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