21% 200%White 22% 43% 95%
  • Inequality... How much richer are the richest 20% in each country than the poorest 20%? Income gaps How many times richer 9.7 are the richest fifth than the poorest fifth? 8.5 8.0 7.2 6.7 6.8 6.8 7.0 6.1 6.2 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.2 5.3 4.8 4.3 4.6 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.0 ly a ia l e um d ce ar k y nd UK d A ai n l d n en s re ay da ae ga an ali nc nd lan pa lan an US st r It a po ee rw ala ed na Isr r tu l gi Sp nm st r rm Fra Ja erl r la Au Ir e Fin ga Gr No Sw Ca Ze Be Po Au Ge De t he izt Sin w Sw Ne NeWilkinson & Pickett, The Spirit Level www.equalitytrust.org.uk
  • Bachelor’s degree by age 24 by family incomequartiles:1970-2009-nationally about 30 percent Source: US Census Bureau, 1970-2006-P20 table 14, Report on School Enrollment; 2007-2009 unpublished Census tabulations. Analysis by Tom Mortenson; Graph prepared by the Pell Institute of the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE) (October 2011)
  • Schools highly segregated by SES &--stronginverse relationship of school poverty ratesand school proficiency scores40.0 . Figure reads: 1.6 percent of35.0 the highest poverty schools were in the 90 -100th30.0 percentile in reading compared with 36.1 percent Highest of lowest poverty schools. Conversely, 0.5 percent of25.0 Poverty--80% the lowest and over free poverty schools (under 20% free20.0 lunch) were at or below lunch (17.1 % the 10th percentile on reading proficiency ; of schools) while 33.8 percent of highest15.0 Lowest Poverty- poverty schools (80% or above free lunch) -Under 20% free were at or below the 10th percentile .10.0 lunch (17.5 % of schools) 5.0 0.0
  • Health and social problems are worse in more unequal countries Index of health and social problems Index of: • Life expectancy • Math & Literacy • Infant mortality • Homicides • Imprisonment • Teenage births • Trust • Obesity • Mental illness – incl. drug & alcohol addiction • Social mobilityWilkinson & Pickett, The Spirit Level www.equalitytrust.org.uk
  • More children drop out of High School in more unequal US statesWilkinson & Pickett, The Spirit Level www.equalitytrust.org.uk
  • Uncomfortable in the InequalityFederal College Access Programs Designed to Mitigate Improved college Increased going and student success engagement, rates Changes (e.g. supplemental self programs, increased esteem, caree collaboration and professional r goals, and development among college staff, use of Federal data, rigorous course preparation college enrollment and success, strength access finding and asset program building among Changes in students) school culture
  • Evidence from evaluations that these programscan be effective (Random Assignment NationalEvaluation of Upward Bound—6 year BAattainment) Difference 7.0 **** 14.1% 50% increase UB/UBMS participation (TOT/CACE) 21.1% 15.2% Difference 5.8***UB/UBMS compared with other non-UB/UBMS 39 %increase service only 21.0% Difference 14.4*** Any pre-college with academic component 6.5% 223% increase compared with no pre-college service reported 20.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% Comparison Treatment
  • However serve only smallminority of eligible population 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 98% 96% 91% 40% 96% 30% 20% 10% 2% 0% 4% 9% Upward Bound 4% % of free lunch Talent Search % grades 9-12 of free lunch GEAR UP % of grades 7 to 12 free lunch Student Support grades 7 to 12 Services % of PELL undergraduates Percent served Percent not served
  • Estimated tax impact of UB compared to estimated costbased on average length of participation—4.9 timesmore taxes based on earnings $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $36,453 $10,000 $5,000 $7,350 $- Cost of UB per average length Estimated additional average lifetime taxes from UB participation
  • Rate of Return to College EducationIncreased over Last Two Decades Source: Hill et al. The value of higher education , 2003, p. 15
  • Limiting factor—equilibrium of jobplacement with educational system-BLSnew jobs by 2018  BA and Associates –27 percent BA and Associates  23 % Percent BA or above  4.7 % Associates  5.7 % Postsecondary voc certificate  66.6 % On the job training -- Longer/medium/shorter (38.8 %)
  • Employment change: 2008-2018
  • Projections of Job Requirements Through2018 (Carneval, Smith, Strohl 2010)
  • Developing 20/20 Vision on the 2020Degree Attainment Goal, (A. NicholsPell Institute, 2011) If could raise the bottom half to top half—would easily meet goal Top—already has almost 60 percent in BA alone (59 percent) Bottom half of country has 12 percent BA attainment If got bottom up to top then would have 2.9 million per year or 29 million more in 10 years
  • Dynamic Models Levels----stocks—Population of college—set initial level Flows---number coming into system over time Rates of flows---(observe what happens when change)  Auxiliary variables related to flows—  Can be exogenous or  Result of defined feedbacks from previous times
  • Rate of Flows—Increases andDecreasesIncreases Diversions away High expectations of students  Inequality measurements of achievement themselves (direct and indirect) Potential of college access programs to  Raising standards to get out of high school work if funded and implemented  Reductions in school college access more widely counselors  Economic downturn of families Lack of high paying jobs for high school grads  Rising costs and decline in public share of costs—increase family contributions Social pressure to go to college—  Fear of debt presidential call—school climate--  Increase in percent of k-12 students who peers have disabilities Careers specification of  Increase in percent of students who are in requirements—certifications poverty---50 percent Federal, state, local and non-profit  Difficulty of peers who went to college sector programs and encouragement finding jobs Availability of credit and grants  Low self efficacy to meet challenges  Remediation requirements Focus on college readiness
  • Simple model of BA increase Rate of conferral BA population Conferrals-- births Amount of BAjobs --carrying capacity
  • Simple Model—BA growth Population-----INTEG (conferrals-births) Initial value ---32 million Population Conferrals-births = Rate of 40 M conferral*Population * (1- 35 M Population * Amount of 30 M jobs—carrying capacity) 25 M Rate of conferral is a 20 M constant in simulation (.3) 2008 2010 2012 2014 Time (Year) 2016 2018 2020 Population : Current Amount of jobs—carrying capacity = 38 million
  • Simple BA increase modelChanged carrying to 45 Change rate to .58—keepmillion limits the same Population Population 60 M 60 M 50 M 50 M 40 M 40 M 30 M 30 M 20 M 20 M 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Time (Year) Time (Year) Population : Current Population : Current
  • Increase rates to show systemdynamicsOvershoot and crash Chaos—increase to 3.0(bifurcating)---2.0 Population Population 60 M 60 M 45 M 50 M 30 M 40 M 15 M 30 M 0 20 M 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Time (Year) Time (Year) Population : Current Population : Current
  • A bit more complex Rate of conferral Population Rate of conferral Conferrals-- for top half birthsRate of conferral Amount of jobs for bottom half --carrying capacity Increase from innovation
  • Models with innovation andinequality in rates as auxiliariesEstimating 25-64 year old See innovation allows jobcollege rate capacity to increase Population base = 46.7 million 80 M Population Amount of jobs—carrying 70 M capacity = 63 million + 60 M Increase from innovation 50 M Increase from innovation = 40 M Population * .10 2008 2012 2016 2020 Time (Year) 2024 2028 Population : Current Rate of top half = .588 Rate of bottom half = .120
  • Model 50 percent increase for thebottom halfFeatures From .12 to .18 Innovation = Popuation * .10 Allows the carrying to move from 63 million up to 70 80 M Population million 70 M See leveling off due to 60 M carrying constraints even 50 M with innovation 40 M Kept top half at .588 2008 2012 2016 2020 Time (Year) 2024 2028 Population : Current
  • More complex model Rate of conferral College Population Conferrals-- Rate of conferral births for top half Amount of jobs Rate of conferral --carrying capacity for bottom half Increase from Increase fromFederal program innovation reduction in Increase in parents inequality impact who have college
  • Reduction in inequality due to impact ofincreased reach of college access programs andparent educationIncreased ED levels More jobs College Population Amount of jobs --carrying capacity 80 M 80 M 70 M 77.5 M 60 M 75 M 50 M 72.5 M 40 M 70 M 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 Time (Year) Time (Year) College Population : Current "Amount of jobs --carrying capacity" : Current