© 2012 the education trust access to success in america: where are we? what can we do? university...

© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

ACCESS TO SUCCESS IN AMERICA: Where Are We? What Can We Do?

University of Missouri Kansas CityOctober, 2012


America: Two Enduring Stories


1. Land of Opportunity:

Work hard, and you can become anything you want to be.


2. Generational Advancement:

Through hard work, each generation of parents can assure a better life —

and better education — for their children.


Powerful narratives.

No longer true.

© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Within the U.S., income inequality has been rising.


Earnings among the lowest income families have declined, even amid big increases at the

top.

Lowest 20%

Second 20%

Third 20%

Fourth 20%

Top 20%

Top 5%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

-7%5%

14%25%

51%

78%

Perc

ent G

row

th in

Mea

n Fa

mily

Inc

ome

Cons

tant

Dol

lars

, 198

0-20

10

Source: The College Board, “Trends in College Pricing 2011” (New York: College Board, 2010), Figure 16A.


Chile

Mex

icoUni

ted

Stat

esTu

rkey

Israe

l

Italy

Esto

nia

Spain

Irelan

dGr

eece

Polan

dSw

itzer

land

Belgi

umCa

nada

Slove

nia

Hung

ary

Aust

riaGe

rman

yFin

land

Norw

aySw

eden

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Gin

i Coe

ffici

ent

Note: Gini coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates total income equality and 1 indicates total income inequality.

Instead of being the most equal, the U.S. has the third highest income inequality among OECD

nations.

United States

Source: United Nations, U.N. data, http://data.un.org/DocumentData.aspx?q=gini&id=271: 2011

http://data.un.org/DocumentData.aspx?q=gini&id=271


• Unemployment• Poverty • Median Earnings


Source:

For people of color, the past few years have brought an economic tsunami.


Source:


Real Median Annual Income2007 2011 Percent

ChangeBlack Head of Household

35,072 31,784 - 9.4%

Hispanic Head of Household

41,945 39,901 - 4.9%

White Head of Household

59,111 56,320 - 4.7%

Sentier Research, “Household Income Trends During the Recession and Economic Recovery,” 2011.


Change in Median Wealth, 2005–2009

Hispanic Households Down 66%Black Households Down 53%Asian Households Down 54%White Households Down 16%

Source: Rakesh Kochhar, Richard Fry, and Paul Taylor, “Twenty-to-One: Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics,”Pew Social & Demographic Trends, 2011.


Median Wealth of White Families

20 X that of African Americans

18 X that of Latinos

Source: Rakesh Kochhar, Richard Fry, and Paul Taylor, “Twenty-to-One: Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics,” Pew Social & Demographic Trends, 2011.


Not just wages and wealth, but mobility as well.


U.S. intergenerational mobility was increasing until 1980, but has sharply declined since.

Source: Daniel Aaronson and Bhashkar Mazumder. Intergenerational Economic Mobility in the U.S.,1940 to 2000. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago WP 2005-12: Dec. 2005.

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.4 0.35 0.34 0.330000000000005

0.460.58

Earn

ings

Ela

stici

ty

The falling elasticity meant increased economic mobility until 1980. Since then, the elasticity has risen, and mobility has slowed.


Now, instead of being the “land of opportunity,” the U.S. has one of lowest rates

of intergenerational mobility.

United Kingdom

United States

France Germany Sweden Canada Finland Norway Denmark0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.5 0.470.410.320000000000

005 0.270.19 0.18 0.17 0.15

Earn

ings

Ela

stici

ty

Cross-country examples of the link between father and son wages

Source: Tom Hertz, “Understanding Mobility in America” (Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress, 2006).


At the macro level, better and more equal education is not the

only answer.

But at the individual level, it really is.


College Grads Earn More

High school

diploma/GED

Some col-lege

Asso-ciate's degree

Bachelor's degree

Master's degree

Profes-sional degree

Ph.D.$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$21,569 $27,361

$32,602

$42,783

$53,716

$79,977 $73,575

Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment (2006-08)

Med

ian

annu

al e

arni

ngs

for a

ll in

divi

d-ua

ls

Julian and Kominski, “Education and Synthetic Work-Life Earnings Estimates,” U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.

Note: Data include full-time, year-round workers, those working less than full-time year-round, and those who did not work.


Source:

College Grads Less Likely to be Unemployed

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-4, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04htm

Less than high school diploma

High school grad-uate

Some college or associate's degree

Bachelor's degree or higher

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

14.3%

9.6%8.2%

4.3%

Unemployment Rate (August 2011)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04htm


They also stand out on the other things we value.


College graduates more likely to vote

Less than high school

High school/GED

Some college/asso-ciate's degree

Bachelor's degree

Advanced degree

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

39%

55%

68%77%

83%

Voting Behavior by Educational Attainment (November 2008)

U.S. Census Bureau, “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008,” May 2010Note: Data include both those who are and are not registered to vote.


Less than high school

High school Some college or associate's degree

Bachelor's degree or higher

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

9%19%

31%

43%

College graduates more likely to volunteer

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Volunteering in the United States 2009” (2010)

Note: Data represent percentage of total population that reported volunteering from September 2008 to September 2009


College Grads of all races far more likely to be in “Very Good” or “Excellent” Health

Black Latino American Indian White0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

27.3

15.9

29.4 30.6

56.4 59 59.2

73.3

High School Dropout College Graduate

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission for a Healthier America, 2009


High school or less Some college Bachelor's degree Advanced degree0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

37%45%

54%60%

College Grads Even Have Better Mental Health

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

repo

rting

them

selv

es to

be

in

exce

llent

men

tal h

ealth

Gallup, “Strong Relationship Between Income and Mental Health” (2007)


What schools and colleges do, in other words, is hugely important to

our economy, our democracy, and our society.


So, how are we doing?


Over past 30 years, we’ve made a lot of progress on the

access side.

n/a


Immediate College-Going Up

NCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-1) and The Condition of Education 2011 (Table A-21-1).Note: Percent of high school completers who were enrolled in college the October after completing high school

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20080%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Perc

enta

ge o

f Hig

h Sc

hool

Gra

duat

es

Enro

lled

in C

olle

ge th

e Fa

ll A

fter

G

radu

ation


College-going is up for all groups.

NCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-3) and The Condition of Education 2011 (Table A-21-2).


Immediate College-Going Increasing for All Racial/Ethnic Groups: 1972 to 2009

Note: Percent of high school completers who were enrolled in college the October after completing high schoolNCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-3) and The Condition of Education 2011 (Table A-21-2).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

African American Latino White

Perc

enta

ge o

f Hig

h Sc

hool

Gra

duat

es E

nrol

led

in

Colle

ge th

e Fa

ll Aft

er G

radu

ation


College-Going Generally Increasing for All Income Groups

NCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-1) and The Condition of Education 2011 (Table A-21-1).

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20080%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Lower Income Higher Income

Perc

enta

ge o

f Hig

h Sc

hool

Gra

duat

es E

nrol

led

in

Colle

ge th

e Fa

ll Aft

er G

radu

ation

Note: Percent of high school completers who were enrolled in college the October after completing high school


But though college-going up for students of color, gains among whites are

often larger…


And though college going up for low-income

students…


But access isn’t the only issue:

There’s a question of access to what…


1/5 of black and Hispanic students and 2/5 of Pell recipients begin at for-profit colleges

Non-Pell recipient

Pell recipient

American Indian

Hispanic

Black

White

Asian

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

15

42

12

18

21

9

7

24

25

46

45

40

35

34

39

21

29

27

26

37

41

20

9

10

9

12

17

17

2

2

4

1

1

1

1

For Profit Public 2-Year Public 4-Year Private 4-Year OtherEd Trust analysis of IPEDS Fall enrollment, Fall 2010 (by race) and IPEDS Student Financial Aid survey, 2009-10 (by Pell recipient status).


Ed Trust analysis of IPEDS, 12-Month Enrollment Survey, 12-month headcount enrollment, 2009-10; Majority staff calculation of data provided by U.S. Department of Education, 2008-09 in “Emerging Risk?: An Overview of Growth, Spending, Student Debt and Unanswered Questions in For-Profit Higher Education.” Senate HELP Committee. 24 June 2010; and Ed Trust analysis of FY 2009 data in “Institutional Default Rate Comparison of FY 2007, 2008, and 2009 Cohort Default Rates.”

Access to what?

For-profit college companies 13% of enrollments 24% of Pell Grants and

federal student loan dollars 48% of federal student

loan defaults


And what about graduation?


Black and Latino Freshmen Complete College at Lower Rates Than Other Students

White Black Latino Asian American Indian0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

62%

40%50%

69%

39%Gra

duati

on R

ates

(%) Overall rate: 58%

6 -year bachelor’s completion rates for first-time, full-time freshmen,Fall 2004 cohort at 4-year institutions

NCES (March 2012). First Look: Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2010; Graduation Rates, 2004 and 2007 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics Fiscal Year 2010.

© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST41

White Black Latino Asian American Indian

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

25%15% 20% 27% 20%

Gra

duati

on R

ates

(%)

6 -year completion rates (associate degrees and certificates) for first-time, full-time freshmen,

Fall 2004 cohort at public two-year institutions

Overall rate: 22.5%

Graduation rates at public community colleges

NCES (March 2012). First Look: Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2010; Graduation Rates, 2004 and 2007 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics Fiscal Year 2010.


Chance of attaining a bachelor’s degree

within six years, among students who

begin at community college?

n/a


Series10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

12%

Bach

elor

’s A

ttai

nmen

t Rat

e (%

)

Only 12 percent.

Percent of students who started at a community college in 2003 and earned a BA degree by 2009

Persistence and Attainment of 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students: After 6 Years First Look, December 2010.


Add it all up…


Different groups of young Americans obtain degrees at

very different rates.

n/a


Bachelor’s attainment rates for whites are twice as high as blacks and three times as high as Hispanics

NCES, Condition of Education 2010 and U.S. Census Bureau, Educational Attainment in the United States: 2011.

White African American Latino

39%

20%13%

Bachelor’s degree attainment of young adults (25-29 year olds), 2011

2x 3x


And gaps between groups have grown over time.


Bachelor’s attainment rates for young people from high income families are more than 7 times

those from low-income families

Postsecondary Education Opportunity, “Bachelor’s Degree Attainment by Age 24 by Family Income Quartiles, 1970 to 2010.”

20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

10.66%

79%

Lowest Income Quartile Highest Income Quartile

Bach

elor

’s D

egre

e att

ainm

ent b

y Ag

e 24

7x


These rates threaten health of our democracy.

But even for those who don’t care much about that, they are particularly worrisome, given which groups are growing…and which

aren’t.


Changing demographics demand greater focus on underrepresented populations.

-5,516

2,312

31,337

4,431669

-9%

15%

137%

96%

50%

Projected Popula-tion Growth, Ages 20-24, 2010-2050

Note: Projected Population Growth, Ages 0-24, 2010-2050 Source: National Population Projections, U.S. Census Bureau. Released 2008; NCHEMS ,Adding It Up, 2007

Population Increase, Ages 0-24, (in thousands)

Percentage Increase, Ages 0-24,


Not surprisingly, our international lead is slipping away


Cana

daIsr

ael

Japa

nUn

ited

Stat

esNe

w Ze

aland

Kore

aFin

land

Austr

alia

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mNo

rway

Esto

nia

Irelan

dSw

itzer

land

Luxe

mbo

urg

Denm

ark

Belgi

umSw

eden

Neth

erlan

dsIce

land

OECD

aver

age

Spain

Fran

ceGe

rman

yCh

ileGr

eece

Slove

nia

Polan

dHu

ngar

yAu

stria

Mex

icoSlo

vak R

epub

licCz

ech

Repu

blic

Portu

gal

Italy

Turk

ey

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of residents aged 25-64 with a postsecondary degree

United States

OECD Average

Note: Adults with a postsecondary degree include those who have completed either a tertiary-type B program (programs that last for at least two years, are skill-based, and prepare students for direct entry into the labor market) or a tertiary-type A program (programs that last at least three, but usually four, years, are largely theory-based, and provide qualifications for entry into highly-skilled professions or advanced research programs)

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Education at a Glance 2011 (2011)

We’re relatively strong in educational attainment


Kore

aCa

nada

Japa

nIre

land

Norw

ayNe

w Ze

aland

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mAu

strali

aDe

nmar

kLu

xem

bour

gFr

ance

Israe

lBe

lgium

Swed

enUn

ited

Stat

esNe

ther

lands

Switz

erlan

dFin

land

Spain

OECD

aver

age

Esto

nia

Icelan

dPo

land

Chile

Slove

nia

Gree

ceGe

rman

yHu

ngar

yPo

rtuga

lAu

stria

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Czec

h Re

publ

icM

exico Italy

Turk

ey

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of residents aged 25-34 with a postsecondary degree



Our world standing drops to 15th for younger workers

United StatesOECD Average


Kore

aPo

land

Fran

ceIre

land

Denm

ark

Luxe

mbo

urg

Chile

Norw

aySw

eden

Spain

Belgi

umPo

rtuga

lCa

nada

Japa

nUn

ited

King

dom

Austr

alia

Slove

nia

OECD

aver

age

New

Zeala

ndNe

ther

lands

Italy

Switz

erlan

dGr

eece

Hung

ary

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Turk

eyM

exico

Icelan

dCz

ech

Repu

blic

Austr

iaFin

land

Unite

d St

ates

Germ

any

Esto

nia

Israe

l0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Difference in percentage of residents aged 45-54 and those aged 25-34 with a postsecondary degree



We’re near the bottom in intergenerational progress

OECD Average

United States


WHAT’S GOING ON?

Many in higher education would like to believe that these patterns are mostly a function of lousy high schools and stingy

federal and state policymakers.


They are not all wrong.


Low Income and Minority Students Continue to be Clustered in Schools

where we spend less…


Funding Gaps Between States

GapHigh-Poverty versus Low-Poverty States

–$2,278per student

High-Minority versus Low-Minority States

–$2,330per student


Funding Gaps Within States: National inequities in state and local revenue per student

GapHigh-Poverty versus Low-Poverty Districts

–$773 per student

High-Minority versus Low-Minority Districts

–$1,122 per student

Source: Education Trust analyses of U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Census Bureau data for the 2005-06 school year.


…expect less


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

Students in poor schools receive As for work that would earn Cs in affluent schools.

87

35

56

34 41

22 21

11

0

100

Per

cent

ile -

CT

BS

4

A B C DGrades

Seventh-Grade Math

Low-poverty schools High-poverty schools


Overall Enrollment Gifted and Talented En-rollment

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

19%10%

25%

16%

49%

62%

5% 10%

AsianWhiteLatinoAfrican American

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dent

s

Students of color are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs.

Source: U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection


…teach them less


African American Latino White Asian0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

35%

68%63%

94%

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dent

s who

wer

e in

the

top

two

quin

-til

es o

f mat

h pe

rfor

man

ce in

fift

h gr

ade

and

in a

lgeb

ra

in e

ight

h gr

ade

Source: NCES, “Eighth-Grade Algebra: Findings from the Eighth-Grade Round of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K)” (2010).

Even African-American students with high math performance in fifth grade are unlikely

to be placed in algebra in eighth grade


Source:

Students of color are less likely to attend high schools that offer physics.

020406080

100

40

66

Pe

rce

nt

of

sch

oo

ls o

ffe

rin

g P

hy

sics

Source: U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, March 2012


Students of color are less likely to attend high schools that offer calculus.

Schools with the Most Black and Latino Students

Schools with the Fewest Black and Latino Students

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

29%

55%

Source: U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights , Civil Rights Data Collection

Percent of Schools Offering Calculus


…and assign them our least qualified teachers.


Source:

Core classes in high-poverty and high-minority secondary schools are more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

41%

30%

17% 16%

Perc

enta

ge o

f Cla

sses

Tau

ght b

y Te

ache

rs

With

Nei

ther

Cer

tifica

tion

nor M

ajor

The Education Trust, Core Problems: Out-of-Field Teaching Persists in Key Academic Courses and High-Poverty Schools, (2008)

Note: Data are for secondary-level core academic classes (Math, Science, Social Studies, English) across United States.High-poverty ≥75% of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch. Low-poverty school ≤15% of students eligible. High-minority ≥ 75% students non-white. Low-minority ≤ 10% students non-white.

High Poverty

Low Poverty

High Minority

Low Minority


Source:

Students at high-minority schools are more likely to be taught by novice teachers

Low Minority High Minority0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

13%

22%

Perc

enta

ge o

f Nov

ice

Teac

hers

Analysis of 2003-2004 Schools and Staffing Survey data by Richard Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania (2007)

Note: Novice teachers are those with three years or fewer experience. High-minority ≥ 75% students non-white. Low-minority ≤ 10% students non-white.


Tennessee: High-poverty/high-minority schools have fewer of the “most effective” teachers and more “least effective”

teachers.

17.6%

21.3%

23.8%

16%

0

5

10

15

20

25

High-poverty/high-minority schools

Low-poverty/low-minority schools

Per

cen

t o

f Te

ach

ers

Most Effective Teachers

Least Effective Teachers

Source: Tennessee Department of Education 2007. “Tennessee’s Most Effective Teachers: Are they assigned to the schools that need them most?” http://tennessee.gov/education/nclb/doc/TeacherEffectiveness2007_03.pdf.

Note: High poverty/high minority means at least 75 percent of students qualify for FRPL and at least 75 percent are minority.


A low-income student is 66% more likely to have a low value-added teacher.

Los Angeles: LOW-INCOME STUDENTS LESS LIKELY TO HAVE HIGH VALUE-ADDED TEACHERS

A low-income student is more than twice as likely to have a low value-added teacher for ELA

In math, a student from a relatively more affluent background is 39% more likely to get a high value-added math teacher.

ELA MATHA student from a relatively more affluent background is 62% more likely to get a high value-added ELA teacher.


Source:

4th Grade Reading:Record Performance with Gap Narrowing

1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

9 Year Olds – NAEP Reading


Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress, NCES*Denotes previous assessment format


Source:

4th Grade Math:Record Performance with Gap Narrowing

1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

9 Year Olds – NAEP Math


Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore



Source:

Achievement flat in reading

1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

285 286 285289 290 290 290 288 288 288

283 286

17 Year Olds Overall-NAEP

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress* Denotes previous assessment format


Source:

Achievement flat in math

1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

304300 298

302 305 307 306 307 308 305 306

17 Year Olds Overall-NAEP

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress* Denotes previous assessment format


Source:

12th Grade Reading: No Progress, Gaps Wider than 1988

1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

17 Year Olds – NAEP Reading


Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore



Source:

12 Grade Math: Results Mostly FlatGaps Same or Widening

1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

17 Year Olds – NAEP Math


Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore



So, too, are misguided government aid policies


College costs have increased at 4.5 times the rate of inflation

College Tuition and Fees

Medical Care

Median Family Income

Consumer Price Index

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

538%

288%

146% 118%

Perc

ent G

row

th R

ate

Curr

ent D

olla

rs, 1

982-

2007

The Education Trust, Lifting the Fog on Inequitable Financial Aid Policies, 2011.


Federal Pell Grants have failed to keep pace with rising college costs

Public 2-Year Public 4-Year Private 4-Year0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% 99%

77%

36%

62%

36%

15%

1979-80 2010-11Source: American Council on Education (2007). “ Status Report on the Pell Grant Program, 2007” and CRS, Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher Education Act: Background, Recent Changes, and Current Legislative Issues, 2011.

Total Cost of Attendance Covered by Maximum Pell Grant Award


Why? Not because we’re not spending a lot more on student

aid.But, rather, because we’ve changed

who gets those dollars.


Source: Trends in Student Aid 2010, The College Board

61% of savings from tuition tax credits go to middle- and upper-income families

39%

61%

Distribution of Tax Credit Savings by Adjusted Gross Income

Low-income ($0-49,999)

Middle and upper-income ($50,000+)



91% of savings from tuition tax deductions go to middle- and upper-income families

8%

91%

Distribution of Tax Deduction Savings by Adjusted Gross Income

Low-income ($0-49,999)

Middle and upper-income ($50,000+)

Note: Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding.


Pattern is the same at state level, even in tough times.



Change in Distribution of State Grants Based on Need

Source: NASSGAP Report 2008-09: Undergraduate Grant Aid in Constant 2008-09 Dollars:1998-99 through 2008-09 (in millions of dollars).

72.1%

27.9%

2008-09

Need-Based

Non-Need-Based

81.5%

18.5%

1998-99


Big Effects, too, from State Disinvestment in Public Higher Education.


So yes, government policy is part of the problem, too.


But colleges and universities are not

unimportant actors in this drama of shrinking opportunity, either.


For one thing, the shifts away from poor students in institutional aid money are MORE PRONOUNCED than the shifts in government aid.


In 2007, four-year public and private nonprofit colleges

spent nearly $15 billion on grant aid.

Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:08 using PowerStats. Results based on full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates.


But, they spent a lot of aid on students who didn’t need it.

Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:08 using PowerStats. Results based on full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates.


Public 4-year colleges used to spend more than twice as much on needy students, but now spend about the same as on wealthy students

1995 2007$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$437

$744

$179

$695

Lowest income quintile Highest income quintile

Insti

tutio

nal G

rant

Aid

at P

ublic

4-Y

ear I

nstit

ution

s,

1995

-200

7 (in

mill

ions

)

Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:96 and NPSAS:08 using PowerStats. Results based on full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates.


Private nonprofit 4-year colleges used to spend about the same amount on low- and high-income students, but now spend twice as much on

wealthy students

1995 2007$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$919

$1,478

$887

$2,673

Lowest income quintile Highest income quintile

Insti

tutio

nal G

rant

Aid

at P

rivat

e N

FP

4-Ye

ar In

stitu

tions

, 199

5-20

07 (m

illio

ns)

Education Trust analysis of NPSAS: 96 and NPSAS:08 using PowerStats. Results based on full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates.


Source:


The result? Low-income students must devote an amount equivalent to 72% of their family

income towards college costsFamily Income Average

IncomeCost of

Attendance

Expected Family

Contribution (EFC)

Average Grant Aid

Unmet Need After EFC and

Grant Aid

% of Income Required to Pay for College After

Grant Aid

$0-30,200 $17,011 $22,007 $951 $9,704 $11,352 72%

$30,201-54,000 $42,661 $23,229 $4,043 $7,694 $11,493 36%

$54,001-80,400 $67,844 $23,640 $10,224 $5,352 $8,064 27%

$80,401-115,400 $97,594 $25,050 $18,158 $4,554 $2,339 21%

$115,401+ $173,474 $27,689 $37,821 $3,822 $-13,953 14%

Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:08 using PowerStats, http://nces.ed.gov/datalab/. Results based on full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates

http://nces.ed.gov/datalab/


So it’s not all about the students or about government. What colleges do is important in who comes…and

who doesn’t.


Moreover, what colleges do also turns out to be very important in

whether students graduate or not.


Current College Completion Rates:4-Year Colleges

Fewer than 4 in 10 (38%) entering freshmen obtain a bachelor’s degree within 4 years

Within six years of entry, that proportion rises to just under 6 in 10 (58%)

If you go beyond IPEDS, and look at graduation from ANY institution, number grows to about two-thirds.

NCES (March 2012). First Look: Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2009; Graduation Rates, 2003 and 2006 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics Fiscal Year 2009. Ed Trust analysis of BPS:09.


But graduation rates vary widely across the nation’s postsecondary institutions

0-5 5.1-10

10.1-15

15.1-20

20.1-25

25.1-30

30.1-35

35.1-40

40.1-45

45.1-50

50.1-55

55.1-60

60.1-65

65.1-70

70.1-75

75.1-80

80.1-85

85.1-90

90.1-95

95.1-100

0

50

100

150

200

250

14

5377 70

102 115139

181151

190152

168147 135

89 8451 54

38 30

Distribution of six-year graduation rates for first-time, full-time freshmen at four-year institutions

Graduation Rate

Num

ber o

f Ins

tituti

ons

Ed Trust analysis of College Results Online dataset 2010.


Some of these differences are clearly attributable to differences in

student preparation and/or institutional mission.

n/a


Indeed, with enough data on both institutions and students, we can find a way to “explain” more than 70% of the variance

among institutions.



But…when you dig underneath the averages, one thing is very

clear:

Some colleges are far more successful than their students’

“stats” would suggest.



EdTrust experience:“Our graduation rates are about

the same as other institutions that serve similar students.”

n/a


College Results Onlinewww.collegeresults.org

College Results Online 2010.


So, what do you learn?Some institutions that have same

mission, same focus and serve essentially same students…get

far better results.


Research InstitutionsSimilar Students, Different Results

MedianSAT Size % Pell % URM

Overall Grad Rate

URM Grad Rate

Penn StateUniversity

1,200 35,702 15.0% 7.4% 84.0% 69.9%

Indiana University

1,120 28,768 16.0% 6.9% 71.9% 53.5%

Purdue University

1,135 31,008 17.7% 6.8% 69.1% 52.3%

University of Minnesota

1,165 28,654 19.9% 7.5% 63.4% 43.8%


Research InstitutionsSimilar Students, Different Results


Overall Grad Rate

URM Grad Rate

Florida State University

1,160 28,874 26% 23% 68.7% 69.9%

University of Arizona

1,110 25,867 23% 26% 56% 44%


Masters Institutions – LargeSimilar Students, Different Results

MedianSAT Size % Pell

Overall Graduation

Rate

University of Northern Iowa

1,085 9,946 23.8% 65.2%

Montclair State 1,015 10,908 26.5% 61.2%

EasternIllinois

1,010 9,798 23.7% 60.3%

University of Wisconsin Whitewater

1,030 8,690 20.3% 53.1%

Tennessee Technological University

1,045 7,014 29.8% 43.5%


Historically Black CollegesSimilar Students, Different Results

MedianSAT Size % Pell

Overall Graduation

Rate

Elizabeth City 845 2,423 69.9% 50.7%

Delaware State 835 3,057 47.8% 37.3%

University of ArkansasPine Bluff

775 2,768 73.5% 32.9%

Norfolk State 900 4,798 54.5% 30.8%

Coppin State N/A 2,800 72.6% 18.9%


Some making fast progress in improving success for students of

color, some have closed gaps entirely.


Source:

Biggest Gainers in Success for Latino Students: Public Colleges and Universities

Advancing to Completion, 2012, The Education Trust.


Source:

Biggest Gainers in Success for Black Students: Public Colleges and Universities



Source:

Universities with No Latino/White Graduation Rate Gaps



Source:

Universities with No Black/White Graduation Rate Gaps



Bottom Line:

So yes, we have to keep working to improve our high schools;

And yes, government has to do its part; But we’ve got to focus on changing what our

colleges do, too.


What do available data tell us about UMKC?


UMKC is 14th in its peer group for 6-year grad rates

Source: College Results, 2010


Source:

Similar schools to UMKCget different results

INSTITUTION6-YEAR GRAD RATE

MEDIAN SAT

% PELL

% URM SIZE CARNEGIE CLASS

1. Rowan University 70.0% 1,065 26% 16% 8,778 Master’s

3. SUNY College at New Paltz 67.0% 1,115 27% 14% 6,093 Master’s

6. Richard Stockton College of NJ 64.0% 1,055 33% 15% 6,316 Master’s

7. George Mason University 63.4% 1,140 22% 17% 16,693 Research

14. Univ. Missouri – Kansas City 43.4% 1,125 34% 20% 7,303 Research



UMKC loses more students right from the start

INSTITUTION 1st YEAR RETENTION

4-YEAR GRAD RATE

5-YEAR GRAD RATE

6-YEAR GRAD RATE

TRANSFER OUT RATE

1. Rowan University 82% 43.8% 65.4% 70.0% 18.5%

3. SUNY College at New Paltz 88% 42.8% 63.3% 67.0% 23.9%

6. Richard Stockton College of NJ 81% 40.4% 59.6% 64.0% 22.8%

7. George Mason University 85% 39.3% 58.2% 63.4% 20.7%

14. Univ. of Missouri - Kansas City 74% 17.7% 31.4% 43.4% N/A



Which students are UKMC losing?


Averages can mask wide gaps in graduation rates between groups of students at UMKC

White Black Latino Asian American Indian

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

46%

28% 43%

67%

25%

Six-

Year

Gra

duati

on R

ates

Overall rate: 43%




But those averages can still mask gaps within student groups

White Black Latino Asian0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

39%

28%

35%

63%

51%

28%

50%

71%

Male Female

Six-

Year

Gra

duati

on R

ates

Overall rate: 43%




Fortunately, UMKC—along with other campuses in the system--is a part of the

national Access to Success Initiative…

which has pledged to cut in half the gaps in access and success for low-income and

minority students by 2015.


The University of Missouri System

Has made great strides in access

• Enrolling more Pell freshmen and transfers,

and narrowing gaps

• Enrolling more URM freshmen and transfers, and maintains no gaps

But still needs more work on success

• Large and stagnant gap in Pell graduation rates vs. non-Pell

• Large and growing gap in URM graduation rates

vs. non-URM

Source: Education Trust analysis of the Access to Success dataset.


Similarly, UMKC has nearly closed the access gap for low-income and minority students

From 2005-2006 to 2009-2010Low-Income Students

Full-Time Freshmen

Transfer-In Students

• % enrollment of low-income students

• Gap with % low-income students among high school grads

Gap almost cut in 1/2

Gap almost cut in 1/2

Minority Students

• % enrollment of URM students

• Gap with % URM students among high school grads Gap unchanged

& stays closed

Gap stays closed



And first-year retention rates have also improved for these groups of students

2005 2006 2007 2008 200950

55

60

65

70

75

80

69

64

70

64

69

53

64

Pell Freshmen Pell Transfers URM Freshmen URM Transfers

University of Missouri – Kansas CityFirst-Year Retention Rates Over Time



However, success rates have remained stagnant or declined

2005 2008 2009 201020

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

36 34

49

49

38

30

42 44

Pell Freshmen Pell Transfers URM Freshmen URM Transfers

University of Missouri – Kansas CityGraduation Rates Over Time



And, graduation-rate gaps for Pell and URM freshmen have widened over time

2005 2010-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

36% 34%

45% 49%

Pell Freshmen Non-Pell Freshmen

2005 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

38%30%

44%50%

URM Freshmen Non-URM Freshmen

+9 +15+6

+20

Gap has more than

tripled for URM freshmen

Gap has increased 67% for Pell freshmen



Success gaps have also widened for transfer students over time

2005 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

49% 49%44%

50%

Pell Transfer Non-Pell Transfer

2005 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

42%44%46%

51%

URM Transfer Non-URM Transfer

-5+1

+4 +7

Gap has nearly doubled for URM transfers

Gap increases for Pell transfers



What can we learn from the high performers?

n/a


1. Their leaders make sure student success is a campus-

wide priority.

n/a


Improving student success isn’t all—or even mostly—about

programs.It’s about institutional culture that

values success and that accepts responsibility.

n/a


Successful leaders honor and tap into institutional culture to privilege student success


The Education Trust, Access to Success database.


How did President Steve Weber do it?

He didn’t. The campus community did. But HE made it about

excellence. And HE approached the faculty as problem-solvers.

The Education Trust, interview with President Weber.


In fact, successful leaders consistently treat faculty as

problem solvers, not as problems to be solved.


2. They look at their data…and act.

Use of data to spot problems and frame action is pervasive.

n/a


Successful institutions don’t just aim at the final goal—graduation—they concentrate on each step

along the way, especially the early ones.

n/a


Elizabeth City State Attendance mandatory. Faculty members

monitor; call when absent. Faculty advisors track absences, mid-term

grades. Expected to meet with students in trouble.

Deans, Provost monitor the data—and ACT when involves one faculty member.

Everybody on campus assumes responsibility for acting on warning signs.

142???


But the ACT part is really important.

Just having data doesn’t accomplish anything. Completion is about

creating accountability for acting on those data.


Supported by Institutional ResearchChief Academic Officer convenes the group and participates

Core Services: admissions, registration,

financial aid, career services, housing, health center, and

withdrawal services

Academic Programs: undergraduate studies, honors

program, undergraduate research, library services, and

fellowships

Support Programs: orientation, advising and

coaching, tutoring and study skills courses, and special programs for underserved

populations

Student Representation: Student government

representative. It is important to have this group because it helps student buy-in and can bring in additional funds for

programs

Cross-Campus Success Team:

A group of approximately 20

professionals from these areas convenes weekly to talk about

data and the students within the data. The

group makes detailed action plans with

specific tasks, responsible parties,

and concrete deadlines

Florida State University’s Cross-Campus Success Team


Understand student pathways

FSU developed a series of 93 action steps tied to every month of the academic calendar.

145


146

Month Timeframe Action Responsibility

January By end of January

Emails to students with 75 attempted hours who have not been accepted into a major

Individual Responsible

January Ongoing Update department Degree Audit reports Individual Responsible

January Ongoing Individual contact with students who have been placed on probation

Academic Section

January Ongoing Individual contact with students who have been placed on warning

Academic Section

February 1st week Offer Workshop: Students Taking Exploratory Paths to Success

Advising First

February 1st week in the month

Email to all F coded students w/100+ hours inquiring about graduation plans; email to all H coded students w/100+ hours inquiring about finishing/graduation plans


February 6th week of term

New transfer—How are you doing— deadlines


FSU’s Retention “Action Steps”

Source: Florida State University


Connect with campus change agents

FSU formed a cross-campus retention team that met weekly “to go over, not the data, but

the students within the data.”

Larry Abele, former Provost at Florida State University

147


3. They create clear pathways to success.

n/a


149

FLORIDA STATE ACADEMIC MAP


4. They take on Introductory and Developmental Classes

n/a


Drop-Failure-Withdrawal RatesMathematics: 2000

• 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%

151National Center for Academic Transformation.


Drop-Failure-Withdrawal RatesOther Disciplines: 2000

• 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%

152National Center for Academic Transformation.


Of course, some of this may be about preparation. But clearly not

all…Course Redesign

n/a


Doctoral/Research UniversitiesSimilar Students, Different Results


Overall Grad Rate

URM Grad Rate

Ohio University

1,065 16,465 28.5% 5.3% 70.9% 58.7%

University of Alabama

1,065 16,405 24.1% 13.7% 62.9% 58.6%

University of Tennessee

1,125 19,255 22.8% 10.7% 57.2% 54.5%

Ball State 1,040 16,513 22.8% 8.5% 54.2% 43.7%

Northern Illinois

1,030 17,228 28.5% 19.6% 53.3% 38.7%

154College Results Online, 2009.


College Algebra Course Redesign:UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

SUCCESS 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% 155

???


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

Same students.Same preparation.Different results.

???


And didn’t just close gaps in course outcomes.

In 2001, black freshmen at Alabama graduated at a rate 9 points below

white freshmen. By the class of 2006, black students were graduating at a rate 2 points HIGHER than white

students.

???


Course redesign in Tennessee

With more than 40% of freshmen at four-year schools and nearly 80% of freshmen at two-year colleges in remediation, the Tennessee Board of Regents were early adopters of the

NCAT (National Center for Academic Transformation) course redesign model

Short, Paula and Treva Berryman (2012). ‘A System Approach to Learning Support Redesign in Tennessee.’ Presentation at the U.S. Education Delivery Institute network meeting, January 2012.


SMART Math at Jackson State Community College

Redesigned Basic Mathematics, Elementary Algebra, and Intermediate Algebra

Used a mastery approach that allowed for progression at individual rates

Individual on-demand assistance and feedback

Technology-integrated instruction with custom textbooks



SMART Math at Jackson State Community College

Students eligible to enroll in college-level courses next term

Traditional

Sprin

g 08

Redesign Sp

ring 0

8

Redesign Fa

ll 08

Redesign Sp

ring 0

9

24% 22%

36%42%

Students receiving passing grade

Tradi-tional

Spring 08

Redesign Spring 08

Redesign Fall 08

Redesign Spring 09

41%

54% 57% 59%



Math redesign at Cleveland State Community College

Before course redesign• Section size = 24• 55 sections (Fall/Spring)

– 45 by FT faculty– 10 by adjuncts

• Faculty load = 10 sections• Faculty cost = $256,275• Adjunct cost = $14,400• Total cost = $270,625

After course redesign• Section size = 18• 77 sections (Fall/Spring)

– 77 by FT faculty– 0 by adjuncts

• Faculty load = 20 sections• Faculty cost = $219,258• Adjunct cost = $0• Total cost = $219,258


Savings = $51,418 or 19%


Math redesign at Cleveland State Community College

Before Redesign After Redesign

50%

68%

Pass rates for Elementary Algebra

Before Redesign After Redesign

57%

74%

Pass rates for Intermediate Algebra

Engle, Jennifer, Joseph Yeado, Rima Brusi and Jose Cruz (2012). Replenishing Opportunity in America: The 2012 Midterm Report of Public Higher Education Systems in the Access to Success Network. Washington, DC: Education Trust, 2012.


5. They don’t hesitate to demand, require.

n/a


A lot of institutions know what works. And more and more of

them are advising students to do those things.

But it turns out that “students don’t do optional.”


San Diego State University and

University of Houston

Similar Institutions Similar enrollment percentages of Latinos Similar SAT

165


Different Results Over Time2002 Latino Graduation Rate

2006 Latino Graduation Rate

University of Houston

34.8% 41.1%

San Diego State

31.4% 54%

166


What do the folks at SDSU think made the difference?

1. Making services, supports more coherent.

2. Making what was optional, mandatory.


6. They bring back the ones they lose.


University of New Mexico

Median SAT: 1010% Pell: 31.4%White: 49.8%African American: 2.8%Latino: 33.6%American Indian: 6.6%Overall 6 year grad rate: 41.6%

169


The Graduation Project

Founder: David Stuart, Assoc Provost Insight: A lot of the students who leave

without a degree leave pretty close—and in good standing.

Core idea of project: Track them down and invite them back.

Criteria: 2.0 gpa or better, at least 98 credits Universe: 3000

170


• Used credit company to track them down• Offer:

– shortened (and free) application for re-admission, – degree summary showing exactly which courses

short, – priority enrollment in those courses, and – help with problems along the way.

– Result: Of those 3000, 1800 now have degrees and 59 have graduate degrees.

171


For Community College Version, See “Project Win-Win” at IHEP.


In other words, what institutions do to help their students succeed matters. A lot.

© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2011 The Education Trust

It’s really not about boldness of reform.It’s about intentionality and quality of execution.


Washington, D.C. Metro Detroit, MI

202/293-1217 734/619-8009

Download this presentation on our website

www.edtrust.org

Oakland, CA

510/465-6444

© 2012 the education trust access to success in america: where are we? what can we do? university...

Documents

education trust source

education trust note

education trust america

education trust earnings

education trust change

education trust access

education trust gallup

education trust college