MORE GUIDANCE, BETTER RESULTS?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

C.1 Opening Doors Counseling Sessions Among the Program Group Members,by College 105C.2 Opening Doors Stipend Receipt Among the Program Group Members,by College 106C.3 Receipt of Student Services, by College 107C.4 College Experiences of Sample Members, by College 108E.1 Transcript Outcomes, by College, First and Second Program Semesters 119E.2 Transcript Outcomes, by College, First Through Fourth Postprogram Semesters 121E.3 Cumulative Transcript Outcomes, by College, First Program SemesterThrough Third Postprogram Semester 124E.4 Transcript Outcomes, by Gender, First and Second Program Semesters 125E.5 Transcript Outcomes, by Gender, First Through Fourth Postprogram Semesters 127E.6 Cumulative Transcript Outcomes, by Gender, First Program SemesterThrough Third Postprogram Semester 130E.7 Enrollment at Opening Doors Institutions and Other Institutions, by College,First Program Semester Through Fourth Postprogram Semester 131E.8 Impacts on Sample Members’ Financial Aid Exclusive of Opening Doors,by College, First Program Semester Through Third Postprogram Semester 134E.9 Social, Psychological, and Health Measures of Sample Members at Baseline 137E.10 Social and Psychological Outcomes 138E.11 Health Outcomes 140FigureES.1 Effects on Registration Rates ES-5ES.2 Effects on Average Cumulative Credits Earned ES-75.1 Percentage of Sample Members Who Registered for Any Courses,First Program Semester Through Fourth Postprogram Semester 625.2 Cumulative Credits Earned, First Program Semester Through ThirdPostprogram Semester 63Box3.1 How to Read the Impact Tables in This Report 39viii
PrefaceIf approved by Congress, the Obama Administration’s College Access and CompletionFund will provide $2.5 billion to states over five years to help them implement programs to increasecollege completion. This goal is of particular concern to community colleges, which accountfor approximately 40 percent of all college enrollments in this country and where roughlyhalf of all students do not complete their studies within six years. These schools serve disproportionatenumbers of low-income students, students of color, immigrants, and first-generationcollege students, who may need guidance in overcoming such barriers to success as inadequateacademic preparation, the need to juggle school with work and family obligations, financialconstraints, and other personal difficulties.There is widespread belief among community college leaders that strengthening studentservices is key to improving academic outcomes. Unfortunately, student services are severelyunder-resourced at most community colleges: student-to-counselor ratios often exceed 1,000 to1, seriously limiting the assistance that students receive. A recent national survey of enteringcommunity college students found that half did not meet with or recall seeing an adviser duringtheir first four weeks of college. Thus, when policymakers and college administrators point tolow persistence and graduation rates in community colleges, they often look to student supportservices as a possible solution. Such services can include orientation for new students, academicadvising, financial aid counseling, career planning, job placement assistance, and other services.This report presents the results of a study at two community colleges in Ohio that testedthe use of enhanced student services for low-income students. The study was one of a very fewthat has used an experimental design to evaluate community college student services. The student-to-counselorratio in the program was vastly lower than that in a control group, who receivedonly the regular college services, and the program services were more intensive, comprehensive,and personalized. Students in the program group also received a small stipend as anincentive to meet with their counselors. The program, which increased the frequency of academicand financial aid advising, and other student services, generated initial improvements inacademic outcomes and retention rates. However, for the most part, these effects did not persistonce the program ended.While the Opening Doors program in Ohio did not have an effect on students’ longtermoutcomes, it does leave us with a rough template for crafting an improved program and itraises valuable questions for future research. Would enhanced student services have longer-termimpacts, for example, if they were more comprehensive, were offered for a longer period, orwere paired with other reforms? It is our hope that community college administrators and policymakerswill continue to consider alternative frameworks for providing services to strugglingstudents that will help them overcome the barriers they face so they can succeed in school.Gordon BerlinPresidentix
Page 1: OPENING DOORSMORE GUIDANCE,BETTER R
Page 4 and 5: Funders of the Opening Doors Projec
Page 7 and 8: ContentsOverviewList of Tables, Fig
Page 9: List of Tables, Figures, and BoxesT
Page 14 and 15: guidance on the study. Thomas Brock
Page 16 and 17: • The Ohio colleges successfully
Page 18 and 19: Program group members were assigned
Page 20 and 21: • For the most part, the program
Page 22 and 23: offered, but might also provide stu
Page 25 and 26: Chapter 1IntroductionOver the last
Page 27 and 28: The Opening Doors DemonstrationTabl
Page 29 and 30: sure that students complete the req
Page 31 and 32: While the mechanism through which s
Page 33 and 34: imately 1,700 to 1 in 2001. 22 Exac
Page 35: of literature exist on career couns
Page 38 and 39: The CollegeLorain County Community
Page 40 and 41: • Were beginning freshmen or cont
Page 42 and 43: The Opening Doors DemonstrationTabl
Page 44 and 45: Table 2.1 (continued)SOURCE: MDRC c
Page 46 and 47: Lorain and Owens Financial Aid Data
Page 49 and 50: Chapter 3The Implementation of the
Page 51 and 52: Toward the end of each student’s
Page 53 and 54: meet with their counselor a minimum
Page 55: The Opening Doors DemonstrationTabl
Page 59 and 60: Appendix Table C.2 shows informatio
Page 61:
Opening Doors counselors, and progr
Page 64 and 65:
Program Control Difference Standard
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 4The Effects of Enhanced St
Page 69 and 70:
Program SemestersTable 4.1 (page 47
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
The Opening Doors DemonstrationTabl
Page 77 and 78:
Transcript Outcomes by GenderAssess
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
correspond with the program’s imp
Page 85 and 86:
Chapter 5Summary and ConclusionsLor
Page 87 and 88:
The Opening Doors DemonstrationFigu
Page 89 and 90:
An alternative interpretation of th
Page 91:
Appendix ASupplementary Baseline In
Page 94 and 95:
Full Program ControlCharacteristic
Page 96 and 97:
Appendix Table A.1 (continued)Full
Page 98 and 99:
Full Program ControlCharacteristic
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 105:
Appendix BSurvey Response Analysis
Page 108 and 109:
Background Characteristics of Surve
Page 110 and 111:
Table B.1 (continued)Characteristic
Page 112 and 113:
The Opening Doors DemonstrationAppe
Page 114 and 115:
Table B.2 (continued)SOURCE: MDRC c
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 129 and 130:
Lorain OwensProgram ProgramOutcome
Page 131 and 132:
Lorain County Community CollegeOwen
Page 133:
Appendix DDescription of Scales Pre
Page 136 and 137:
4. I hardly ever expect things to g
Page 138 and 139:
Social Support and Civic Engagement
Page 140 and 141:
Psychological Distress (6-item summ
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Male SubgroupFemale SubgroupDiffere
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Appendix Table E.7 (continued)SOURC
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Appendix Table E.10 (continued)SOUR
Page 165 and 166:
ReferencesAdelman, Clifford. 2004.
Page 167 and 168:
EARLIER MDRC PUBLICATIONS ON OPENIN
Page 169:
About MDRCMDRC is a nonprofit, nonp
show all

MORE GUIDANCE, BETTER RESULTS?

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?