data in gear up (dig) impact of gear up kentucky ii on college enrollment judy h. kim, ph.d,...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
222 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
DATA IN
GEAR UP (D
IG)
Impac
t of G
EAR UP Kentuck
y II O
n College E
nrollmen
t
Judy H
. Kim, P
h.D, E
valuat
ion Cons
ulting
Group
Septem
ber 1
0, 20
13
• Introduction• Description of DIG• Purpose • Research Questions• Methods• Findings• Conclusion
*There will be a lot of information. Please feel free to ask questions throughout the presentation.
AGENDA
• US ED/RTI award
• For 2011 awardees only
• Purpose: Data acquisition and utilization
DESCRIPTION OF DIG
WHY WE DID THIS STUDY:
• Assess impact of GEAR UP
• On college enrollment
• On persistence
• On which populations
• Examine effectiveness
• Of overall services
• Of isolated services
PURPOSE
WHAT WE ASKED:
1. Are there notable differences in college enrollment and persistence between GEAR UP students and other students from low-income schools?
2. How does GEAR UP perform as a predictor of college enrollment and persistence in comparison to other predictors?
3. Which services, or combinations of services, have had the greatest impact in promoting college enrollment and persistence?
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
HOW WE ANSWERED IT
• Descriptive analysis• College enrollment by race/gender• College persistence by race/gender
• Service data
• Logistic regression• GEAR UP impact
• Linear regression• Impact of instances and duration of services
METHODS
GUK IIGUK II Cohort 1HS graduating class of
2011Complete EPAS data (7th-
11th)Demographics N=2,2022,157 matched (45
deleted)
ComparisonFrom non-GU KY
schools with FRPL status of 50%+
HS graduating class of 2011
EPAS data (8th, 10th, 11th)Demographics
COMPARISON GROUP
METHODS
MATCHING COMPARISON GROUP
Pool of 9,900 students
Matching variables Sex Race
Caucasian African American Latino
8th grade EXPLORE composite scores Zero tolerance and exact matching 8 cases unable to match Resulting in 2,149 GU and 2,149 non-GU
METHODS
COLLEGE
ENROLLMENT
RQ 1: Are th
ere notable differences in
college enrollm
ent and persistence
between G
EAR UP students and other
students from lo
w-income schools?
FINDINGS
HS
grad
uatio
n an
dC
olle
ge E
nrol
lmen
t
GUK II
(n=2,149)Non-GU
(n=2,149)
# % # %Graduated from
High School 1,160 54.0% 1,167 54.3%
Enrolled Full/Half Time in College 935 43.5% 766 35.6%
Col
lege
enr
ollm
ent
2 yr
. and
4-y
r ins
titut
ions
GUK II
(n=2,149)Non-GU
(n=2,149)
# % # %
Two-Year 369 17.2% 179 8.3%
Four-Year 566 26.3% 587 27.3%
GUK II GroupN=935Sex
547 female (58.5%) 388 male (41.5%)
Race 850 Caucasian (90.9%) 73 African American (7.8%) 5 Latino (0.5%)
Comparison GroupN=766Sex
444 female (57.9%) 322 male (42.0%)
Race 693 Caucasian (90.5%) 55 African American (7.2%) 11 Latino (1.4%)
COLLEGE ENROLLMENT BY GENDER/RACE BREAKDOWN
FINDINGS
FINDINGS: CE BY GENDER AND RACE*
College Enrollment by Gender and by Race*
GUK II Non-GU
# % # %College
Enrollment Total 935 43.5% 766 35.6%
• Female (n=1,079)
• Male (n=1,070)
547
388
50.7%
36.3%
444
322
41.1%
30.1%
• Black (n=162)
• Latino (n=32)
• White (n=1,939)
73
5
850
45.1%
15.6%
43.8%
55
11
693
34.0%
34.4%
35.7%
More GUK II students enrolled in college than comparison group across categories, with the exception of Latino students
• More GUK II females enrolled in college by 9.6 percentage points
• More GUK II males enrolled in college by 6.2 percentage points
• More GUK II African American students enrolled in college by 11.1 percentage points
• More GUK II Caucasian students enrolled in college by 8.1 percentage points
*Race categories are not comprehensive
FINDINGS: CE BY RACE* BY GENDER
College Enrollment by Race* by Gender
GUK II Non-GU # % # %
College Enrollment Total 935 43.5% 766 35.6%
Black (n=162)• Female
(n=82)• Male (n=80)
73
39
34
45.1%
47.6%
42.5%
55
30
25
34.0%
36.6%
31.3%
White (n=1,939)• Female
(n=981)• Male (n=958)
850
500
350
43.8%
51.0%
36.5%
693
407
286
35.7%
41.5%
29.9%
Disaggregated by race and gender, GUK II students within categories still enrolled in college at higher rates than that of the comparison group.
• More GUK II African American females enrolled by 11 percentage points
• More GUK II African American males enrolled by 11.2 percentage points
• More GUK II Caucasian females enrolled by 9.5 percentage points
• More GUK II male students by 6.6 percentage points
RACE/GENDER SUMMARY
Considerably more GUK II students enrolled in college than comparison group
Disaggregated by race, more GUK II Caucasian and African American students enrolled in college than comparison group
Disaggregated by race and gender, more GUK II African American male, African American female, Caucasian male, and Caucasian female students enrolled in college than comparison group
FINDINGS
EPAS SUBGROUPS
We wanted to know:
• If/how EPAS performance affected college enrollment
• If EPAS performance was a factor in the greater college enrollment of the GUK II students
------------------------
We discovered that was a LARGE query
We narrowed the scope to math and reading (to parallel NCLB requirements at that time period)
FINDINGS: COLLEGE ENROLLMENT BY MATH SUBGROUP
Subgroup EXPLORE PLAN ACT GUK II Non-GU # % # %
Overall -- -- -- 935 43.5% 766 35.6%
M1 yes yes yes 103 (n=139) 74.1% 130
(n=182) 71.4%
M2 yes yes no 23 (n=40) 57.5% 21
(n=43) 48.8%
M3 yes no yes 11 (n=20) 55.0% 20
(n=32) 62.5%
M4 yes no no 43 (n=80) 53.8% 25
(n=57) 43.9%
M5 no no no 612 (n=1629) 37.6% 448
(n=1583) 28.3%
M6 no no yes 41 (n=70) 58.6% 26
(n=51) 51.0%
M7 no yes yes 45 (n=63) 71.4% 53
(n=93) 57.0%
M8 no yes no 57 (n=103) 55.3% 43
(n=114) 37.7%
FINDINGS: COLLEGE ENROLLMENT BY READING SUBGROUP
subgroup EXPLORE PLAN ACT GUK II Non-GU
# % # %overall -- -- -- 935 43.5% 766 35.6%
R1 yes yes yes 212 (n=327) 64.8% 227 (n=360) 63.1%
R2 yes yes no 48(n=78) 61.5% 55
(n=86) 64.0%
R3 yes no yes 42(n=63) 66.7% 23
(n=43) 53.5%
R4 yes no no 53(n=96) 55.2% 16
(n=63) 25.4%
R5 no no no 363 (n=1154) 31.5% 237
(n=1094) 21.7%
R6 no no yes 37(n=83) 44.6% 41
(n=88) 46.6%
R7 no yes yes 77 (n=129) 59.7% 73 (n=154) 47.4%
R8 no yes no 103 (n=214) 48.1% 94 (n=267) 35.2%
FINDINGS: COLLEGE ENROLLMENT BYMATH AND READING SUBGROUP
subgroup EXPLORE PLAN ACT GUK II Non-GU
M R M R M R # % # %
overall 935 43.5% 766 35.6%
M&R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y 74(n=98) 75.5% 101 (n=133) 75.9%
M&R2 Y N Y N Y N 4(n=6) 66.7% 5
(n=9) 55.6%
M&R3 N N N N N N 322 (n=1061) 30.3% 204
(n=1007) 20.3%
M&R4 N Y N Y N Y 57(n=107) 53.3% 55
(n=109) 50.5%
EPAS MATH AND READING SUBGROUP SUMMARY
More GUK II students enrolled in college across most of the EPAS categories
Notably, there were more GUK II students who enrolled in college than comparison group, even though they did not meet benchmarks
Suggests a GEAR UP effect that goes beyond academic performance
FINDINGS
COLLEGE
PERSISTENCE
RQ 1: Are
there notab
le diffe
rence
s in
colle
ge enrollm
ent a
nd persist
ence
betwee
n GEAR UP st
udents
and other
studen
ts fro
m low-in
come s
chools?
PERSISTENCE DEFINED• High school graduating class of 2011 who enrolled in college
in the fall of 2011 who then continued into their second year of college in the fall of 2012
• Half-time and full-time
• 2-year and 4-year institutions
DEFINITION
FINDINGS: COLLEGE PERSISTENCE BY 2- & 4-YR INSTITUTIONS
GUK II Non-GU # % # %
College Persistence Total
726 (n=935) 77.6%
609 (n=766) 79.5%
Two-Year258
(n=369) 69.9%127
(n=179) 70.9%
Four-Year468
(n=566) 82.7%482
(n=587) 82.1%
FINDINGS: COLLEGE PERSISTENCEBY GENDER & RACE
GUK II Non-GU
# % # %
CP Total 726 (n=935) 77.6% 609
(n=766) 79.5%
Female
Male
446 (n=547)
280 (n=388)
81.5%
72.2%
372 (n=444)
237 (n=322)
83.8%
73.6%
Black
Latino
White
46 (n=73)
2 (n=5)
673 (n=850)
63.0%
40.0%
79.2%
40 (n=55)
10 (n=11)
554 (n=693)
72.7%
90.9%
79.9%
Overall, total N of GUK II who enrolled in the second year of college from high school graduation was still higher, but the actual CP rate was slightly lower than comparison group.
• Non-GU female students persisted more by 2.3 percentage points
• Non-GU male students persisted more by 1.4 percentage points
• Non-GU African American students persisted more by 9.7 percentage points
• Non-GU Caucasian students persisted more by 0.7 percentage points.
GUK II Non-GU
# % # %College Persistence Total
726 (n=935)
77.6% 609 (n=766)
79.5%
Black
Female
Male
46 (n=73)26 (n=39)20 (n=34)
63.0%
66.7%
58.8%
40 (n=55)24 (n=30)16 (n=25)
72.7%
80.0%
64.0%
White
Female
Male
673 (n=850)
415 (n=500)
258 (n=350)
79.2%
83.0%
73.7%
554 (n=693)
341 (n=407)
213 (n=286)
79.9%
83.8%
74.5%
Disaggregated by race and gender:
More non-GU African American female students persisted by 13.3 percentage points
More non-GU African American male students persisted by 5.2 percentage points
More non-GU Caucasian female students persisted by 0.8 percentage points
More non-GU Caucasian male students persisted by 0.8 percentage points
FINDINGS: COLLEGE PERSISTENCEBY GENDER & RACE
COLLEGE PERSISTENCE SUMMARY
• GUK II students persisted into the second year of college at a slightly lower rate than comparison group
• Total N from high school graduation to second year of college was still greater than comparison group
• The loss was with African American students
FINDINGS
GUK II AS A PREDICTOR
FOR COLLEGE
ENROLLMENT
RQ 2: How does G
EAR UP perform
as a
predictor of c
ollege enrollm
ent and persistence
in comparison to
other predictors?
PREDICTOR DEFINED
• “Other” predictors were ACT benchmarks in English, math, reading, science; gender; race
• Did not/could not factor in all the EPAS work that GUK II actually implemented
DEFINITION
Predictor variables: GEAR UP student status, attainment of the ACT English, math, reading, and science benchmarks, Male, Black, and Latino
68.4% correctly classified
Observed
Predicted
Percent-age
CorrectNot Enrolled in College
Enrolled in College
Not Enrolled in College 2,077 505 80.4%
Enrolled in College 843 841 49.9%
Overall Percentage Correct 68.4%
FINDINGS: LOGISTIC REGRESSION
Predictor Coefficient Odds Ratio
GEAR UP student status .452 1.571ACT English benchmark
attainment .942 2.566ACT mathematics benchmark
attainment .550 1.732
ACT reading benchmark attainment .270 1.310
ACT science benchmark attainment .436 1.547
Male -.439 .644Black .437 1.549Latino -.193 .825
Constant -1.135 .321
GUK is a modestly successful predictor for college enrollment, better than ACT science and reading benchmarks, being African American, Latino, and male
FINDINGS: GUK AS A PREDICTOR
GUK II AND COLLEGE
ENROLLMENT
RQ 3: which services, o
r combinatio
ns
of services, h
ave had the greatest
impact in
promoting colle
ge enrollment
and persistence?
GUK II SERVICESAwareness programs focused on providing counseling/information for students and parents
about the value of college, preparation for postsecondary education, and college admission requirements
Rigor focused on ensuring all students have access to rigorous coursework, and that teachers and schools are equipped to close the achievement gap.
Engagement focused on helping parents set high expectations for their children including planning for college education
Access focused on educating parents and students about federal and state financial aid resources that make college affordable
Support services focused on preventing students from failing by providing targeted academic services, or supplemental enrichment and developmental instruction for selected students
DEFINITION
GUK II SERVICES DEFINED
Data collection• Service data available for grades 8-12• Service data available by school
Data analysis• Eliminated grade 8 • Focused on the five, large service categories• Generalized school numbers to the student-level
DEFINITION
FINDINGS: GUK II HS SERVICE PROFILES
GUK II High School
GUK II Students
College Enrolled
% College Enrolled
Service Instances
Service Duration
Instances / Student
Duration/ Student
025040 90 53 58.9% 43 4,340 0.48 48061060 97 51 52.6% 7 1,680 0.07 17075030 66 37 56.1% 31 2,680 0.47 41105120 128 69 53.9% 45 8,735 0.35 68115050 100 61 61.0% 9 2,225 0.09 22125100 124 65 52.4% 16 1,080 0.13 9134019 73 31 42.5% 160 16,573 2.19 227165039 13 7 53.8% 34 4,200 2.62 323165105 53 36 67.9% 51 5,005 0.96 94165170 87 47 54.0% 37 3,266 0.43 38171035 114 72 63.2% 41 4,630 0.36 41215065 69 45 65.2% 27 3,710 0.39 54245045 74 34 45.9% 24 4,086 0.32 55272011 18 12 66.7% 12 1,290 0.67 72275031 20 5 25.0% 43 11,594 2.15 580
GUK II High School
GUK II Students
College Enrolled
% College Enrolled
Service Instances
Service Duration
Instances / Student
Duration/ Student
275057 56 20 35.7% 50 6,705 0.89 120275335 16 4 25.0% 63 7,347 3.94 459295265 114 66 57.9% 45 5,150 0.39 45325350 77 45 58.4% 10 1,260 0.13 16351140 50 20 40.0% 24 2,765 0.48 55392060 42 21 50.0% 53 2,885 1.26 69425050 64 36 56.3% 16 6,800 0.25 106431450 108 55 50.9% 27 5,311 0.25 49452070 58 24 41.4% 92 9,295 1.59 160485130 22 11 50.0% 7 1,110 0.32 50485250 143 89 62.2% 20 2,950 0.14 21495040 110 45 40.9% 37 6,370 0.34 58523030 37 19 51.4% 36 3,160 0.97 85585130 16 8 50.0% 3 840 0.19 53591430 163 82 50.3% 14 480 0.09 3
FINDINGS: GUK II HS SERVICE PROFILES
FINDINGS: “TYPICAL” GUK II STUDENTSService No College College Enrolled Persistent
Awareness Instances 12.62 11.50 11.50
Duration 2,236 1,943 1,942Rigor Instances 3.17 3.13 3.13
Duration 1,030 1,023 1,018Engagement Instances 1.82 1.57 1.57
Duration 252 216 216Access Instances 4.82 4.30 4.30
Duration 479 397 398
Support Instances 13.74 12.41 12.42
Duration 638 623 622
Total Instances 36.17 32.91 32.91
Duration 4,635 4,202 4,196
REGRESSION MODELS
• # of service instances and duration of services by student, predicting CE had a multiple R2 of 0.45
• Inconclusive
ELABORATE LINEAR REGRESSION
• # of service instances and duration of services by the five service areas, predicting CE had a multiple R2 of 0.71
• High degree of correlation• Inconclusive
LINEAR REGRESSION
FINDINGS
ANALYSIS OF SERVICES SUMMARY
• Exploratory analyses resulted in inconclusive findings (as expected)
• Services targeted at-risk populations
• Awareness and Support had the highest instances per student average
• Model established for further analysis
FINDINGS
• More GUK students went to college than the comparison group
• More African American GUK II students went to college than the comparison group
• Extensive numbers and duration of services were provided to thousands of students with the goal of college-going in mind
• Further analysis is needed
CONCLUSION
GUK IS MAKING A DIFFERENCE!
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?
Judy K
im
judy.kim
@evalconsu
lting.org
240.449
.6428
top related