Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lauren Schudde The University of Texas at Austin & CAPSEE
Judith Scott-Clayton Teachers College & CAPSEE
The Effects of Satisfactory Academic Progress Requirements on Pell Grant Recipients
April 6–7, 2017 | Washington, DC
Evidence from Two States
• Results from two CAPSEE papers: – Pell Grants as Performance-Based Scholarships? An
Examination of Satisfactory Academic Progress Requirements in the Nation’s Largest Need-Based Aid Program (Schudde & Scott-Clayton, 2014, 2016)
– Performance Standards in Need-Based Student Aid (Scott-
Clayton & Schudde, 2016)
2
Federal Eligibility for Need-Based Aid
• Initially based on financial need; no consideration of prior achievement
• Renewal requires meeting “Satisfactory Academic Progress” (SAP) requirements
• Applies to all federal aid recipients—we focus on Pell program
Federal SAP Guidelines
• Institutions must assess SAP for federal aid recipients using: – “Qualitative Standard”: 2.0 or equivalent by the end of second
academic year – “Quantitative Standard”: Minimum percentage of work successfully
completed – Maximum timeframe: Cannot exceed 150% of published length of
undergraduate program in credits
• Flexibility in how institutions implement, but most use: – Cumulative 2.0 GPA and 2/3 ratio of credits attempted vs. completed
Source: CFR 668.34; Information for Financial Aid Professionals handbook, ch.1, vol.1
4
First-Year Students with GPA<2.0, by Pell Receipt: NPSAS 2011-2012
5
24%
15%
25%
15%
19%
8%
21%
12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Public 4-Year Private Nonprofit 4-Year Public 2-Year Private For-Profit 2-Year
Perc
enta
ge o
f Firs
t-Ye
ar S
tude
nts
Pell Recipients
Non-PellRecipients
Source: Schudde & Scott-Clayton, 2016
Performance Requirements in Need-Based Aid: What Roles does SAP Policy Serve?
Performance Requirements in Need-Based Aid: What Roles does SAP Policy Serve?
• 1. Financial incentive for academic effort early in college – Not tested on federal aid prior to our work on SAP and Pell students – Research on performance-based scholarships and promise programs:
merit requirements can improve student progress and achievement (Barrow, Richburg-Hayes, Rouse, & Brock, 2014; Barrow & Rouse, 2013; Patel & Valenzuela, 2013; Scott-Clayton, 2011)
Performance Requirements in Need-Based Aid: What Roles does SAP Policy Serve?
• 2. Signal performance expectations to students – The 2.0 cumulative GPA standard aligns with requirements for
graduation – Informs students they are below requirements and allows them to
adjust decisions • “Adjusting decisions” may mean improving performance or
discouraging from persistence
Performance Requirements in Need-Based Aid: What Roles does SAP Policy Serve?
• 3. Improve efficiency of federal aid – Minimize program spending on students with low likelihood of
graduation – Concentrates federal supports on students with higher likelihood of
success
Research Questions and Methods
How does SAP impact students?
• How many students fail to meet SAP? – Which requirements do they fail? – How do Pell students compare to students without federal aid?
• What is the impact of SAP standards on persistence, transfer, and degree attainment?
11
Data
• Administrative data from two states – 3 year follow-up for outcomes
• Both focus on first-time CC enrollees – State community college system 1 (State 1)
• 49 colleges with equivalent SAP policies • Fall cohorts 2002-2007: ~147,000 (43,000 Pell recipients)
– State community college system 2 (State 2) • 20 community colleges • Fall cohorts 2004-2010: ~113,000 (52,000 Pell recipients)
12
Outcomes of Interest
• Short-term outcomes – Persistence into second year, GPA in first-term of second year – Behavioral responses to being warned about SAP status (not loss of
aid, yet)
• Longer-term outcomes – Credit and degree completion at end of third year, – Behavioral response to warning and consequences of losing aid (for
some, but not all) students—drop out
13
Methods
• Descriptive Statistics – Patterns of SAP failure for GPA and credit standards
• Leverage 2.0 GPA cutoff and two approaches: – Regression Discontinuity (RD) – Difference-in-Differences Approach (DD)
14
Methods
• Regression Discontinuity (RD) – Use GPA at end of year 1 to examine “discontinuity” at the cutoff – Compare subsequent enrollment and performance of Pell recipients
above and below 2.0 cutoff
15
Methods
• Difference-in-Differences Approach (DD) – Compares patterns above and below 2.0 cutoff for Pell recipients and
non-recipients
– Determines effect of falling below cutoff for Pell recipients by comparing to students who are not subject to SAP standards
16
Methods
17
Pell Non-Pell
.463 Below
.578 Above
-.115 Diff for Pell
Difference of the Difference: -.115 -.075= -.040
.561 Below
.636 Above
-.075 Diff for non-Pell
Persistence into Year 2 Estimate
Results
18
Distribution of Pell Entrants by Overall SAP and Enrollment Status Over Time: State 1
19
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Fall, Y1 Spring, Y1 Fall, Y2 Spring, Y2 Fall, Y3 Spring, Y3
Perc
ent o
f Pel
l Rec
ipie
nts
Term
Enrolled, Failing SAP Enrolled, Passing SAP Not Enrolled
Based on Schudde & Scott-Clayton, 2016—results from State 1
Fall to Fall Persistence by First-Year GPA and Pell Status: State 1
20
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
Perc
ent o
f Fal
l Ent
rant
s Stil
l Enr
olle
d
First-Term GPA
Pell
No Pell
Based on Schudde & Scott-Clayton, 2016—results from State 1
Impacts of First-year SAP Failure on GPA, Fall of Second Year: State 2
21
0.07*
0.03
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
RD (Near 2.0) DD (Incl. GPA as low as 1.0)
GPA
Poi
nt Im
prov
emen
t RD (GPAs near 2.0) DD (GPAs as low as 1.0)
Impacts of First-year SAP Failure on Enrollment, Fall of Second Year: State 2
22
-1 pp
-8 pp*** -9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0RD (Near 2.0) DD (Incl. GPA as low as 1.0)
Perc
enta
ge P
oint
Red
uctio
n in
En
rollm
ent
RD (GPAs near 2.0) DD (GPAs as low as 1.0)
Impacts on Enrollment and Certificate Completion at End of Year 3: DD, State 2
23
-5 pp***
-2 pp***
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0Enrollment Certificate Completion
Perc
enta
ge P
oint
Dec
line
Impacts on Credits Attempted and Earned at End of Year 3: DD, State 2
24 -3.17***
-1.12***
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0Total Credits Attempted Total Credits Earned
Redu
ctio
n in
Cre
dits
Att
empt
ed/E
arne
d
Discussion
• Efficiency vs. Equity – Makes aid more efficient – To the detriment of the neediest students
• Primary effect of SAP policy = punitive, not formative – Limits students access to aid – Does not incorporate adequate intervention to improve
skills/performance
• Anecdotal evidence from administrators and aid officers: students do not learn about SAP until they lost aid – Are warning systems working? How can we optimize them? 25
Implications and Future Inquiry
• Proactive, early communication—before end of first term—could help students stay on track
• Improved coordination between administrative offices – Academic advisors and aid officers must communicate to stay
informed about academic progress and aid status – Need stronger strategies to reach students and keep them informed
• SAP failure is quite high in four-year colleges as well – This is a widespread problem – Need more research to understand its impact in various settings
26
Visit our website at capseecenter.org
You can also follow us on Twitter at @capsee and like us on Facebook.
Center for Analysis of Postsecondary Education and Employment
Teachers College, Columbia University
525 West 120th Street, Box 174, New York, NY 10027
TEL: 212.678.3091 | [email protected]
CAPSEE is funded through a grant (R305C110011) from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.