Search

In 2001, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation launched the multi-year, multi-million dollar Washington State Achievers Scholarship program. Concerned about disparities in college participation for low-income students in the state of Washington versus their wealthier peers, the Gates Foundation partnered with the College Success Foundation (CSF), formerly the Washington Education Foundation, to provide scholarships to eligible low-income students to attain a four-year postsecondary degree. The program targets juniors in 16 Achievers High Schools, which have high levels of low-income students and are implementing school redesign. Approximately 500 students each year receive financial support to help pay for college, and mentoring and other assistance to assure their preparation for and participation in postsecondary education. By 2015, more than 5,000 low-income students will have received scholarship assistance to attend college. Through six cohorts, 3,340 Achievers Scholars have been selected as high school juniors. Of this group, 3,010 have received the scholarship, with the remainder either not fulfilling eligibility requirements (such as completing high school) or choosing to attend a non-eligible college, frequently a four-year institution out of state. This report synthesizes the findings of research conducted on the Washington State Achievers program through Summer 2006. (Contains 9 tables, 11 figures and 16 footnotes.) [This paper was prepared for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the College Success Foundation. This paper was written with support from Christopher Williamson, Jennifer Engle and Kelley Downs.]

What accounts for the differences in retention and graduation rates among large public colleges and universities that serve high numbers of low-income students? To answer this question, the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education has conducted two studies to examine the institutional characteristics, practices, and policies that might account for such differences. In the first study, the authors identified 20 four-year institutions with large proportions of Pell Grant recipients--10 with higher than average graduation rates and 10 with lower than average graduation rates. Despite design limitations, the first study yielded important findings about what colleges and universities can do to improve student persistence. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether the conditions for improving graduation rates that were observed at the smaller institutions are present or even possible to create at larger public institutions, where most low-income students in this sector are enrolled. In this report, the authors describe differences in institutional policies and practices, as well as commonalities among the higher-performing institutions. They discuss differences between the findings from the previous study and this one. Finally, they consider if practices aimed at improving overall graduation rates also work for low-income students, and offer recommendations for institutions. It is their hope that the cumulative results of their two studies will be instructive for policymakers and practitioners who seek to improve the chances for success for low-income students in higher education. (Contains 13 tables, 1 figure, and 4 footnotes.)

This report presents the findings from focus groups with first-generation students in Texas. The students shared what works to help them make the transition from high school to college, as well as what didn't work or what could work better to get more first-generation students into college. Pre-college services and programs can ease the transition from high school to college by focusing on: (1) raising students' aspiration for college; (2) helping students navigate the college admissions process; (3) acclimating students to the college environment; (4) involving parents in the college-going process; (5) helping students manage the financial aspects of college; and (6) developing personal relationships with students. Based on students' own suggestions, the report offers the following recommendations to practitioners and policymakers: (1) Get the message out to all students about college as early as possible; (2) Better prepare students for college; and (3) Provide more support for students once in college. (Contains 2 footnotes.)

In Fall 2004, the Pell Institute released the first "Indicators of Opportunity in Higher Education." The inaugural report was well-received, including praise from the higher education community, press coverage, and policymaker discussions of the issues and data presented in the report. We present this second report with the goal of building on our knowledge base and continuing to inform a broad audience about the status of opportunity for higher education in the United States. An important addition this year is the inclusion of an indicator that addresses a key financial issue -- the percentage of family income that is needed to cover the cost of college. This indicator gives greater depth to understanding what college costs mean in the context of a family budget and therefore, how much college opportunity can vary by income. As noted when we released the first report, we intend to add to the indicators presented over time. This report also features a closer look at the diverse group of students captured in the category of low-income students. [This report received analytic support from Jennifer Engle. For "Indicators of Opportunity in Higher Education. Fall 2004 Status Report," see ED490855.]

In order to meet the need for more educated workers in the state, the Governor's Commission on Higher Education and the Economy (CHEE) has set an ambitious goal of increasing college and university enrollment in Ohio by 30 percent or 180,000 students over the next decade (CHEE, 2004). This goal can arguably only be met if the state takes measures to expand postsecondary opportunity to populations who have previously lacked college access, namely Ohio's low-income and first-generation college students. This report, prepared by the Council for Opportunity in Education, examines the current status of opportunity for postsecondary education in Ohio, focusing particularly on young people and adults from low-income families. The Council has produced this report through funding from the GE Foundation. The report reviews the educational pipeline that brings students to college, and addresses key questions about higher education opportunity in the state including: (1) Are low-income students ready for college?; (2) Do they go to college at rates comparable to their peers?; (3) Where do low-income students go to college?; (4) What do low-income students pay for college? and (5) Do low-income students graduate from college at rates similar to their peers? Finally, the report concludes by recommending actions to improve college access and opportunity for low-income and other educationally at-risk students in Ohio. The information used in this report was compiled from published reports and data requested from national and state-level organizations and agencies, such as the Ohio Board of Regents (OBR), the U.S. Census Bureau, and the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (NCPPHE). The data presented in this report are for the most recent year available. In some cases, the sources for state and national level data are different due to availability. As a result, the data may represent different years and/or slight variations in the definitions of groups/populations. Direct comparisons of these data should be made with care. Ohio College Access Programs are appended. (Contains 11 footnotes.)

The New England Student Success Study includes the results of survey of 350 low-income 4-year college students and in-depth interviews with low-income and minority students enrolled in 4-year institutions in the region combined with national data from the U.S. Department of Education. Four areas were of particular interest: (1) precollege preparation; (2) financial aid; (3) involvement at or feeling connected to their institutions; and (4) attendance factors and behaviors that may inhibit persistence. Results of the study reinforce some of the findings from national research. Low-income and minority students face many obstacles to success in postsecondary education. It is usually the combined effect of these barriers that poses the greatest challenge. Precollege programs, such as TRIO or institution sponsored programs, are having an effect for those who participated, but only one quarter of New England students participated in such programs. Financial aid continues to be vital to the success of low-income students, with 90% receiving assistance, and 47% receiving a federal Pell Grant. Overall, the attendance patterns of low-income students do not suggest that they are putting their ability to complete college at risk. Just under one-third were no longer at the college at which they began their studies; the most common reason for transfer was academic choices. Students' involvement in and attachment to their institutions were essential elements of success. Where students live had an impact on their attendance patterns. Students who lived at home or off campus were more likely to be older and attend part-time. Policy recommendations in this report target specific issues from the research. Two appendixes contain a chart of demographics of survey respondents and tables summarizing specific survey questions. (Contains 15 tables, 15 figures, and 24 references.) (SLD)

This report examines the roles that minority serving institutions (MSIs) play and the challenges they face in educating students of color. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that students of color will become the majority in K-12 classrooms by the middle of the 21st century. Despite this shift, classroom teachers are not broadly representative of the students they teach; 9 of 10 U.S. teachers are white. Data from MSIs that make up the Alliance for Equity in Higher Education as well as profiles of teacher education programs at some MSIs show some of the ways that institutions are preparing qualified teachers of color. MSIs produce a large number of teacher education graduates in areas of high national need, such as mathematics and science. The diversity of teacher education graduates from Alliance member institutions is in stark contrast to that of non-Alliance institutions. The analyses in this report demonstrate the critical role of MSIs in preparing teachers of color. Some specific recommendations are made to support MSI, including increased federal resources, broader public investments, higher teacher salaries, and public awareness campaigns. The report also calls for partnerships among institutions that serve large numbers of students of color and increased study of minority teacher supply. (Contains 14 figures and 66 references.) (SLD)