ACCESS TO SUCCESS:

1
ACCESS TO SUCCESS
Lessons from a Country That Has Gotten Almost
Everything Wrong

• Canadian Policy Summit on Strategies for
  Broadening Access to
• Post-secondary Participation
• Toronto, Ontario April, 2008

2
Over past 25 years, the US 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
College-going up for all groups.
5
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
6
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
7
But though college-going up for minorities, gains
among whites have been greater
8
All Groups Up In College-Going from 1980-2005,
But Gaps Increase
Source U.S. Department of Education, NCES, The
Condition of Education 2006.
9
And though college going up for low-income
students, they still havent reached rate of high
income students in mid-seventies.
10
(No Transcript)
11
But access isnt the only issue

• Theres a question of access to what

12
(No Transcript)
13

• And what about graduation?

14
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.
15
And from 2-year institutions?

• Lower still.

16
California Community CollegesSuccess Rates for
Degree-Bound Freshmen
Shulock, Nancy. Excludes students
who did not complete at least 10 credits.
17
The result?

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

18
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
19
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
20
College Going vs. Completion of BA or Higher,
Latino
2
1

• 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
Add it all up
22
Different groups of young Americans obtain
degrees at very different rates.
23
Of Every 100 White 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/indi
cator23.aspinfo
24
Of Every 100 African American 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/indi
cator23.aspinfo
25
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/indi
cator23.aspinfo
26
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-2
8.pdf
27
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.
28
These gaps threaten the health of our
democracy.But they are also especially worrisome
given which groups are growingand which arent.
29
There is Rapid Growth Among Groups Who Already
Are Under-Represented
Source U.S. Census Bureau, Population Projections
30
Not surprisingly, our international lead is
slipping away

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

31
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.
32
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.
33
. . . 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.
34
WHATS GOING ON?

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

35
They are not all wrong.
36
Low Income and Minority Students Continue to be
Clustered in Schools where we spend less
37
NationInequities in State and Local Revenue Per
Student
Source The Education Trust, The Funding Gap
2005. Data are for 2003
38
expect less
39
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.
40
teach them less
41
Fewer Latino students are enrolledin Algebra 2
Source CCSSO, State Indicators of Science and
Mathematics Education, 2001
42
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.
43
and assign them our least qualified teachers.
44
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.
45
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.
46
While were making some progress in addressing
these problems in elementary schools
47
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
48
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
49
We have not yet turned the corner in our high
schools.

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

50
NAEP Reading, 17 Year-Olds
21
29
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress
51
NAEP Math, 17 Year-Olds
28
20
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress
52

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

53
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/
54
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/
55
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
56
Only place we rank high?

• Not someplace we are proud of ranking high.

57
Among OECD Countries, U.S.A. has the 4th Largest
Gap Between High-SES and Low-SES Students PISA
2006 Science
U.S.A.
Source OECD, PISA 2006 Results, table 4.8b,
http//www.oecd.org/
58
So yes, unequal preparation is part of the
problem.
59
And so is government support for financial aid.

• Both the federal government and state governments
  are spending more on aid, but have shifted more
  and more of their aid resources toward more
  affluent students.

60
Maximum Pell Grant Coverage of Cost of College
61
(No Transcript)
62
(No Transcript)
63
But colleges and universities are not
unimportant actors in this drama of shrinking
opportunity, either.

• .

64
For one thing, the shifts away from poor students
in institutional aid money are MORE PRONOUNCED
than the shifts in government aid.
65
Students from Families with Income lt 40,000,
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
66
By 2003, Aid and Enrollment Had Declined For
Students from Family Income lt 40,000
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
67
(No Transcript)
68
(No Transcript)
69
This is true even in our most prestigious public
universities.

• Flagships and other Public Research Extensive
  Universities

70
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.

71
Big increases in spending on high income students
72
Typical institutional grant recipient in
low-income family now gets LESS than typical
grant recipient in high income family
73
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
74
So its not all about the government. What
colleges do is important in determining who comes
and who doesnt.
75
Moreover, what colleges do also turns out to be
very important in whether students graduate or
not.
76
Current College Completion RatesUS 4-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.

77
But graduation rates vary widely across the
nations postsecondary institutions
78
Some of these differences are clearly
attributable to differences in student
preparation and/or institutional mission.But not
all
79
Some colleges are far more successful than their
students stats would suggest.
80
Doc/Research Institutions With Similar Students
Getting Different Results
81
Masters Level Institutions With Similar Students
Getting Different Results
82
Bac General/Masters Institutions With Similar
Students Getting Different Results
83
Bottom Line

• So yes, we have to keep working to improve our
  high schools
• And yes, we need to work on expanding and/or
  refocusing government aid
• But weve got to focus on changing what our
  colleges do, too.

84
SO WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL TO
YOU?
85
1. Good data are terribly important. But
without good metrics for evaluating progress and
defining good enough, their value is muted.
86
Example

• Most college leaders use this metric for defining
  progress
• Latino students in 2008
• Latino students in 2007
• Positive celebration

87
Years and years of celebratory reports on
progress convinced most Americans and most
American policymakers that things were getting
betterthat gaps were narrowing.
88
But you saw the data gaps were indeed widening.
89
Better metric

• Latinos in freshman class
• ______________________________________
• Latinos in high school graduating class
• Progressvalue closer to 1

90
2. While were on the subject of metrics, WHO
defines quality in higher education and WHAT
that definition looks like is hugely important.
91
In the US, largely because of the recalcitrance
of higher education leaders to provide the data
that parents and students want, the private
sector stepped in.
92
The result A set of metrics defining quality
that are mostly about selectivity and status.
93
A lot of people in higher education rail about
that definition. But they pursue it with zeal.

• Presidents are evaluated on whether they move
  their institution up the rankings. Millions of
  aid dollars are spent to buy students who will
  help those rankings.

94
Sure, those same campuses also maintain outreach
programs. But as long as each student admitted
from those programs costs them in the rankings,
the numbers will remain low.

• Alternatives Metrics that look at how well a
  campus serves the full range of people in its
  community. Value added metrics. Metrics that
  compare results in like institutions.

95
3. Partnerships have enormous potential. But
bottom line responsibility must be assigned
somewhere.
96
Virtually every college, every community in the
US has an enormous range of outreach programs
and partnerships.

• We spend billions of dollars, have large numbers
  of employees and everybody claims wonderful
  results.

97
But you saw the data.
98
Heres the kicker the one agency that sees
every kid every daythe schoolshad no sense of
responsibility for college preparation and
college attendance.
99
Were trying to change that nowto make
preparation for college the core goal for high
schools. But our best systems are going
furtherassigning responsibility for
college-going.
100
That may feel unfair to someanother burden for
already overburdened schools. And it may feel,
somehow, like minimizing the importance of
partnerships.
101
Our recent experience suggests just the opposite.
The pressure of a bottom line actually brings
partners to the table with a much greater sense
of urgency.
102
4. On both the preparation side and the college
success side Fix the kid strategies are far
less powerful than fix the institution
strategies.
103
Example on the college success side

• Data on minority or low-income freshmen suggest
  high failure rates in introductory courses.
  Campus response create tutorial services and
  other learning supports.

104
The truth, however, is that LOTS of students are
not succeeding in introductory courses.
105
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
106
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
107
Of course, some of this may be about preparation.
But clearly not all
108
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

109
Also, totally eliminated black/white gap in
course outcomes.

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

110
Another example.Two statesKY and NVhave done
close analysis of student progression, focused
specifically on students with developmental needs.

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

111
Both now have new policies.
112
In other words, programs that operate on them
but leave institutional practices unchallenged
are doomed to marginal impact.
113
5. Put college success squarely on the front
burnernot just access.
114
Again, theres a data and metrics issue. College
leaders in less-selective institutions say not
fair to compare their success rates with those
in more selective institutions.

• But it turns out to be quite possible to design
  systems to look fairly at institutional success
  with students from certain populations.

115
College Results Online
116
(No Transcript)
117
6. Aid programs focused specifically on
low-income students are critical.
118
Merit or generalized aid head you down a very
slippery slope.

• Result in many of our states?
• Poor people buying lottery tickets to send the
  children of the rich to college.

119
But privileged people dont give up their
privileges very easily.
120
7. In our country, at least, higher education
has been transformed from an agent of opportunity
to just another agent of stratification.
121
Its not like folks in higher ed sat around and
figured out how to make that happen. Whole host
of contributors.
122
But thats not why most of us got into the
business.
123
Question for usand question for youWhos
going to be the voice to transition back?
124
The Education Trust

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