Post on 24-Feb-2016
description
transcript
An Evaluation of the Early Progress of The Pittsburgh Promise®
and New Haven Promise
Gabriella C. Gonzalez and Robert Bozick
2
In 2010, The Promise Asked RAND to Evaluate Early Progress Toward Its First Two Goals
1. Mitigate and reverse the population declines in the city of Pittsburgh and the enrollment declines in PPS
2. Grow the high school completion rates, college readiness, and post-high school success of all PPS students
3. Deploy a well-prepared and energized workforce and an eager core of community volunteers
3
RAND Examined Baseline Trends and Patterns in Four Areas
Enrollment in
PPS
Influence on parents’
decision to enroll child in
PPS
Influence on students’
attitudes and behaviors
College enrollment
and persistence
rates
4
PPS Enrollment Has Begun to Stabilize Since the Program’s Inception
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
2007-08: In-ception of The Promise
Numberof K-12
students
5
Percent of Students Enrolling and Continuing in PPS Has Remained Steady
Percentage
Continuation
Enrollment
Pre-Promise School Years (2005-06, 2006-07) Early Promise School Years (2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10)
6
There Is No Clear Pattern In Enrollment of New Transfers into PPS Schools
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Pre-Promise Years (2005-06, 2006-07)Promise Years (2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10)
Number
7
The Promise Was an Important Factor in Parents’ Enrollment Decisions
3.9 “We wanted to take advantage of the Pittsburgh Promise scholarship program”
5
4
3
2
1
Not at all important
Somewhat important
Very important
8
5
4
3
2
1
Not at all important
Somewhat important
Very important
Non-Whites and Parents with Lower Education and Economic Status Assigned The Promise
Higher Importance than Other Parents Parents with a high school degree or lower (4.4)
Other (3.5)Non-white (4.2)
Parents with lower income (4.3)
9
Students Reported Being Motivated by the Program
• The opportunity for college funds motivated them to strive to meet eligibility requirements– Obtain at least a 2.5 GPA– Maintain 90 percent attendance
• The Promise factored into their decisions to attend college
• However, many students did not understand key program elements
10
Students reported being
motivated by the program
Summary of Key Findings
Enrollment in
PPS
Influence on parents’
decision to enroll child in
PPS
Influence on students’
attitudes and behaviors
College enrollment
and persistence
rates
PPS enrollments have stabilized,
rather than continuing to
decline; numbers of students new to the district are
inconsistent across the years
Parents considered the
program an important factor
in enrollment decisions
Enrollment rates for scholarship-
eligible graduates have
increased; persistence rates
have remained about the same
11
RAND Recommended Some Ways to Strengthen the Program
• Standardize efforts to provide information to students about the college and federal financial aid application process
• Implement practices to improve students’ knowledge about characteristics of The Promise scholarship program
• Implement online reporting to help students ascertain their eligibility status
• Institute a mentoring system in which Promise Scholars mentor high school students
12
Looking Ahead• These early findings provide a solid baseline for
future evaluations
• To fully assess the program’s impact, there must be enough time for a full cohort to go through high school, complete college, and enter the work force
• Future research should examine other important components of the program, such as
– High school graduation rates– Community engagement– Workforce characteristics
13
In July 2013, New Haven Promise Board asked RAND to Analyze Progress to Date of New Haven District
Reforms and New Haven Promise1. Measure the progress of New Haven Public School
(NHPS) students’ educational outcomes– Examine variations in educational outcomes since 2010 and
associations among School Change components– Compare district’s educational outcomes:
• Before 2010• With students in other CT districts
2. Evaluate the implementation of New Haven Promise– Analyze students’ and parents’ attitudes about Promise and NHPS– Review Promise’s performance to date:
• Compare program design to “promising practices” in field– Examine patterns of community-level indicators
• Since 2010• Compared to other cities in CT
3. Develop a tool for New Haven Promise to report education indicators each year
14
Some Research Ideas• How well have “Promise”-like programs (writ large)
met their intended goals?– More (needy) students attending PSEs?– Supported students in persisting and graduating from PSEs?– Encouraged students to return to region? – Motivated parents to enroll children in District?
• Are these programs helping students most in need to find life trajectories that best meet their desired goals or needs?
– PSE?– Find a job? Of what kind?
• Are these programs improving community outcomes?
15