New Report from ACT and COE, Condition of College Readiness 2013: First-Generation College Students

"This report on first-generation students is significant because it acknowledges the necessity of developing policies to promote college readiness with the needs of this population in mind." <Click here to download this report from ACT and COE.>

"Not surprisingly, first-generation students lag behind their peers in meeting college readiness benchmarks in core subject areas.  The lack of families’ college background makes it all the more vital that schools with large percentages of first-generation students integrate supportive services into the required curriculum to create a college-going culture. Also, they must implement these services and strategies on a school-wide basis to ensure that all students are embarked on a path to college. Further, we recommend that schools partner with local colleges to offer dual enrollment in areas of greater propensity and interest for first-generation students. Dual-enrollment programs capitalize on students’ strengths and demonstrate to them that they are capable of doing college-level work.

The findings of this joint ACT/COE report underscore the importance of greater support for college access programs like TRIO and GEAR UP. For decades, these programs have provided academic tutoring, mentoring, counseling, and other supportive services to low-income and first-generation students to make the dream of college a reality. Recent federal initiatives have emphasized early childhood education; the nation must capitalize on that investment by continuing to support these students once they enter elementary and secondary school."  Maureen Hoyler, President, Council for Opportunity in Education

Stories from Students How TRIO Supports Their Success (3 minute video)

15 to Finish: Why don't college students enroll in 15 or more credits?

There has been quite a storm of reaction to the recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, "Redefine 'full time" so students can graduate on time, paper suggests."  Complete College America is holding their annual conference and released another policy brief that endorsed the solution to the college completion problem is to simply make students take 15 credits every semester till they get done.  They do an excellent job of stating the obvious:

• Most college students (69%) not enrolled in a schedule that leads to on-time graduation, even if they never changed majors, failed a course, or took a class they didn’t need
• Even among “full-time” students, most (52%) actually taking fewer than 15 hours, standard course load that could lead to on-time graduation
• At most two-year colleges, less than a third “full-time” students taking 15 or more hours
• At four-year colleges, typically only 50 % or fewer “full-time” students enrolled in 15 hours.

Then they state the obvious consequences of such actions:

• Taking 12 credits per term instead of 15 can add a year to a four-year degree or half a year to a two-year degree, even if students never fail a course, change majors, or take a class beyond their degree requirements.
• Students, parents, and public financial aid programs paying more for a degree when students have to enroll in more semesters.
• Students lose out on a year of employment and income if they spend an additional year in school.
• Fewer students served by institutions with limited capacity—advising, parking, dormitories, etc.
• Dropout rates are higher for students who take fewer credits.  In the 2004/2009 BPS study, 17% of students who completed 30 credits their first year dropped out without a degree by the end of six years, compared to 23% of students who completed 24-29 credits.(The difference in completion rates is even bigger, since the low-credit students are also more likely to remain enrolled without a degree.)

The simple solution, everyone takes 15 or more hours.  Or else.  From the CCA website, "Incentives [for enrollment in 15 or more credits] can be as simple as preferred parking on campus and as substantial as financial aid policies that reward credit accumulation.”  So if you don't keep up, give more financial aid to the students who are taking 15 or more and financially punish those that do not.  I looked through the CCA website and never read anything that explained why students would be so foolish to not enroll in 15 or more credits.  Readers of the article in the Chronicle provided the nuanced answer.  <Click here for a sample of their responses and my posting to a email listserv on this topic.>   Students don't have time due to working multple part-time jobs to pay for rising tuition, students bring to college credits earned elsewhere, students have family obligations, and the list goes on.  The answer is a lack of "time" and the students are smart to limit their course load to a level they can accomplish. 

I decided to dig deeper and went to the research studies the CCA was citing.  the 15 to Finish website, http://www.15tofinish.com/ contains the reports from a community college in Hawaii that has studied this issue.  <Click on this link for one of their research studies.>

Research Objective:  Impact of enrolling 15 or more credits on student performance.  First-time freshmen for the UG Community College campuses Fall 2009, 2010, 2011  Only 7.4% of the 17,960 freshmen took 15 or more credit hours in their first semester.  The average credit hour load was 10.6 hours.  Students divided into two groups:  took less than 15 or enrolled in 15 or more hours..  Each group organized by academic preparation, demographics, and academic success.

Findings of students who took 15 or more hours:

• Higher average Compas placement test scores.
• Were younger, tended to be recent high school graduates, and had a higher percentage with financial need met, and less likely to be an ethnic minority.
• Performed better as measured by first semester GPA, percentage with a “B” or “C+” or higher grade average, credit completion ration above 80%, and persistence.
• Students with higher academic preparation scores performed better academically 

The Research Study Conclusion:  “First-time students at the UH Community Colleges can successfully carry 15 credit hours.  Student success varies by academic preparation, with those students scoring higher on academic preparation preforming better…  Students taking 15 or more credits outperformed students taking fewer than 15 credits across all levels of academic preparation.  The fact that students taking 15 or more credits persist at higher rates may indicate greater student engagement.  The more important question is why so few students at the UH Community Colleges take 15 or more credits.  Analysis indicates that academic preparation is not the limiting factor.  The low percentage of students taking the higher credit load may indicate that 12 credits has become the culturally accepted norm for full-time enrollment.” 

Too bad they didn't ask the students why they did not take 15 or more.  More than half of the report are data tables that carefully document their findings.  But they did not analyze number of hours worked, number of jobs worked, and a host of other factors that help explain why students do not have time to enroll in 15 or more.  The study said the 15 or more students were younger.  I wonder about relationship status and number of dependents between the two groups.  Younger, academically prepared students with full financial aid probably do not have the financial needs and time obligations of the others.  And those that take less than 15 hours.  They number over 90 percent of the student body.  Would you not want to understand WHY?  This is the research the CCA cites as proof the answer is simple, make everyone take 15 or more credits without concern why they behave the way they do. 

It is obvious CCA is displeased with the federal government's definition of full-time status to receive Pell Grants is 12 credits.  Here is my question for the CCA, how long until you begin to lobby for raising the minimum credits to 15 to receive a Pell Grant?  It is only a matter of time.  It is such a simple answer.  Supposedly H. L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Best Education Practice: Structured Study Hall Days at College Campus by UB Students

Structured Study Hall Days at College Campus by UB Students.  Wichita State University (KS)  (approved Promising Practice10/20/13)  The Communication Upward Bound’s (CUB) model supports high school student success through a variety of carefully coordinated activities.  One of them is “Study Hall Days”, a structured study hall hosted on the Wichita State University campus when public school classes are not in session.  Most high school students remain at home or only come to the school for athletic team practices when school officials have in-service days for staff development or professional meetings.  Research studies document the adverse effects this interruption on their learning.  The CUB model of Study Hall Days creates an activity-rich learning environment for them.  Several activities include:  (1) use of supplemental curriculum materials to deepen understanding of current topics in their classes including use of the ComFit Online Learning Center, (2) private tutorial sessions with CUB tutors and staff members, (3) practice on time management and metacognitive skills to strengthen their development as autonomous learners and proficiency with self-directed learning, (4) attendance of college classes related to their future academic majors, (5) interactions with college faculty members and students, and (6) preparing for college entrance and course placement assessments.  These activities groom participants to higher success in high school and college.  [Click on this link to download this best education practice.]

Best Education Practice: Tutoring College Students with Disabilities

Tutoring for Students with Disabilities.  Wichita State Univesity (KS)  (approved Promising Practice 10/15/13)  Taken from the abstract:  "TRIO DSS tutors are trained to work with students with disabilities, whether the disability is physical, psychological, neurological, or other.  Their training includes specific workshops on different types of disabilities and how to work with students with disabilities in individual situations.  Tutors are given the student’s learning styles (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, or a combination) and work with a student’s learning style, adapting their tutoring methods to match the student’s learning methods.  The tutoring program model of student academic support is designed to assist students with disabilities at the college level pass courses in which they face academic hardship due to their disabilities, and to help them move forward toward their goal of a four-year degree while experiencing new and innovative learning strategies".  [Click on this web link to download the education practice.]  

Best Educatiion Practice: Summer Program Curriculum for Middle School Students

Summer Program Curriculum for Middle School Students.  Wichita State University (KS)  (approved Promising Practice 9/25/13)  Taken from the abstract:  "The Summer Enrichment Program (SEP) is designed to assist students in improving learning skills and provide college awareness while they develop a sense of achievement by knowledge and motivation.  The goals of the SEP is to 1) prepare students for postsecondary education; 2) improve students' attitudes toward learning and education in general; and 3) reduce learning loss that some students experience during summer vacation.  Research has shown that students' skills and knowledge often deteriorate during the summer months, with low-income students facing the largest losses. Instruction during the summer has the potential to stop these losses and propel students toward higher achievement."  [Click on this web link to download the education practice.]

The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low Income Students: Many low-income high achievers never think of applying to selective schools

From the National Bureau of Economic Research:  In The Missing "One-Offs": The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low Income Students (NBER Working Paper No. 18586), Caroline Hoxby and Christopher Avery study every student in the high school graduating class of 2008 who scored at the 90th percentile or above on the SAT or ACT and whose high school GPA was A- or above. They show that despite the fact that these high-achievers are well qualified for admission at America's most selective colleges, the vast majority of low-income high achievers do not apply to any selective school.

More than 50 percent of low-income high achievers apply exclusively to non-selective two-year and four-year schools that typically have low graduation rates and low instructional resources. Only 8 percent of them apply in a manner similar to that of high-income high achievers, who normally apply to several "peer" schools where the median student has scores like their own, the graduation rate is high, and instructional resources are ten times those at non-selective schools. High-income high achievers also usually apply to a few "reach" and "safety" schools.

These authors show that because low-income high achievers rarely apply to selective colleges, there are many more low-income high achievers than admissions staff thought. What the admissions staff see are eight to fifteen high-income applicants for every low-income applicant. However, the ratio of high-income high achievers to low-income high achievers is only about two-to-one in the population.  The authors eliminate a number of explanations for low-income high achievers' failure to apply to selective colleges, including cost. They show that very selective colleges offer high-achieving, low-income students such generous financial aid that they could attend these colleges and pay less than they are currently paying to attend the much less selective colleges in which they enroll.

Nor do low-income high achievers fail if they apply to selective colleges. The authors show that if a low-income student and a high-income student with the same achievement apply to the same college, they have outcomes (matriculation, persistence, on-time graduation) that are so similar that they cannot be distinguished statistically.  A lack of effort on the part of selective colleges does not explain these results, either. Their admissions staffs visit hundreds of high schools, organize campus visits, and work with many local college mentoring programs.

Why, then, do the vast majority of low-income, high-achievers not apply to very selective colleges? The authors show that those who do not apply are dispersed: they are "one-offs" in their high schools and localities. Thus, there is no cost-effective way for colleges to reach them using the traditional methods listed above, all of which work best when students attend a school with a critical mass of high achievers (such as a magnet school) or live near a selective college (such as the Harlem students who live near Columbia University). This dispersion also explains why the students' counselors do not develop expertise about very selective colleges. If a counselor has 350 advisees (the typical number in the United States) and only encounters a high achiever once every few years, that counselor will develop skills to help her other advisees -- many of whom may be struggling to stay in school or attend any postsecondary institution -- rather than skills that will help the rare one-off.