COLLEGE ACCESS AND SUCCESS: Where Are We What Do We Need to Do

1
COLLEGE ACCESS AND SUCCESS Where Are We?
What Do We Need to Do?

• System Chief Academic Officers
• Berkeley, CA May, 2008

2
Over past 25 years, weve made a lot of progress
on the access side.
3
Immediate College-Going Up
Recent High School Graduates

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.
4
Most High School Grads Go On To Postsecondary
Within 2 Years
Source NELS 88, Second (1992) and Third (1994)
Follow up in, USDOE, NCES, Access to
Postsecondary Education for the 1992 High School
Graduates, 1998, Table 2.
5
College-going up for all groups.
6
College-Going Increasing for Recent High School
Grads at All Income Levels
Percent of high school completers who were
enrolled in college the October after completing
high school
Due to small sample sizes, 3-year averages used
for Low-income category
Source U.S. Dept. of Education, NCES, The
Condition of Education, 2006, Table 29-1,
http//nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/section3/indi
cator29.asp
7
Immediate College-Going Increasing for All
Racial/Ethnic Groups 1980 to 2005
Percent of high school completers who were
enrolled in college the October after completing
high school

Source U.S. Dept. of Education, NCES, The
Condition of Education, 2006, Table 29-1,
http//nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/section3/indi
cator29.asp
8
But though college-going up for minorities, gains
among whites have been greater
9
All Groups Up In College-Going from 1980-2005,
But Gaps Also Increase
Source U.S. Department of Education, NCES, The
Condition of Education 2006.
10
And though college going up for low-income
students, they still havent reached rate of high
income students in mid-seventies.
11
(No Transcript)
12
But access isnt the only issue

• Theres a question of access to what

13
(No Transcript)
14

• And what about graduation?

15
Black and Latino Freshmen Complete College at
Lower Rates (6 Year Rates All 4-Year
Institutions)
Overall rate 55
Source 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.
16
And from 2-year institutions?

• Lower still.

17
California Community CollegesSuccess Rates for
Degree-Bound Freshmen
Shulock, Nancy. Excludes students
who did not complete at least 10 credits.
18
The result?

• Increases in college completion not commensurate
  with increases in college going.

19
College Going vs. Completion of BA or Higher,
White
23
10

• Immediate College-going refers to the percentage
  of high school completers who were enrolled in
  college the October after completing high school.
  Percent attaining their BA refers to the
  percentage of 25-29 year-olds with a BA or higher

Source U.S. Dept. of Education, NCES, The
Condition of Education, 2006, Tables 29-1 and
31-3 http//nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/section3
/indicator29.asp , http//nces.ed.gov/programs/coe
/2006/section3/indicator31.asp
20
College Going vs. Completion of BA or Higher,
African American
13
6

• Immediate College-going refers to the percentage
  of high school completers who were enrolled in
  college the October after completing high school.
  Percent attaining their BA refers to the
  percentage of 25-29 year-olds with a BA or higher

Source U.S. Dept. of Education, NCES, The
Condition of Education, 2006, Tables 29-1 and
31-3 http//nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/section3
/indicator29.asp , http//nces.ed.gov/programs/coe
/2006/section3/indicator31.asp
21
College Going vs. Completion of BA or Higher,
Latino
2
3

• Immediate College-going refers to the percentage
  of high school completers who were enrolled in
  college the October after completing high school.
  Percent attaining their BA refers to the
  percentage of 25-29 year-olds with a BA or higher

Source U.S. Dept. of Education, NCES, The
Condition of Education, 2006, Tables 29-1 and
31-3 http//nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/section3
/indicator29.asp , http//nces.ed.gov/programs/coe
/2006/section3/indicator31.asp
22
Add it all up
23
Different groups of young Americans obtain
degrees at very different rates.
24
Some Americans Are Much Less Likely to Graduate
From College
25
Some Americans Are Much Less Likely to Graduate
From CollegeB.A. Rates by Age 24
SES is a weighted variable developed by NCES,
which includes parental education levels and
occupations and family income. High and low
refer to the highest and lowest quartiles of SES.
Source Family Income and Higher Education
Opportunity 1970 to 2003, in Postsecondary
Education Opportunity, Number 156, June 2005.
26
These gaps threaten the health of our
democracy.But they are also especially worrisome
given which groups are growingand which arent.
27
There is Rapid Growth Among Groups Who Already
Are Under-Represented
Source U.S. Census Bureau, Population Projections
28
Not surprisingly, our international lead is
slipping away

• Were still relatively strong (although no longer
  in the lead) with all adults.

29
U.S. 3rd Out of 30 Industrialized Nations in
Overall Postsecondary Degree Attainment (B.A.
A.A.)
United States (38)
Source 2007 OECD Education at a Glance,
www.oecd.org/edu/eag2007. Note data is for 2005.
30
But the U.S. is 9th out of 30 countries in the
percentage of younger workers with A.A. degree or
higher
United States (39)
Source 2007 OECD Education at a Glance,
www.oecd.org/edu/eag2007. Note data is for 2005.
31
. . . and the U.S. is one of only two countries
where there is no increase in college attainment
among younger workers.
United States (0)
Source 2007 OECD Education at a Glance,
www.oecd.org/edu/eag2007. Note data is for 2005.
32
To reach top performing countries
Source 2007 OECD Education at a Glance,
www.oecd.org/edu/eag2007. Note data is for 2005.
33
WHATS GOING ON?

• Many in higher education would like to believe
  that this is mostly about lousy high schools and
  stingy federal and state policymakers.

34
They are not all wrong.
35
Low Income and Minority Students Continue to be
Clustered in Schools where we spend less
36
NationInequities in State and Local Revenue Per
Student
Source The Education Trust, The Funding Gap
2005. Data are for 2003
37
expect less
38
Students in Poor Schools Receive As for Work
That Would Earn Cs in Affluent Schools
Source Prospects (ABT Associates, 1993), in
Prospects Final Report on Student Outcomes,
PES, DOE, 1997.
39
teach them less
40
Fewer Latino students are enrolledin Algebra 2
Source CCSSO, State Indicators of Science and
Mathematics Education, 2001
41
African American, Latino Native American high
school graduates are less likely to have been
enrolled in a full college prep track
percent in college prep
Full College Prep track is defined as at least 4
years of English, 3 years of math, 2 years of
natural science, 2 years of social science and 2
years of foreign language
Source Jay P. Greene, Public High School
Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the
United States, Manhattan Institute, September
2003. Table 8. 2001 high school graduates with
college-prep curriculum.
42
and assign them our least qualified teachers.
43
More Classes in High-Poverty, High-Minority
Schools Taught By Out-of-Field Teachers
High poverty Low poverty
High minority Low minority
Note 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.
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.
44
Poor and Minority Students Get More
Inexperienced Teachers
High poverty Low poverty
High minority Low minority
Teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience.
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
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
Monitoring Quality An Indicators Report,
December 2000.
45
While were making some progress in addressing
these problems in elementary schools
46
NAEP Reading, 9 Year-OldsRecord Performance for
All Groups
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress
47
NAEP Math, 9 Year-Olds Record Performance for
All Groups
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress
48
We have not yet turned the corner in our high
schools.

• Gaps between groups are wider today than they
  were in 1990.

49
NAEP Reading, 17 Year-Olds
21
29
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress
50
NAEP Math, 17 Year-Olds
28
20
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress
51

• And no matter how you cut the data, our
  performance relative to other countries isnt
  much to brag about.

52
US 15 Year-Olds Rank Near Middle Of The Pack
Among 32 Participating Countries 1999
53
2003?
54
PISA 2003 US 15 Year-Olds Rank Near The End Of
The Pack Among 29 OECD Countries
Source NCES, 2005, International Outcomes of
Learning in Mathematics, Literacy and Problem
Solving 2003 PISA Results. NCES 2005-003
55
2006?

• Taking just the 26 countries that participated in
  all three administrations.

56
PISA PerformanceU.S.A. Ranks Near Bottom, Has
Fallen Since 2000
Rankings are for the 26 OECD countries
participating in PISA in 2000, 2003, and 2006.
Source Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), PISA 2006 Results,
http//www.oecd.org/
57
Lets take a closer look at math
58
2003 U.S. Ranked 24th out of 29 OECD Countries
in Mathematics
Source Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data
available at http//www.oecd.org/
59
U.S. Ranks Low in the Percent of Students in the
Highest Achievement Level (Level 6) in Math
Source Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data
available at http//www.oecd.org/
60
U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29 OECD Countries in the
Math Achievement of the Highest-Performing
Students
Students at the 95th Percentile
Source Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data
available at http//www.oecd.org/
61
U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29OECD Countries in the
Math Achievement of High-SES Students
Source Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data
available at http//www.oecd.org/
62
Science?
63
PISA 2006 Science Of 30 OECD Countries, U.S.A.
Ranked 21st
U.S.A.
Source NCES, PISA 2006 Results,
http//nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/
64
Immigrants? The U.S.A. does have a larger
percentage of immigrants and children of
immigrants than most OECD countries
U.S.A.
Source OECD, PISA 2006 Results, table 4.2c,
http//www.oecd.org/
65
But ranks 21st out of 30 OECD countries when only
taking into account native student scoresPISA
2006 Science
U.S.A.
Students born in the country of assessment with
at least one parent born in the same country
Source OECD, PISA 2006 Results, table 4.2c,
http//www.oecd.org/
66
Even in problem-solving, something we consider an
American strength
67
PISA 2003 Problem-Solving, US Ranks 24th Out of
29 OECD Countries
Source NCES, 2005, International Outcomes of
Learning in Mathematics, Literacy and Problem
Solving 2003 PISA Results. NCES 2005-003
68
So yes, preparation is part of the problem.
69
And so is government support for financial aid.

• Both the federal government and state governments
  have shifted more and more of their aid resources
  toward more affluent students.

70
(No Transcript)
71
Maximum Pell Grant Coverage of Cost of College
72
(No Transcript)
73
But colleges and universities are not
unimportant actors in this drama of shrinking
opportunity, either.

• .

74
For one thing, the shifts away from poor students
in institutional aid money are MORE PRONOUNCED
than the shifts in government aid.
75
Students from Families with Income 199556 of Institutional Aid,38 of students
on Public 4-Year Campuses
Note These numbers reflect outcomes students in
four-year public colleges.
Source National Postsecondary Student Aid,
(2003-2004) data analysis conducted by Jerry
Davis for the Education Trust
76
By 2003, Aid and Enrollment Had Declined For
Students from Family Income Note These figures are for students in
four-year public colleges.
Source National Postsecondary Student Aid,
(2003-2004) data analysis conducted by Jerry
Davis for the Education Trust
77
(No Transcript)
78
(No Transcript)
79
This is true even in our most prestigious public
universities.

• Flagships and other Public Research Extensive
  Universities

80
Flagships spend more money on aid than their
students receive from either federal or state
sources.

• They could choose to cushion the effects of
  increased cost on poor students. But they dont.

81
Big increases in spending on high income students
82
Typical institutional grant recipient in
low-income family now gets LESS than typical
grant recipient in high income family
83
Today, almost 60 of institutional aid dollars in
4-year public colleges go to students with NO
FINANCIAL NEED!
Source Sandy Baum, The College Board, 2008
84
So its not all about the students. What
colleges do is important.
85
Moreover, what colleges do also turns out to be
very important in whether students graduate or
not.
86
Current College Completion Rates4-Year Colleges

• Approximately 4 in 10 entering freshmen obtain a
  Bachelors degree within 4 years
• Within six years of entry, that proportion rises
  to about 6 in 10.

87
But graduation rates vary widely across the
nations postsecondary institutions
88
Some of these differences are clearly
attributable to differences in student
preparation and/or institutional mission.But not
all
89
Some colleges are far more successful than their
students stats would suggest.
90
Doc/Research Institutions With Similar Students
Getting Different Results
91
Masters Level Institutions With Similar Students
Getting Different Results
92
Bac General/Masters Institutions With Similar
Students Getting Different Results
93
College Results Online
94
(No Transcript)
95
Bottom Line

• So yes, we have to keep working to improve our
  high schools
• But weve got to focus on improving our colleges,
  too.

96
What can we do?
97
First, lets be clearimproving high schools is
hugely important.
98
Far too many of our high schoolsespecially those
serving concentrations of poor and minority
studentsdont prepare their students for much of
anything.
99
Work on aligning standards, assessments and high
school course requirements matters a lot.

• American Diploma Project

100
To get students to these standards, teachers will
need

• Robust curriculum materials
• Help designing powerful units, assignments
• Help mastering the array of teaching strategies
  necessary to get all learners to much higher
  standards
• Better data on how their students are doing along
  the way.

101
What to do on the higher education side?
102
NASH Access to Success Initiative
103
Twenty Public University SystemsTogether We
Add Up

• We enroll 2,500,000 undergraduate students
  20 of the nations 2 and 4 year public college
  and university undergraduates
• Over 1/3 of the low-income students in public
  four year institutions and 42 of the
  underrepresented minority students in public four
  year institutions
• .

104
Voluntary InitiativeCore System Commitments

• Raise overall student success
• Set clear goals to cut in half the historic gaps
  in both access and success among students of
  different racial and economic backgrounds
• Mount powerful action strategies
• Report annually on our progress using common
  metrics.

105
Better Metrics for SYSTEM Goal Setting

• Meeting State Needs Not more Rankings
• EX ACCESS of entering low-income students
  in relation to the of low-income students in
  high school graduating class.
• Better measures
• Ex Adding Low income and Transfer student
  measures

106
Cross-System CollaborationPromising Improvement
Strategies and Practices

• Institutions are working on improving retention
  and graduation
• .many not getting the traction with projects
• and seeking assistance to identify more
  powerful strategies
• some are showing significant gains -
• .

107
Work Groups on key Leverage Points to Accelerate
Improvement

• Developmental education and high enrollment entry
  level courses
• Increasing institution and state need based
  financial aid
• Increasing 2-4 year college transfer
• Cost management and investment in student success

108
Some leverage points, strategies in play
109
1. Get folks engaged in looking at their data.

• Yes, the numbers will often suggest the need for
  better preparation. But they will also typically
  show that were not doing so well even by the
  students who meet our definition of prepared.

110
NASH/EdTrust Math Success Initiative

• 9 Systems Analyzing Data on Student Success in
  Math Courses

111
Participating Systems

• State Univ System of Florida
• University System of Georgia
• University of Hawaii System
• Purdue University
• State University of New York

• Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Ed
• University of Louisiana System
• Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning
• Nevada System of Higher Education

112
Some Initial Findings

• Large numbers of remedial students not
  successfuleither withdraw or fail.
• Large D, F, W rates in first several
  credit-bearing courses
• Preparation matters. Students who have higher
  ACT math subscores, for example, more likely to
  be successful. BUT prep levels only explain a
  small part of success (ACT around one-third SAT
  even less).
• Math coursework taken during senior year
  important. Many students taking courses below
  Algebra 1.
• In many cases, students who test as non-ready
  have success rates in non-remedial courses equal
  to those in the remedial courses designed for
  them. (California Community Colleges, too.)
• Wide differences in these rates even among
  comparable institutions.

113
Much more to learnincluding how big the
differences are among faculty members--but clear
indicators for action.
114
2. Do a close analysis of student progression
through your institutions and ACT on what you
learn.
115
Two states in our networkKY and NVhave done
such analyses, focused specifically on students
with developmental needs.

• Conclusion Student who take those courses
  immediately on entry are much more likely to
  succeed.

116
Both now have new policies.
117
University of Northern Iowa Path Analysis
Not enough sections of key courses.

• By adding just a few sections, unblocked clogged
  arteriesand student success went up.

118
3. Set some stretch goals.
119
A lot of systems, campuses dont set goals. At
best, report increases or decreases.

• Those numbers can be seriously misleading. But
  they also dont inspire or engage.

120
Access to Success Goal?

• By 2015 to reduce by at least half the gaps in
  college going and college success that separate
  low-income students and students of color from
  others.

121
4. Learn from your own high performers.
122
Almost every system has found some campuses that
get better results. Important to understand what
they are doing.

• Should be looking at the data by faculty member,
  as well, and working to understand teaching
  practices that work.

123
5. Take on introductory courses.
124
Drop-Failure-Withdrawal RatesMathematics

• Georgia State U 45
• Louisiana State U 36
• Rio CC 41
• U of Alabama 60
• U of Missouri-SL 50
• UNC-Greensboro 77
• UNC-Chapel Hill 19
• Wayne State U 61

Source National Center for Academic
Transformation
125
Drop-Failure-Withdrawal RatesOther Disciplines

• Calhoun CC Statistics 35
• Chattanooga State Psychology 37
• Drexel U Computing 51
• IUPUI Sociology 39
• SW MN State U Biology 37
• Tallahassee CC English Comp 46
• U of Iowa Chemistry 25
• U of New Mexico Psychology 39
• U of S Maine Psychology 28
• UNC-Greensboro Statistics 70

Source National Center for Academic
Transformation
126
Of course, some of this may be about preparation.
But clearly not all
127
College Algebra Course RedesignUNIVERSITY OF
ALABAMASUCCESS RATES

• Fall 1998
• Fall 1999
• Fall 2000
• Fall 2001
• Fall 2002
• Fall 2003
• Fall 2004

• 47.1
• 40.6
• 50.2
• 60.5
• 63.0
• 78.9
• 76.2

128
Also, totally eliminated black/white gap in
course outcomes.

• Same students.
• Same preparation.
• Different results.

129
6. Finally, what about redirecting
institutional aid dollars toward the students who
need them the most?
130
Over the past few decades, role of higher
education has been transformed from agent of
opportunity and mobility, to another agent of
stratification.
131
Perhaps not surprising, given the relentless
march of privilege in our society and the
tendency of privileged people to demand ever more.
132
The Education Trust

• Download this Presentation
• And Subscribe to Equity Express
• www.edtrust.org
• Washington, DC 202-293-1217
• Oakland, CA 510-465-6444