GEAR UP Final Report UPDATE 4 13 15

GEAR UP Final Report May 2014

GEAR UP SF Final Evaluation Report – May 2014 (Updated April 2015)

GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)

Contents Executive Summary ................................................................ 1

Introduction ................................................................................ 5

GEAR UP Services ..................................................................... 7

Cohort 1 Student Outcomes ......................................... 10

Academics and Graduation ......................... 12

College Readiness and Knowledge ........ 15

Postsecondary Enrollment ........................... 17

School Outcomes ................................................................. 20

Programmatic Highlights ................................................ 21

Lessons Learned .................................................................... 23

Challenges................................................................................. 25

Conclusion ................................................................................ 27

Addendum: GEAR UP’s Second Cohort .................. 28

Appendix: Quantitative Methods ............................... 37

Acknowledgements:

GEAR UP Leadership and Harder+Company Community Research would like to thank GEAR UP coordinators and staff, students and parents, and the teachers, administrators, and other school staff who participated in interviews and focus groups and provided valuable insight into the workings of GEAR UP. In addition, we would like to thank staff at the Research, Planning & Accountability (RPA) Data Center at SFUSD who provided key administrative data helping to make this evaluation possible.

Photo credits:

Cover photo: UCANR

http://ucanr.edu/blogs/LatinoBriefs/blogfiles/19625_original.jpg


Executive Summary

GEAR UP San Francisco

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) is a federally funded, U.S. Department of Education program that aims to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. Since the 2007-08 academic year, GEAR UP San Francisco—administered by San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD)—supported over 3,600 students annually in two cohorts and a total of seventeen schools to raise students’ expectations for academic advancement and close the college achievement gap. The program graduated its second and final cohort of students in May 2014.

The Evaluation and Report

GEAR UP San Francisco partnered with Harder+Company Community Research to conduct an evaluation of the program’s influence on the students, families, and schools that it served. The evaluation used a mixed methods approach designed to examine both the implementation and outcomes of GEAR UP San Francisco. This report

presents a summary of major findings from core evaluation activities and has two primary goals: (1) highlight student outcomes by comparing GEAR UP’s two cohorts to similar students from the prior cohort who did not receive GEAR UP services and (2) highlight program practices to inform the development and implementation of current and future student support programs.

Student Outcomes: Key Findings

Harder+Company originally produced the GEAR UP SF Final Report in May 2014. At the time of writing, GEAR UP San Francisco’s second cohort of students (the class of 2014) had not completed their final year of high school and many of the key outcome variables needed to understand how GEAR UP supported students through high school and prepared them for postsecondary success were not yet available for those students. As a result, the original report focused only on comparing the outcomes of 1,714 students in GEAR UP’s first graduating class to 2,371 similar students from the prior cohort (the class of 2012). Those original findings are presented in the following GEAR UP Services and Cohort 1 Student Outcomes sections of this report.

However, since the original report was written, GEAR UP’s second cohort of students has completed high school and their high school and postsecondary data have become available for analysis. In the form of an addendum (found at the end of this report) Harder+Company presents findings on the characteristics and outcomes of the 1,693 students in GEAR UP San Francisco’s second cohort.

Students in GEAR UP’s first and second cohorts experienced similar outcomes (as illustrated in Exhibit 1). Key findings from this study include:

GEAR UP provided services to nearly every student. Coordinators provided services to over 98 percent of students attending GEAR UP high schools. On average, students received over 28 hours and numerous types of services. These findings highlight GEAR UP’s success in conducting outreach to students and its thorough integration into the schools it served.

GEAR UP students had higher GPAs, CAHSEE pass rates, and high school graduation rates than students in the comparison group. These improvements in academic outcomes suggest that students in the GEAR UP cohorts were better prepared academically for postsecondary


education than students in the prior cohort. In addition, GEAR UP supported students who were academically on the “cusp” to complete the necessary steps to ensure they graduated.

More GEAR UP students took measurable steps to apply to college than comparison group students. GEAR UP students were more likely to go on a college visit and to take the SAT than students in the comparison group. These findings are important indicators that more GEAR UP students were ready to apply for and eligible to be admitted to two- and four-year colleges.

GEAR UP students applied to more colleges and continued their education in postsecondary settings—in four-year colleges specifically—more frequently than students in the comparison group. GEAR UP’s college readiness and academic services provided students and their families with crucial support through a process that is notoriously difficult to navigate. For some students, this support increased eligibility for and admission into four-year colleges.

Traditionally underserved students in particular benefited from GEAR UP. African American, Latino, low-income, first generation college-going, and English learner students in the GEAR UP cohorts frequently experienced better

outcomes than their peers in the comparison group. GEAR UP’s tiered approach to service delivery contributed to the increases in the percentages of these students passing the CAHSEE, going on a college visit, taking the SAT, applying to multiple colleges, and attending four-year colleges immediately after graduation.

School Outcomes: Key Findings

In addition to improving student outcomes, GEAR UP contributed to cultural shifts in the schools it served. Teachers, administrators, and coordinators discussed the changes that schools underwent while a part of the GEAR UP program.

GEAR UP supported and strengthened the college-going culture at schools. For schools with well-established college-going cultures, GEAR UP brought additional resources to strengthen and enhance student services. For schools where a college-going culture was less present, GEAR UP raised awareness among students

Academ

ic College Readiness Postsecondary

87%

89%

76%

74%

73%

56%

56%

93%

95%

82%

82%

78%

60%

61%

94%

94%

85%

82%

82%

64%

63%

Passed ELA CAHSEE

Passed Math CAHSEE

Graduated High School

Went on a College Visit

Applied to Multiple Colleges

Enrolled in Postsecondary

Attending Four-Year College*

Exhibit 1: Key Student Outcomes

Comparison Group GEAR UP Cohort 1 GEAR UP Cohort 2

*Percentage of those students enrolled in postsecondary institutions who were attending four-year colleges (rather than two-year colleges). Percentages in bold are statistically significant


and staff, delivered college-focused services, and elevated dialogue about college access.

GEAR UP supported schools in promoting higher education through school-wide events and activities. GEAR UP activities and school-wide events, such as College Nights and FASFA workshops, were widely successful and institutionalized in many schools. GEAR UP increased expectations and demand for these college-related events within school communities.

Program Implementation Highlights

During its seven years, SFUSD’s GEAR UP program changed and evolved as leadership and staff developed new strategies and implemented new processes for improving service delivery. The following highlights reflect overarching successes and lessons learned from the program.

GEAR UP coordinators’ personalities, qualifications, and district employment helped them connect with students and provide consistent, stable services. GEAR UP coordinators were noted for their approachability, their passion, and their commitment to students—traits that positioned them as a key resource and support for many students. In addition, being employed by the district, possessing teaching or

counseling credentials, and being located on campus full-time distinguished GEAR UP coordinators from other CBOs. These criteria increased coordinator’s access to students and faculty and gave them professional validity that supported implementation and effectiveness.

GEAR UP offered a variety of services that helped students become college ready, apply for college, and find the means to attend college. The services offered by GEAR UP were universally acknowledged as the right mix of elements to support students and families; and offering a variety of school-wide and individualized supports was key to the program’s success. Many of the supports that GEAR UP provided would not have otherwise been available to the majority of students at these schools.

Targeting individuals enabled GEAR UP to support the highest-need students. In accordance with SFUSD’s Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTI2) success strategy, GEAR UP used school administrative data to create a targeting tool that identified high-need populations and individual students who would benefit

most from GEAR UP services. This ensured that students received tiered levels of services and interventions based on their need. Furthermore, this tool enabled staff to align their efforts with other initiatives to ensure students were connected to the services they needed.

GEAR UP continually strengthened the program’s structure and aligned services with program objectives. GEAR UP program leadership and coordinators developed core activities aligned with GEAR UP objectives and formalized grade appropriate work plans to help meet program goals while remaining flexible as


students aged and school needs changed.

GEAR UP encouraged professional development that supported coordinators’ ongoing learning. Through district-wide trainings and national conferences, GEAR UP provided coordinators with learning opportunities to improve their practice. In addition, leadership provided one-on-one site-specific support to coordinators as they implemented the program across a number of schools.

GEAR UP coordinators collaborated with faculty and other CBOs and aligned strategies with concurrent initiatives to deepen the program’s impact. Collaborating with faculty, particularly in the classroom, expanded the program’s reach. Coordinators leveraged classroom time by working with faculty to integrate services into existing classroom activities. Strengthening collaboration with school-based CBOs helped to leverage resources, reach students, and reduce duplicative service efforts. In addition, where GEAR UP successfully aligned itself with preexisting parallel college readiness efforts, particularly those overseen by college centers or counseling departments, it was better integrated into the schools it served.


Introduction Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) is a federally funded, U.S. Department of Education discretionary grant program that aims to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education.

GEAR UP San Francisco, which was administered by the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), supported two cohorts of students and seventeen schools across the district to promote academic success and postsecondary readiness by:

Providing students with an array of early intervention and grade-appropriate services to raise expectations for educational advancement and prepare students to enter college;

Working directly with parents, guardians, and family members to raise awareness about the academic and college process; and

Collaborating with teachers, administrators and other ally programs and organizations to create systemic institutional change that supports educational advancement.

Service Model

In pursuit of raising expectations for academic advancement and closing the college achievement gap, GEAR UP was designed to reach low-income students early in middle school and follow them through high school graduation. The cohort service model provided students with a continuity of services that were specifically tailored to meet evolving needs as students advanced from one grade to the next. The model also allowed GEAR UP coordinators to develop rapport and deeper relationships with students, elements essential for improving student outcomes.

GEAR UP San Francisco began in the 2007-08 academic year when Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 students were in the 7th and 6th grade, respectively. GEAR UP coordinators based at each school site served thousands of students and their families during the program’s tenure, which began at nine middle schools and transitioned to eight high schools, each unique in terms of its school culture and mix of students, but similar in terms of meeting the program’s criteria for serving schools with a large

population of low-income students. GEAR UP served over 3,600 students annually, graduated its first cohort of students in May 2013 and its second and final cohort in May 2014.

Schools Served by GEAR UP SF


Exhibit 2. Evaluation Components and Primary Research Questions

Evaluation Component

Primary Research Questions

Implementation How did GEAR UP influence college-knowledge and instill a college-going culture in schools? What factors at the student, program, and school level influenced program implementation and outcomes?

Outcomes How do the outcomes of the GEAR UP cohort compare to the outcomes of the previous year’s cohort, which did not receive GEAR UP services?

Did GEAR UP achieve better outcomes for certain types of students?

Evaluation Approach

As GEAR UP San Francisco neared the end of its grant cycle, the program sought to understand the influence of its services on the students, families, and schools that it served. GEAR UP partnered with Harder+Company Community Research, an independent consulting firm that specializes in social sector research and planning to conduct this evaluation. The evaluation uses a mixed methods approach designed to examine both the implementation and outcomes of GEAR UP San Francisco. The overarching research questions guiding each component of this evaluation are outlined in Exhibit 2.

Core evaluation activities were conducted in the final years of the grant cycle, which included qualitative data collection in spring 2013 (when Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 were in the 12th and 11th grade, respectively) and quantitative analysis of SFUSD administrative data for Cohort 1 in spring 2014 and for Cohort 2 in spring 2015.1 Core evaluation activities comprised:

1 Findings for Cohort 2, which were not available at the time the original report was published, are described in the addendum.

Comprehensive analysis of longitudinal school administrative data for both GEAR UP cohorts and a comparison group of students who graduated a year prior (the class of 2012) and did not receive GEAR UP services; Eight student focus groups (73 high school

seniors), one at each GEAR UP high school; Eight interviews with a total of 10 GEAR UP

coordinators (two joint interviews); Interviews with school staff, including a teacher

(1), counselors (4), and administrators (3); One parent focus group (4 parents); and One interview with the GEAR UP director.

The Report

This report presents a summary of major findings from core evaluation activities, as well as

supporting evidence from ongoing programmatic data collection (i.e., GEAR UP student surveys). The goal of this report is twofold: (1) highlight student outcomes by comparing GEAR UP’s two cohorts to similar students from the prior cohort who did not receive GEAR UP services and (2) highlight program implementation practices to inform the development and implementation of current and future student support programs. Findings are organized into the following sections:

Cohort 1 GEAR UP Services Cohort 1 Student Outcomes School Outcomes Programmatic Highlights Lessons Learned Challenges


GEAR UP Services From middle school to high school, GEAR UP provided an array of early intervention and grade-appropriate services that evolved with the changing needs of their students. Services ranged from broad-reaching activities (i.e., informational workshops and presentations) to in-depth academic and personal support (i.e., tutoring and counseling) to experiential learning activities (i.e., college and job site visits). The program used a multi-tier service delivery model to (1) ensure that general GEAR UP services reached nearly all students in their cohorts and (2) target high-need student populations with tailored, higher-intensity services designed to meet their unique needs.

This section of the report provides a summary of the services utilized by GEAR UP Cohort 1 students in high school and their self-reported assessment of the types of services that were most beneficial for preparing them for college.2

Service Utilization Despite serving two large cohorts of students at eight different high schools, GEAR UP

2 Findings for Cohort 2 are described in the addendum.

coordinators reached nearly all students in their cohorts. Over 98 percent of students in the class of 20133 received at least one GEAR UP service.

Though the program offered a variety of services (Exhibit 3), GEAR UP services are aggregated into six major service areas for the purpose of this report. On average, the 1,714 students in Cohort 14 received over 27 hours5 of GEAR UP services throughout high school, including:

17 hours of workshops and presentations; 5 hours of academic support; 5 hours of counseling and advising; and Less than an hour (0.4 hours) of family

counseling and advising.

This distribution of service hours reflects the program’s general approach to serving students. That is, expose students to large quantities of college information, immerse students in a college-going culture, provide individualized academic and

3 This includes only students who attended a GEAR UP high school for one full year. 4 See Appendix: Quantitative Methods for a complete description of the definition of Cohort 1. 5 Total hours exclude field trips and other events as their long duration skewed the averages.

Exhibit 3. GEAR UP Services Service Area Service Details

Academic support

Tutoring/Homework Assistance

Study Hall/Homework Club

Counseling/ advising/ mentoring

Comprehensive Mentoring

FinAid Counseling/Advising Counseling/Advising/Academic Planning Career Counseling

Workshops/ presentations

Rigorous Academic Curricula

Workshops

College Preparation/Online Support

Computer Assisted Service College Application/Program Promotion Leadership Training

Field trip/event participation

College Visit/College Student Shadowing Educational Field Trips

Job Site Visit/Job Shadowing

Family/Cultural Events

Family counseling/ advising

Family Counseling/Advising

Parent Communication

Home Visit

Family workshops/ events

Family Workshops on College Prep/FinAid Family College Visits

Family Events


99% 95% 91% 73%

48% 29%

Wor

ksho

ps

Coun

selin

g/Ad

visin

g

Fiel

d Tr

ip/ E

vent

Acad

emic

Sup

port

Fam

ily E

vent

/W

orks

hop

Fam

ily C

ouns

elin

g/Ad

visin

g

Exhibit 4: Students Receiving Each GEAR UP Service Type

personal support to meet individual needs, and engage family members in the process.

The majority of Cohort 1 students received a mix of GEAR UP services. Most commonly, 99 percent of students participated in workshops and presentations that covered a range of topics, from college information to leadership development. Often delivered in a group format, GEAR UP coordinators were able to reach more students at higher frequencies with these types of services.

In addition, 95 percent of students received

individualized or small group support in the form of counseling, advising, and/or mentoring, and 91 percent of students participated in fieldtrips or activities designed to expose them to college and career opportunities (Exhibit 4).

Through their partnership with San Francisco State University, GEAR UP was able to provide tutoring to many students, a resource-intensive service that most students would not have had access to without the program. This partnership expanded GEAR UP’s range of academic support

activities and services, which benefited 73 percent of Cohort 1 students and contributed to their improved academic outcomes.

Educating and supporting parents and families is an important, but challenging, aspect of serving students, particularly when the focus is on increasing postsecondary enrollment. GEAR UP increased schools’ efforts and capacity to support parents and families by providing personal outreach, college and financial aid workshops, and counseling services. Based on the GEAR UP parent

“It really helped me have peace of mind throughout the whole college application process. [Without GEAR UP], I would have just been really confused and stressed out about it. [GEAR UP] really helped me feel calm about it.”

—GEAR UP Student


survey6, a majority of parents were “somewhat” or “very” familiar with the admissions requirements, application processes, and costs of California’s public college systems, including:

70 percent familiar with California Community Colleges (CCC); 61 percent familiar with California State

Universities (CSU); and 58 percent familiar with Universities of

California (UC).

Despite universal challenges associated with conducting outreach to parents and engaging families in these activities, 48 percent of Cohort 1 students’ parents or family members participated in GEAR UP events and workshops designed to educate them about college and financial aid requirements. Additionally, nearly 30 percent of GEAR UP students’ parents and families received direct, personal support from the program in the form of counseling, advising, and even home visits.

6 Survey was administered to parents when Cohort 1 students were in the 11th grade.

Rating GEAR UP Services

Prior to graduation, Cohort 1 students were asked in the annual GEAR UP survey to rate the extent to which services helped them prepare for college. Their responses are summarized in Exhibit 5 and strongly align with the sentiments they expressed during focus groups. Overall, with over 80 percent of students rating these services as “very helpful” or “helpful,” the top three GEAR UP services were:

1. Direct assistance with college applications, personal statements, and financial aid applications.

2. Individualized counseling and advising to explore and support their educational and career goals.

3. College workshops that provide critical information about postsecondary options, applications requirements, and financial aid.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Job site visit or a Career Day

Tutoring

SAT/ACT Prep

Mentoring

Educational field trip

College visit/College fair

College workshops

Academic/College/Career counseling

College/FAFSA/Dream apps, personal statements

Very Helpful Helpful

Exhibit 5: GEAR UP Services Helpfulness Rankings


Cohort One Student Outcomes In order to understand how the GEAR UP services described in the previous section supported students through high school and prepared them for postsecondary education, this study compared the outcomes of students in GEAR UP’s first graduating class to 2,371 similar students from the prior cohort (findings from Cohort 2 are described in the addenudum). This section examines how the academics, college readiness and knowledge, and postsecondary enrollment of the first GEAR UP cohort differed from those of the comparison group. The analysis pays particular attention to how these outcomes differed for traditionally underserved populations of students between the

groups. In addition, important programmatic features that directly supported these three key outcome areas—GEAR UP’s “Keys to Success”—are discussed briefly in each subsequent section.

Student Characteristics: the first GEAR UP Cohort and the Comparison Group.

Overall, students in the class of 2012 had similar demographic characteristics to students in the first GEAR UP cohort making it a strong comparison group. Students in both cohorts had similar gender distributions, ethnic backgrounds, and received special education services at similar rates. In addition, students in both groups were similarly distributed across the eight schools (see Exhibit 6) suggesting that, overall, students in both groups

15%

18%

8%

8%

3%

3%

11%

12%

9%

10%

5%

6%

6%

9%

29%

25%

15%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Com

paris

onG

roup

GEA

R U

PCo

hort

1

Exhibit 6: Distribution of Students across Schools

BalboaBurtonISAMissionMarshallO’Connell WallenbergWashingtonOther

Methods This analysis relied on demographic, academic, senior survey, and postsecondary data provided by SFUSD for both the comparison group and the first GEAR UP cohort. Cohort 1 was defined as any student in the class of 2013 who attended a GEAR UP school for at least one year in high school—regardless of whether they attended another SFUSD school or left the district previously or subsequently—and who received at least six hours of GEAR UP services during this time. Similarly, the comparison group was defined as any student in the class of 2012 attending a GEAR UP school at some point in high school. GEAR UP service records were matched to SFUSD data in order to measure service utilization among the GEAR UP cohort.

Statistical analysis software was used to examine student demographics and compare outcomes of GEAR UP students and the comparison group. The analysis employed ANOVA, chi-square, and t-tests to measure statistical significance of differences in mean outcomes of the comparison group and GEAR UP cohort as well as for disaggregated populations of interest.


were exposed to comparable academic and school settings. These similarities further strengthen the class of 2012 as a strong comparison group.

Exhibit 7 illustrates some of the key individual and family characteristics of students in the first GEAR UP cohort.

Still, there were some notable—and statistically significant—differences between the first GEAR UP cohort and the comparison group including the following:

A slightly higher percentage of the first GEAR UP cohort qualified for free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) (82 percent compared to 79 percent) indicating that there were more low-income students in the first GEAR UP cohort.

Parents of students in the first GEAR UP cohort had higher educational attainment than parents of students in the comparison group. As a result, a smaller percentage of GEAR UP students would be first generation four-year college students (75 percent) than the prior year (89 percent).

The GEAR UP cohort had a slightly smaller

percentage of English learners in their senior year (12 percent compared to 17 percent in the previous cohort).

A higher percentage of GEAR UP students

attended Balboa (18 percent versus 15 percent in the comparison group) and Wallenberg (9 percent versus 6 percent).

A smaller percentage of GEAR UP students attended Washington (25 percent versus 29 percent).

Fewer students in the first GEAR UP cohort finished their time at SFUSD in a non-GEAR UP school than in the comparison group (9 percent compared to 15 percent).

To account for these demographic differences, this analysis compares the outcomes of key populations of students across the cohorts—particularly populations likely to benefit most from additional supports—in addition to comparing the outcomes of both cohorts in aggregate.

Gear Up Cohort 1

53% Male/ 47%

Female 12%

Special Education

12% English Learner

53% Asian

13% African

American

24% Latino

82% Low-Income

75% First

Generation College

Exhibit 7: GEAR UP Student Characteristics


Academics and Graduation A key component of SFUSD’s GEAR UP program was providing academic support to students in order to improve graduation rates and prepare students for college. Approximately 70 percent of GEAR UP students received academic support at some point in high school. For some students, these services helped them complete required benchmarks to graduation. As one teacher reported, “[GEAR UP coordinators] have a huge impact on kids who graduate from high school who might not have otherwise.” For other students, academic support helped improve their qualifications for admission to college and made them “more ready for college.”

In order to explore GEAR UP’s influence on student academics this analysis focused on three key indicators: cumulative GPAs, California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) pass rates, and graduation rates.

GEAR UP students had higher cumulative GPAs than the comparison group

Students in the first GEAR UP cohort had higher average cumulative GPAs in each year of high

school than the comparison group (see Exhibit 8). By the end of their senior year, GEAR UP students had an average cumulative GPA of 2.78 compared to a 2.59 average GPA in the previous cohort. These higher GPAs had important implications for students. For some, better grades helped motivate or provided direction to them. One parent said of her daughter’s improved grades, “now she knows what she wants and she’s been improving. The first time she saw her report card with an excellent grade, she was so excited.” Improved cumulative GPAs also made more students four-year college

2.54 2.54 2.56 2.59

2.71 2.74 2.76 2.78

2

2.5

3

9th 10th 11th 12th

Cum

ulat

ive

GPA

Exhibit 8: Mean Cumulative GPA by Grade Level

Comparison Group GEAR UP Cohort

Keys to Success

GEAR UP collaborated with teachers to conduct transcript checks and advise students on their academic standing in order to support students’ academic progress.

“The coordinator trained all of our teachers to do transcript checks and to know if their [students] are on track for graduation or college. I think people’s vision of themselves as an advisor changed. We are better equipped now to really advise our students.”

—High School Teacher

GEAR UP provided valuable support to schools and teachers implementing the new A-G subject requirements for graduation.

“Going into the classrooms, the teachers are picking up the lingo. The teachers know the requirements because they hear me say it over and over in the workshops and in every single class. They start talking about it.”

—GEAR UP Coordinator


eligible by increasing the number of students with GPAs above 2.0, as well as the number with GPAs above 3.0, the minimum required for admissions to University of California (UC) campuses.

GEAR UP students saw improved CAHSEE pass rates, particularly among traditionally underserved students

For many students, the first hurdle to graduation is passing both the English Language Arts (ELA) and math portions of the CAHSEE. The percent of

students passing the ELA section of the CAHSEE increased six points from 87 percent in the comparison group to 93 percent in the first GEAR UP cohort. African American students (85 vs 79 percent), Latino students (90 vs 78 percent), English learner (70 vs 66 percent) and students with GPAs in the lowest range (69 vs 59 percent), among others, all saw statistically significant increases of four percentage points or more over their counterparts in the comparison group. Similarly, the pass rate for the math portion increased from 89 percent in 2012 to 95 percent in the first GEAR UP cohort with African American

(83 vs 74 percent), Latino (91 vs 82 percent), English learner students (88 vs 79 percent), and students with GPAs in the lowest range (64 percent vs 58 percent) all experiencing increases compared to their peers the prior year.

GEAR UP students, especially traditionally underserved students, were more likely to graduate from high school

With higher GPAs and more students passing the CAHSEE it is not surprising that GEAR UP

+ 93 percent of Cohort 1 students passed the ELA portion of the CAHSEE compared to 87 percent of the prior cohort.

+ 95 percent passed the math portion of the CAHSEE compared to 89 percent of the previous cohort.

+ African American, Latino, English learner, and low-GPA students all saw CAHSEE pass rates five or more percentage points higher than their peers the prior year.

76%

58% 65%

76% 79%

53%

82% 67% 72%

81% 83%

55%

All Students African American Latino Low-Income First GenerationCollege

English Learner

Exhibit 9: Percent of Students Graduating

Comparison Group GEAR UP Cohort 1Percentages in bold are statistically significant


students had significantly higher graduation rates7 (see Exhibit 9) than students in the comparison group (82 percent versus 76 percent). The following student populations were also more likely to graduate:

Sixty-seven percent of African Americans in the first GEAR UP cohort graduated from high school compared to 58 percent the prior year;

Seventy-two percent of Latino Cohort1 students graduated versus 65 percent the year prior;

Eighty-one percent of low-income Cohort 1 students graduated versus 76 percent the previous year;

Eighty-three percent of first generation college Cohort 1 students graduated compared to 79 percent the previous year.

Academic support helped students with lower cumulative GPAs graduate

7 Graduation rates were calculated by dividing the number of graduates by the total number of students enrolled at any point in high school. This rate may be lower than the official graduation rates published by the district which takes into account nuances in enrollment using the four year cohort graduation rate.

GEAR UP students with lower cumulative GPAs received targeted GEAR UP academic support services. As a result, students in Cohort 1 who received GEAR UP academic support services had lower GPAs, on average, than students who did not receive these services. Despite these lower GPAs, GEAR UP students receiving these services graduated from high school at similar rates to

Cohort 1 students who did not receive these services (81 percent compared to 85 percent, though this was not statistically significant). This finding suggests that GEAR UP academic services provided important support to students who were struggling academically and who might not have graduated without these interventions.

“I was never an excellent student in high school...GEAR UP reached out to me and made me think about how I want to live my life…[The GEAR UP coordinator] motivated and encouraged me not to give up.”

– GEAR UP Student


College Readiness and Knowledge GEAR UP San Francisco supported students toward postsecondary success by providing a variety of services and programs designed to help students navigate their options after graduation. In particular, these services aimed to improve students’ knowledge of college and ensure they were prepared to enter and succeed in college. College readiness and knowledge are difficult traits to measure but several indicators suggest that GEAR UP helped improve college preparedness and provided important information to students and their families about applying to, getting into, and succeeding in college.

GEAR UP students were more likely to visit a college campus while in high school

Field trips and other events were the third most commonly received GEAR UP service. It is unsurprising, then, that a statistically higher percentage of GEAR UP Cohort 1 students reported that they had gone on a college visit during high school (82 percent of students in the first GEAR UP cohort compared to 74 percent of

the previous cohort).8 In particular, the percent of low-income and first generation college students going on a college visit significantly increased compared to their peers in the prior cohort (81 percent compared to 74 percent the prior year for both groups of students). Having the opportunity to visit a college campus and learn about college life and expectations may play an important role in the decision to attend college, particularly for students whose parents did not attend college or whose families do not otherwise have the means to visit college campuses.

8 As measured by self-reported data collected in the 2012 and 2013 SFUSD Senior Survey.

+ 82 percent of GEAR UP Cohort 1 students went on a college visit compared to 74 percent of the previous cohort.

+ Low-income and first generation college students went on college visits at higher rates than their peers the prior year.

Keys to Success

GEAR UP provided services and resources that students would not have had access to otherwise that supported academic success and improved awareness of postsecondary opportunities.

“I went on a college tour with [GEAR UP]…that was my first actual encounter with a college campus and college life and experience. It’s really different from what I thought it would be. It was a good first glimpse.”

–GEAR UP Student

GEAR UP worked with teachers to integrate college readiness into the classroom by developing college-related curriculum relevant to the course subject. For example, English teachers assigned personal statements and economics courses addressed college financing.

“We went into three classes…getting them to write a personal statement and then revising it and giving the teachers complete support. To be able to [use] three days of classroom time from a teacher is exceptional. That doesn’t generally happen often.”

–GEAR UP Coordinator


53%

28% 32%

52% 55%

22%

65%

38% 42%

63% 65%

35%

All Students African American Latino Low-income First GenerationCollege

English Learner

Exhibit 10: Percent of Students Taking the SAT

34%

Percentages in bold are statistically significant

Comparison Group GEAR UP Cohort 1

A higher percentage of GEAR UP students, traditionally underserved students in particular, took the SAT

Another important indicator that GEAR UP supported college readiness is the increase in the percentage of students taking the SAT (Exhibit 10). Cohort 1 students were significantly more likely to take the SAT than students in the comparison group (65 percent compared to 53 percent). In particular, SAT rates were statistically significant among the following groups of students:

Thirty-eight percent of African Americans in the first GEAR UP cohort took the SAT compared to 28 percent in the prior year;

Forty-two percent of Latinos in Cohort 1 took the SAT compared to 32 percent of Latinos the previous year;

Sixty-three percent of low-income Cohort 1 students took the SAT compared to 52 percent in the comparison group;

Sixty-five percent of first generation college Cohort 1 students took the SAT compared to 55 percent in the prior year.

Thirty-four percent of English learner GEAR UP students took the SAT versus 22 percent of students the previous year.

In addition, students with GPAs between 1.5 and 2.99—students just below the minimum required GPA for UC admission—increased their SAT rates

over seven percentage points between the two years (Exhibit 11).

These findings suggest that GEAR UP helped students who, in prior years might not have completed an important college prerequisite, accomplish one more important step to being four-year college eligible.

2%

25%

64%

86%

86%

3%

33%

71%

90%

94%

Exhibit 11: Percent of Students Taking the SAT by GPA



3.5-5.0

3.0-3.49

2.5-2.99

1.5-2.49

0.0-1.49


Postsecondary Enrollment The improved academics and increased college awareness and readiness discussed in the previous sections helped lay a critical foundation for GEAR UP’s goals of increasing the postsecondary enrollment rate and, ultimately, the postsecondary success of students. While it is too early to assess the postsecondary success of GEAR UP students, this analysis does compare postsecondary enrollment trends of the cohorts. This study examined the number of schools students applied to as well as the overall postsecondary enrollment and the enrollment type—two- and four-year college enrollment—of the first GEAR UP cohort and the comparison group.

GEAR UP helped increase the number of students who applied to multiple colleges

One of the important ways that GEAR UP supported students on their path to college was by providing students with thorough college guidance and application support. In fact, these types of counseling and advising services were the second most commonly used GEAR UP service. As reported in the senior survey, Cohort 1 students were statistically more likely to have applied to two

or more colleges (78 percent compared to 73 percent) than the comparison group. This suggests that GEAR UP coordinators encouraged students to apply to a greater variety of schools or to apply to schools they might not otherwise have considered to increase their admissions chances and postsecondary options. These findings were especially true for Latino (66 percent compared to 55 percent), low-income (79 percent compared to 71 percent), first generation college (79 percent compared to 73 percent), and English learner students (56 percent compared to 40 percent) who all reported applying to multiple colleges at higher rates than their peers in the comparison group. Students with GPAs between 1.5 and 2.49—either side of the 2.0 minimum usually required for

+ 78 percent of GEAR UP students applied to two or more colleges compared to 73 percent of the prior cohort.

+ Low-income, first generation college and English learners were more likely than their peers in the comparison group to apply to multiple colleges.

Keys to Success

GEAR UP encouraged students to consider college as a feasible option for their future by providing college-focused services early in and throughout high school providing pathways to opportunities students would have otherwise thought were impossible.

“I don’t think I would have even applied for college because at the beginning, I wasn’t aware of it. [The GEAR UP coordinator] helped me with my test scores and grades, and gave me that motivation, that push, and he was there, he stuck by me.”

–GEAR UP Student

GEAR UP helped students through the college application process during their critical senior year by providing support on personal statements, applications, and financial aid.

“[Without GEAR UP] I don’t think I would have gotten into UC Berkeley…[The GEAR UP coordinator] told me what [admissions] is looking for and helped me revise my personal statement.”

–GEAR UP Student


college admission—also applied to multiple colleges more frequently (53 vs 43 percent). In addition, slight increases in the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) submission rate at GEAR UP Schools (79 percent for the class of 2013 and 73 percent for the class of 2012) also suggest that more GEAR UP students viewed attending a four-year college as an attainable goal than students the prior year.

GEAR UP students enrolled in postsecondary education at higher rates than students in the comparison group

GEAR UP Cohort 1 students were statistically more likely to enroll in two- or four-year colleges than the cohort before them (60 percent compared to 56 percent). Latino students had statistically higher postsecondary enrollment rates than their peers the prior year (41 percent vs. 35 percent), as illustrated in Exhibit 12. Low-income and first generation college students also had slightly higher, but not statistically significant, postsecondary enrollment rates. This suggests that guidance and encouragement from GEAR UP coordinators contributed to improved postsecondary enrollment rates.

56%

37% 35%

56% 60%

33%

60%

38% 41%

58% 63%

32%


English Learner

Exhibit 12: Percent of Students Enrolling in Postsecondary




GEAR UP helped increase the percentage of students enrolling in four-year colleges directly after high school, particularly for traditionally underserved students

In addition to encouraging students to continue their education after graduation, GEAR UP helped students navigate the varied postsecondary options, complete college applications, and apply for scholarships and financial aid to make four-year college in particular more accessible. These efforts helped direct some students who might otherwise have attended two-year colleges

immediately after high school to four-year programs by demonstrating these schools were within reach. Among students who enrolled in a postsecondary institution, students in the first GEAR UP cohort were significantly more likely to enroll in a four-year college (rather than a two-year college) directly after high school than students the prior year (61 percent compared to 56 percent)9. As Exhibit 13 illustrates, the following students also experienced statistically higher four-year college enrollment rates: 9 Four-Year College attendance is calculated only from students who enrolled in a postsecondary institution.

Sixty-one percent of low-income students in the first GEAR UP cohort enrolled in a four-year college compared to 55 percent the prior year;

Sixty percent of first generation college students in the first GEAR UP cohort enrolled in a four-year college compared to 55 percent of the comparison group.

Forty-one percent of English learners in the first GEAR UP cohort enrolled in a four-year college compared to 25 percent of the comparison group.

Latinos also had higher, but not statistically significant, four-year college enrollment rates.

56%

36% 40%

55% 55%

25%

61%

36% 45%

61% 60%

41%


English Learner

Exhibit 13: Percent of Students Enrolling in a Four-Year College




School Outcomes In addition to improving academic, college knowledge, and postsecondary enrollment outcomes for students, GEAR UP contributed to lasting structural and cultural changes in the schools it served. Students, teachers, administrators, and coordinators who participated in interviews and focus groups discussed the changes that schools underwent while a part of the GEAR UP program.

GEAR UP supported and strengthened the college-going culture at schools

For schools with a well-established college-going culture, GEAR UP brought additional resources to strengthen and enhance student services. For schools where a college-going culture was less present, GEAR UP raised awareness among students and staff, delivered college-focused services, and elevated dialogue about college access. A counselor at one school explained, “[GEAR UP] supports the college-going atmosphere here. They are the backbone of promoting higher education.” Highlighting the central role GEAR UP activities and resources

played in creating a college-going culture, a counselor at another school commented,

“The College and Career Center, GEAR UP, Upward Bound…we are the hub of college-going culture. We spearhead a lot of the college access events that are happening on campus. We maintain bulletin boards, we go to the classrooms. I feel GEAR UP has been a huge part of changing, shifting the culture.”

At another site, supporting a college-going culture also meant assessing how courses offered at the high school support students on a pathway to postsecondary success. As a principal explained, GEAR UP “helped [the school] focus on what it

means to be college-ready and college-prepared.”

GEAR UP supported schools in promoting higher education through school-wide events and activities

In some schools, a college-going culture was cultivated through the institutionalization of GEAR UP activities and school-wide events to promote higher education and help students and families navigate the college application process. Events such as College Nights, which provided families with information on college and financing options, or FAFSA workshops, where students were guided through financial aid applications, were widely successful. One counselor commented, “I think that is what GEAR UP has instilled here –making everyone in the community work together to put on these events, to promote higher education and get students to think about what to do after high school.” Another counselor noted that GEAR UP had helped to increase the community’s expectations about the types and frequency of college-related events the school organized. These changing expectations reinforced their critical importance and helped institutionalize these college-related events at the school.

“I think [GEAR UP] has helped us to focus very deeply on what it means to be college ready…and have access. I think it has helped us think about what courses we are offering [to our students].”

—High School Principal


Programmatic Highlights GEAR UP offered a range of services to students including college tours and field trips, academic tutoring, SAT and ACT preparation courses, and workshops focused on financial aid and writing personal statements. As discussed in the preceding sections, GEAR UP’s mix of services provided well-rounded and thorough supports to improve academic and postsecondary outcomes for students and strengthen college-going culture at schools. These outcomes were possible due largely to GEAR UP coordinators and leadership successfully implementing the program at all schools. This section highlights a number of the most important coordinator and programmatic elements that enabled successful implementation of services and ultimately supported the effectiveness of the GEAR UP program.

Coordinators’ personalities and experience working with similar populations helped them connect with students

School staff and students all described GEAR UP coordinators as committed, knowledgeable, professional, respectful, and non-judgmental. They were also “very open” and “good collaborators”

with a calm demeanor–characteristics that were important for building relationships with teachers and students. Several students described GEAR UP coordinators as “role models” and many highlighted their dedication to helping students.

In addition to these personal characteristics, GEAR UP coordinators had skills and backgrounds that enabled them to do their jobs better. One college and career counselor described the value of coordinators prior experiences:

“[The coordinator’s] experience working with similar student populations as far as being low-income, first generation has benefited [the coordinator] a lot as far as building relationships…understanding the underlying or foundational issues that are affecting student performance and access to college.”

GEAR UP coordinators are credentialed and employed by the school district, giving them greater access and validity

As credentialed staff, GEAR UP coordinators had important teaching and/or counseling skills and experience working with youth. As SFUSD employees, GEAR UP coordinators had access to academic records necessary to monitor students’ progress and identify student needs. Most importantly, being credentialed and employed by SFUSD “provides validity” that GEAR UP coordinators needed to gain school-wide support. One coordinator explained,

“It is really important because that has a lot of validity in a lot of things we do on campus. It makes you part of the school team because you are from SFUSD. You’re not an outsider coming in. You are part of the inside. That has been extremely helpful.”

Additionally, as credentialed staff, coordinators could fill a variety of roles and needs on campus, such as collaborating with teachers to lead classes and advisories. Opportunities like these allowed

“[The GEAR UP] coordinator is awesome. [The coordinator] is able to connect with youth and establish those relationships with them…has a nice understanding with youth, is patient, and has a sense of humor. All of these things which I feel are really important for this type of work.”

—High School Counselor


direct access to students and a forum to promote college readiness and postsecondary success, furthering GEAR UP goals.

Dedicating a staff member to helping students graduate and attend college was essential to meeting GEAR UP goals

Having a point person who works with students, teachers, and administration to instill a college-going culture at the school was a critical aspect of GEAR UP. As coordinators described, this person is “held accountable for the college-going culture at the school” and is the “source of knowledge for students” for anything related to postsecondary opportunities. GEAR UP coordinators noted that this was “too much to ask a classroom teacher” and that counselors often had too much to do. Coordinators filled the role of the champion on campus—sustaining the college-going culture at

schools and helping students to access resources and explore viable postsecondary options.

GEAR UP was located on campus and accessible to students every day which improved visibility and integration

Unlike other organizations working with students toward similar college readiness and access goals, GEAR UP is situated on campus making for easier student access and broader outreach. Being on campus every day enabled coordinators to build relationships with students, as one GEAR UP coordinator commented, “It is the personal relationships that you build with them; they come here often during homeroom, lunch, and afterschool, and they know [us].”

Targeting individuals enabled GEAR UP to support the highest-need students

The one-on-one or small-group assistance that GEAR UP provided to some students was essential to moving the needle for them. GEAR UP coordinators worked closely with these students, providing higher levels of personalized assistance and following them along their path to high school graduation. They provided academic counseling, assisted with personal statements, helped develop resumes, and worked on college and financial aid applications. Many students cited this individualized support as the key element that helped them become college ready and navigate the college application processes.

One coordinator, for example, worked intensely with a small group of seniors, meeting with them weekly and recording progress reports for each student. The coordinator explained:

“There are a handful of seniors this year who have been on and off with me for the last three years…They have made gains and they are graduating, but [our contact] has been every year…[They] are my target group, [they] are on progress reports, and we have lunch [together]…There has been a lot of success that way.”

“There are a lot of college assistance programs out there to help kids…but the difference between [other programs] and GEAR UP is they are all off campus…GEAR UP on the other hand is on a high school site. I think their reach is much greater because they are on campus. Everybody can access it because it is during the school day. [Students] can stop by at lunch, after school, before school… that’s a critical piece of what sets GEAR UP apart from the other college assistance organizations.”

—Assistant Principal


Lessons Learned An important component to GEAR UP’s success was its ability to adapt to the schools it served, the shifting needs of students as they aged, and natural changes in staffing, among others. This section explores some of the important ways GEAR UP San Francisco made programmatic adjustments along the way to improve practice and better serve students.

GEAR UP leadership continually strengthened the program’s structure and aligned services with program objectives

As with many newly implemented programs, it took some time for GEAR UP San Francisco to fine tune the roles of coordinators and schools in achieving GEAR UP goals. Several coordinators commented that in the early years “it was not really clear about what you need to do [when you got to the school]…you needed to figure it out.” Similarly, in the beginning, school administrators sometimes asked coordinators to provide services that were outside the scope of the program.

In response to these challenges, the program developed a central leadership team that developed

core activities aligned with GEAR UP objectives and they collaborated with coordinators to develop and formalize grade-level work plans to help meet program goals. Leadership provided “important benchmarks” for coordinators to ensure that progress was being made toward goals in each year. These efforts helped clarify GEAR UP’s role and purpose while also allowing the program to be flexible as students aged and programmatic needs changed.

GEAR UP encouraged coordinators to take advantage of professional development opportunities and supported their ongoing learning

Professional development opportunities, such as GEAR UP national conferences and district-wide trainings, played an important role in building the capacity of GEAR UP staff to successfully implement the program. These opportunities helped coordinators stay on top of changing policies and integrate new strategies into their practice. In addition, GEAR UP leadership helped coordinators navigate unique circumstances at their schools. The experience described by one coordinator was common: “[GEAR UP leadership] are really supportive. If I have a question or if I

need something, I just email or send them a text and they respond.” Combined with more formal professional development, this individualized support helped ensure coordinators were equipped to support students and reach GEAR UP goals.

GEAR UP coordinators used existing school structures to collaborate with teachers and administrators

Integration into the school structure looked different across schools. For example, as a member of the 11th and 12th grade faculty teams, one GEAR UP coordinator met regularly with teachers to review student progress and needs. The coordinator reported that this was “a good way for me to get the pulse of what is going on with those grade levels.” At another school, the coordinator participated in Common Planning Time where

“They are a huge part of our faculty. They are like family. They are part of the landscape. I have to say I interact with the GEAR UP coordinator several times a week at least.”

—Assistant Principal


teachers discuss students and resources available. During this time, teachers also learned about GEAR UP resources and activities and referred students directly to the GEAR UP coordinator for individual assistance.

Though it looked different at each site, integration into school structure helped schools recognize GEAR UP’s importance, enabling coordinators to better collaborate with teachers and administrators, be part of student planning, and garner support for activities and resources. Aligning services with the college center or counseling department helped GEAR UP better integrate into schools

Being part of the counseling department facilitated integration into the school culture and collaboration between GEAR UP and school staff. In some schools, GEAR UP was housed in the

school’s college center with other community-based organizations allowing for better communication and sharing of resources. Collaboration with other college and career staff enabled the counseling center to increase its capacity to provide more individualized counseling and academic advising for students. Similarly, at some sites, the GEAR UP coordinators’ involvement in the college and career center ensured it remained open serving students every school day.

Strong relationships with a school’s counseling department similarly benefited program roll out and, ultimately, program effectiveness. Having “an extra person to reach out to students and families,” as one school counselor described, improved the outreach and efforts of school counseling departments.

“Because we’re in [the College Center] with other programs, we’re always communicating. We are always bouncing ideas off each other and it seems our knowledge base is really broad because if one person goes to a training, they are immediately there the next day to share everything they learned.”

—GEAR UP Coordinator


Challenges Like any program, GEAR UP faced hurdles and barriers along the way. This section outlines some of the contextual challenges that hindered implementation or influenced outcomes.

Large student populations made it difficult for GEAR UP coordinators to provide all students with the individualized support and guidance they needed

Though school-wide efforts and resources touched students nearly universally, several coordinators expressed concern about their ability to deeply impact all students. One coordinator shared, “it is a challenge to adequately cover the number of students with the resources we have. It’s hard for two people to take care of 445 [senior] students.” A GEAR UP coordinator expected to work with 300 students throughout the school year, articulated, “I couldn’t possibly address their success individually. That seems unrealistic.” Additionally, some GEAR UP coordinators expressed concern that with a large student target population, they were likely to reach students who were already “self-motivated” and less likely to reach students

who “really needed the help.” One coordinator explained,

“My door is always open and when kids take it upon themselves to see me, then it has been more successful. But then I feel I’m only serving kids that will put their foot through the door. It has been a challenge to get kids to show up and make sure the GEAR UP message is getting across to kids that need it the most.”

The pre-existing culture of some schools, at times, posed a challenge to GEAR UP implementation

School culture at GEAR UP schools varied from those focused on getting students to high school graduation to schools that place a heavy emphasis on college attendance. Coordinators reported that the existing culture of their school played a large role in supporting or hindering GEAR UP implementation. Where there was a strong college-going culture, there was often strong school-wide support for GEAR UP from the beginning. At these schools, administrators, teachers, and staff eagerly supported activities and resources that further promoted higher education. As a result,

GEAR UP coordinators were “building upon” existing programs and structures.

Conversely, at schools where the college-going culture was not as strong, coordinators were “building from the ground up.” In some cases, leadership did not promote college to students universally. This posed problems for GEAR UP coordinators. One high school counselor described the time and effort the GEAR UP coordinator and other staff spent getting the principal to understand the value of investing time and resources in creating a college-going culture. While this was important work, it meant reduced time and energy providing services to students directly.

Lack of coordination between GEAR UP and community-based organizations led to duplication of services at some sites

In some schools, GEAR UP found it challenging to coordinate and communicate with others on campus engaged in similar work. This lack of collaboration with other school groups, departments, and community based organizations (CBOs) sometimes led to a “frustrating” duplication of services when resources were limited. Coordinators recognized the need for better coordination between CBOs on campus, but


it was unclear what role GEAR UP should take in addressing this issue. Often, coordinators felt that it was not within GEAR UP’s purview to manage the CBOs on campus, and service duplication remained a concern.

Even with GEAR UP support, many students faced barriers that made academic success and college access difficult to attain

GEAR UP coordinators sometimes struggled to support students whose socioeconomic backgrounds or academic histories posed significant barriers to GEAR UP goals of increased graduation and college attendance rates. One coordinator reported that “there are a lot more working [students at this school] who need a lot more help” while at another site, there were “a lot of students that are struggling” academically. Determining the best way to support students with higher needs was often a challenge. One coordinator described the effort it took to support these students:

“We are doing a lot of credit recovery. It’s sitting down with each [student], analyzing their transcripts, figuring out a time that will work for them and where they can make up a

class that doesn’t interfere with their jobs and their family responsibilities.”

GEAR UP’s tiered approach to service delivery, discussed previously, certainly helped alleviate this issue to some degree but it remained difficult to serve all high-need students as intensely as they deserved.

GEAR UP coordinators encountered barriers reaching out to parents and engaging them in GEAR UP events and activities

In general, GEAR UP coordinators expressed difficulty engaging parents. One coordinator reported, “It’s really hard to do outreach to the parents. Although the parents that do come to campus know me and have come to me to ask questions…That’s good but it could be much better.” Lack of parent involvement in GEAR UP activities was due to a number of factors including language barriers, cultural differences, and the transient nature of some families. Most critically, GEAR UP lacked capacity to reach out to parents. Coordinators used, with varying degrees of success, emails to parents, autodial phone calls, and student incentives (e.g., offering extra credit) as strategies to increase family participation in

GEAR UP events and workshops. These efforts were time consuming and often yielded little result. One coordinator recalled, “We did everything short of calling every single parent to personally invite them—maybe that’s what it takes.”


Conclusion In its seven years, GEAR UP San Francisco supported two cohorts of students from middle school through high school, helping them navigate academic hurdles and prepare for success in higher education. Through a mix of services aimed at students and families, large groups and individuals, the highly motivated and the academically struggling, GEAR UP provided critical supports and guidance to over 3,600 students and their families annually and reinforced the college-going cultures of the schools it served.

GEAR UP services helped ensure that students were well-prepared for postsecondary success. Academically, they had higher GPAs, CAHSEE pass rates, and graduation rates than students the prior year. In addition, they went on more college visits, submitted more college and financial aid applications, and took the SAT in higher rates than the previous cohort. It is not surprising therefore that a larger percentage of both GEAR UP cohorts are now pursuing higher education—and attending four-year colleges, specifically—than students for whom these extra academic and college-readiness supports were not available.

With two cohorts completing high school and moving on to postsecondary institutions, it is important to reflect on the programmatic elements that made these outcomes possible. Schools, districts, and CBOs thinking of offering services to replace those that ended with GEAR UP should consider several key factors to ensure a positive link between services and student outcomes.

Early Intervention and Continuity: GEAR UP began serving many students as early as middle school and programs followed students year-after-year, providing sustained, ongoing support rather than a single point of intervention. Instilling high expectations early, bolstering the college-going culture of schools, and tracking students over time helped the program establish a strong foundation on which to build future work.

Tiered Service Delivery: Offering a thorough range of services to address a variety of student needs, GEAR UP struck an important balance between providing core services designed to improve short- and long-term outcomes for students and being flexible in response to its settings and the needs of those it served.

Collaboration and Independence: Embedded in schools and led by credentialed teachers and counselors, GEAR UP successfully operated within school settings but benefited from being afforded discretion in running its programs. This balance enabled coordinators to seek out opportunities to infuse their practices and goals in classrooms and to instill school philosophies in their own work while remaining exclusively focused on the goals of college-readiness and success.

Continued Improvement: Leadership took ongoing program improvement seriously by encouraging professional development opportunities and providing yearly goals and benchmarks. Student feedback loops ensured that services provided matched services needed and quantitative data provided insight into service utilization—including gaps and duplication—and allowed coordinators to seek out students in need.

These programmatic features helped support GEAR UP’s service delivery and were instrumental in ensuring successful implementation and ultimately led to improved outcomes for students and schools.


Addendum: GEAR UP’s Second Cohort At the time of writing the preceding report, GEAR UP San Francisco’s second cohort of students (the class of 2014) had not completed their final year of high school. Because many of the key outcome variables were not yet available for this group of students, the GEAR UP San Francisco Final Evaluation Report (May 2014) focused only on the characteristics and outcomes of GEAR UP’s first graduating class (“Cohort 1,” the class of 2013).

This addendum is a follow-up to last year’s report, presenting findings from an analysis of the characteristics and outcomes of GEAR UP San Francisco’s second cohort of students, now that most have graduated from high school and many have transitioned to postsecondary institutions. As with the original study, this analysis focuses on the top 90 percent of GEAR UP Cohort 2 service utilizers and compares the characteristics and outcomes of these 1,693 students to the original comparison group and to Cohort 1.10

10 While this study compares outcomes across all three cohorts, it primarily examines whether differences in outcomes were

GEAR UP Services The GEAR UP program—the types of services it offered and the way it delivered them—evolved over time and it is probable that GEAR UP’s second cohort benefited from receiving services

statistically different between Cohort 2 and the comparison or Cohort 1 and the comparison group. The analysis did not test whether differences between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 were statistically significant for any outcomes except service utilization. Statistically significant findings (p<.05) are presented in bold in exhibits.

that had been piloted with Cohort 1 and tweaked or improved in the second year of delivery. For example, in the later years GEAR UP implemented a targeting tool to help ensure students with more need received more services. This section compares how Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 accessed GEAR UP services throughout high school.

Service Utilization

Service utilization was fairly consistent across the two GEAR UP Cohorts. Students continued to receive workshop services at near-universal rates,

99% 95% 91%

73%

48%

29%

100% 98% 92%

67% 54%

28%

Workshops Counseling/Advising

Field Trip/ Event AcademicSupport

Family Event/Workshop

FamilyCounseling/

Advising

Exhibit 14: Percent of Cohort 1 and 2 Receiving Each GEAR UP Service Type

COHORT 1 COHORT 2Percentages in bold are statistically significant


followed most commonly by counseling and advising services, and field trips and other events (Exhibit 14). Notable differences included a decrease in the percentage of students in Cohort 2 who received academic support (67 percent versus 73 percent in Cohort 1), and an increase in the percentage of students whose families attended a workshop (54 percent compared to 48 percent in Cohort 1). Both of these differences were statistically significant. Family events or workshops, aimed at parents as well as students, helped families navigate college and financial aid applications. While parents remained fairly difficult to engage, over time, and particularly in the last years of implementation, GEAR UP increased its outreach efforts to parents which may be reflected in these slightly increased family participation rates for Cohort 2.

Overall, students in both cohorts also received similar amounts of services. Cohort 2 averaged about 29 hours of GEAR UP services throughout high school while Cohort 1 averaged 28 hours11 As illustrated in Exhibit 15, students in both cohorts received similar hours of counseling and advising

11 Includes academic support, workshops, and counseling; family events and field trips are reported as counts.

services (about five hours) and family counselling and advising (.4 hours for both cohorts). Both cohorts also attended an average of one family event or workshop. The two groups differed in their service dosage in the following statistically significant ways:

Cohort 1 received more academic support (5 hours compared to 3 hours in Cohort 2);

Cohort 2 received more workshops and presentations (20 hours compared to 17 hours in Cohort 1); Cohort 2 attended more field trips and other

events (3.7 events compared to 3.3 events in Cohort 1).

The two cohorts experienced slight variations in service receipt that likely reflect the changes and improvements GEAR UP staff made over time in how they targeted students and delivered services. Overall, however, the service patterns of Cohorts 1 and 2 highlight the program’s approach to serving students by providing information to large numbers of students through workshops and presentations and providing more targeted academic and counseling services to higher need students.

Student Demographics Overall, students in both GEAR UP cohorts had similar demographic characteristics to students in the comparison group. Students in all three cohorts had similar gender distributions, similarly high free and reduced price lunch rates, and received special education services at similar rates. Still, there were some notable—and statistically

5

3

5

5

17

20

0.4

0.4

Cohort 1

Cohort 2

Exhibit 15: Mean Hours of GEAR UP Service by Service Type

Academic Support Counseling/Advising

Workshops/Presentations

Family Counseling/Advising


significant—differences between the two GEAR UP cohorts and the comparison group including the following:

In each subsequent cohort, the percentage of Asian students was larger than the last (from 51 percent in the comparison group to 53 and 55 percent in Cohorts 1 and 2 respectively);

The percentage of students who were African American was lower in Cohort 2 (10 percent) than in the comparison group and Cohort 1 (13 percent in both);

Cohort 2 had the smallest percentage of students who would be first generation

college-going (73 percent compared to 89 percent in the comparison group and 75 percent in Cohort 1);

The percentage of each cohort classified as English learner was smaller in each subsequent cohort (from 18 percent in the comparison group to 12 percent in Cohort 1 and 11 percent in Cohort 2);

Students in all three cohorts groups were also similarly distributed across the eight GEAR UP schools which again suggests that all students in the study were exposed to comparable academic and school settings. Exhibit 16 illustrates some of

the key individual and family characteristics of students in the second GEAR UP cohort.

Student Outcomes The first year of this study found that Cohort 1 experienced better academic, college readiness and knowledge, and postsecondary enrollment outcomes than students who graduated a year earlier. The following section discusses how the outcomes of Cohort 2 compare to those of the comparison group as well as Cohort 1 in these three areas, paying particular attention to the outcomes of traditionally underserved populations of students.

81% Low-Income

73% First Generation

College

51% Male

55% Asian

23% Latino

11% English Learner

Exhibit 16: Demographic Characteristics Cohort 2


Academics and Graduation

High school academic success lays the foundation for postsecondary enrollment, persistence, and degree or certificate attainment. As in the first year, this study relied on three indicators to assess student academics: cumulative GPAs, CAHSEE pass rates, and graduation rates.

Cumulative GPA. Cohort 2 students had the highest average cumulative GPAs in each year of high school of any of the three cohorts (Exhibit 17). By the time they graduated, these students had a 2.80 GPA compared to a 2.78 among Cohort 1

students and a 2.59 among comparison group students. These higher GPAs translated to 48 percent of students in this cohort being UC eligible (having a GPA above a 3.0), compared to 46 percent of students in Cohort 1 and 39 percent of students in the comparison group.

CAHSEE Pass Rates. The second GEAR UP cohort had ELA and math CAHSEE pass rates similar to those of Cohort 1. Ninety-four percent of Cohort 2 passed the ELA portion of this exam, similar to the 93 percent of Cohort 1 and significantly higher than the 87 percent of the comparison group who passed. Likewise, Cohort 2’s 94 percent pass rate

for the math portion of the exam was similar to that of Cohort 1 (95 percent) and significantly higher than the comparison group (89 percent). On both portions of the exam, Latino students, low-income, and first generation college-going students all saw significantly higher pass rates than their peers in the comparison group and similar rates to those in Cohort 1.

Graduation Rates.12 At 85 percent, Cohort 2 had the highest graduation rate of the three cohorts and a rate that was nine percentage points higher

12 Graduation rates were calculated by dividing the number of graduates by the total number of students enrolled at any point in high school. This rate may be lower than the official graduation rates published by the district which takes into account nuances in enrollment using the four year cohort graduation rate.

2.54 2.54 2.56 2.59

2.71 2.74 2.76 2.78

2.75 2.81 2.80 2.80

2

2.5

3

9th 10th 11th 12th

Exhibit 17: Yearly Mean Cumulative GPA


+ 94 percent of Cohort 2 students passed the ELA and Math portions of the CAHSEE.

+ In the comparison group, 87 percent passed the ELA portion and 89 percent passed the math portion of the CAHSEE.


than that of the comparison group (76 percent). As illustrated in Exhibit 18, graduation rates were significantly higher in Cohort 1 than the comparison group among the following groups of students:

76 percent of Latino students in Cohort 2 graduated compared to 72 percent of Cohort 1 and 65 percent of the comparison group;

83 percent of low-income students in Cohort 2 graduated compared to 81 percent in Cohort 1 and 76 percent in the comparison group;

84 percent of first generation college-going students graduated compared to 83 percent of Cohort 1 and 79 percent of the comparison group.

These improvements in graduation rates and academic standing suggest that more students in the GEAR UP Cohorts, especially students in the second cohort and students who belong to traditionally underserved populations, were well-positioned to continue their studies and succeed academically upon leaving SFUSD.

College Readiness and Knowledge

The first year of this study examined two indicators suggestive of students’ college readiness and knowledge: the percentage of students who reported having visited a college campus and the percentage of students who had taken the SAT. For Cohort 2, due to concerns about the reliability of the SAT data, we are only able to examine college visit rates in this addendum.

College Visits. The percentage of students who reported that they had gone on a college visit remained steady between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 with 82 percent of students visiting a college campus while in high school. In the comparison group, 74 percent of students reported having gone on a college visit. In both GEAR UP cohorts, the most significant differences were reported among Latinos (88 percent compared to 81 percent in the

+ 82 percent of GEAR UP Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 students reported having gone on a college visit while in high school compared to 74 percent of students in the comparison group.

76%

58% 65%

76% 79%

53%

82%

67% 72% 81% 83%

55%

85%

65% 76%

83% 84%

58%


English Learner

Exhibit 18:Percent of Students Graduating




comparison group and 83 percent in Cohort 1), low-income students (81 percent in the GEAR UP cohorts compared to 74 percent in the comparison group), and first generation college-going students (81 and 82 percent of Cohort 1 and 2 respectively, compared to 73 percent of the comparison group). African Americans in Cohort 2 also had higher reported college visit rates than their peers in the comparison group, though these were not statistically significant (88 percent compared to 80 percent). These findings suggest that GEAR UP likely provided essential college visits to students

whose families otherwise may not have had the resources to visit colleges on their own.

Postsecondary Enrollment

Ultimately, GEAR UP services were designed to prepare students for postsecondary success. With the older GEAR UP cohort only in their second postsecondary year, it remains too early to measure the college success of GEAR UP participants. However, using student surveys and National Student Clearinghouse data, this study can

examine early postsecondary trends for the cohorts. In particular, it examines the number of postsecondary institutions students applied to, the overall postsecondary institution enrollment rates, and the four-year institution enrollment rate for each of the three cohorts.

Applying to Multiple Colleges. Students in the second GEAR UP cohort were significantly more likely to report that they had applied to multiple colleges than students in the comparison group (Exhibit 19). Eighty-two percent of Cohort 2 reported on the SFUSD senior survey that they had applied to two or more colleges compared to 73 percent of the comparison group and 78 percent of Cohort 1. The biggest gains in applying to multiple colleges were among traditionally underserved students:

70 percent of Latino Cohort 2 students compared to 66 percent in Cohort 1 and 55 percent in the comparison group;

82 percent of low-income Cohort 2 students versus 79 percent in Cohort 1 and 71 percent in the comparison group;

84 percent of first generation college-going students in Cohort 2 compared to 79 percent

73% 72%

55%

71% 73%

40%

78% 70% 66%

79% 79%

56%

82% 73% 70%

82% 84%

63%


English Learner

Exhibit 19: Students Applying to Two or More Colleges

Comparison Group GEAR UP Cohort 1 GEAR UP Cohort 2Percentages in bold are statistically significant


of Cohort 1 and 73 percent of the comparison group;

63 percent of English learner students in Cohort 2 compared to 56 percent of Cohort 1 and just 40 percent of the comparison group.

These increases suggest that GEAR UP’s targeted approach to service delivery helped increase awareness of the college application process and helped to provide application support to those students most in need.

Postsecondary Enrollment. As illustrated in Exhibit 20, GEAR UP’s second cohort had the highest postsecondary enrollment rate of any of the cohorts. The 64 percent of students enrolling in a postsecondary institution in the fall following graduation represents an eight percentage point increase over that of the comparison group in which just 56 percent enrolled in a postsecondary institution upon graduation. This is also higher than the 60 percent of Cohort 1 students who enrolled in a postsecondary institution. Among traditionally underserved populations, the biggest differences were among Latino students. Forty-seven percent of Latinos in Cohort 2 enrolled in postsecondary compared to 35 percent in the comparison group and 41 percent in Cohort 1.

Low-income students also saw significantly higher postsecondary enrollment rates compared to the previous cohorts (62 percent compared to 56 and 58 percent in the comparison group and Cohort 1, respectively).

Four-Year College Enrollment. In addition to overall postsecondary enrollment rates increasing, the percentage of students who enrolled directly in a four-year institution also increased in each year of the study (Exhibit 21). While only slightly more

than half of those students in the comparison group who enrolled in a postsecondary institution enrolled directly in a four-year program (56 percent), 63 percent of GEAR UP’s second cohort and 61 percent of its first cohort did.

The following traditionally underserved populations of students in Cohort 2 had especially large, statistically significant gains in four-year college enrollment rates over their comparison group counterparts:

56%

37% 35%

56% 60%

33%

60%

38% 41%

58% 63%

32%

64%

38% 47%

62% 63%

37%


English Learner

Exhibit 20:Percent of Students Enrolling in Postsecondary

Comparison Group GEAR UP Cohort 1 GEAR UP Cohort 2Percentages in bold are statistically significant


Low-income students in Cohort 2 were 10 percentage points more likely to enroll in postsecondary institutions than their comparison group peers (65 percent vs 55 percent) and slightly more likely than low income students in Cohort 1 (61 percent);

First generation college going students in the second GEAR UP cohort were more likely than either the first cohort or the comparison group to attend a four-year college (63 percent compared to 60 and 55 percent, respectively);

The percentage of English learners attending four-year colleges more than doubled from 25 percent in the comparison group to 61 percent in Cohort 2. This was also a significant increase from the 41 percent in Cohort 1 who attended four-year colleges (though these results should be interpreted with caution because of the small number of English learners in this group).

African American students in Cohort 2 also saw higher (but not statistically significant) four-year college enrollment rates (45 percent) than their comparison group and Cohort 1 counterparts (36 percent of African Americans in each of those cohorts attended a four year college).

56%

36% 40%

55% 55%

25%

61%

36% 45%

61% 60%

41%

63%

45% 45%

65% 63% 61%


English Learner

Exhibit 21: Percent of Students Enrolling in Four-Year Colleges




Conclusion The analysis of GEAR UP’s second cohort of students provides valuable support for the findings reported in 2014. While still demographically similar to the previous cohorts, Cohort 2 students continued the upward trajectory of positive academic and college readiness outcomes first displayed by Cohort 1. In fact, in many instances, students in Cohort 2 not only out performed students in the comparison group on these outcomes but also their peers in Cohort 1. Key findings for Cohort 2 include:

Its graduation rate was nine points higher than that of the comparison group and 3 points higher than Cohort 1 (among Latino students, it was 11 points higher in Cohort 2 than in the comparison group);

Its postsecondary enrollment rate was eight points higher than the comparison group and four points higher than Cohort 1 (among Latino students it was 12 points higher in Cohort 2 than in the comparison group);

Its four-year college enrollment rate was seven points higher than the comparison group and two points higher than Cohort 1 (it

was also nine points higher among African-Americans; 10 points higher among low-income students, and 36 points higher among English learners in Cohort 2 than in the comparison group).

This analysis supports findings from the first cohort that GEAR UP helped influence the academic and postsecondary trajectories of students who received services. The additional gains experienced by the second cohort also suggest that as the program became more established it was more effective in supporting students through high school and as they prepared and transitioned into life after high school. The findings also suggest that GEAR UP may have contributed to broader college-going school cultures that were also better-able to prepare Cohort 2 students for postsecondary success.


Exhibit 22: Years of Administrative Data by Cohort

Comparison Group: Class of 2012

GU Cohort 1: Class of 2013

GU Cohort 2: Class of 2014

9th Grade 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 10th Grade 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 11th Grade 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 12th Grade 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total Students

2,371 1,714 1,693

Appendix: Quantitative Methods

Defining the Comparison Group and GEAR UP Cohorts

This analysis looked at three cohorts of students who attended one of the eight GEAR UP high schools for at least one year, including students who attended another SFUSD school or an out-of-district school before or after attending a GEAR UP school. Students who were retained or who repeated a grade were considered part of the older cohort (for example, a student who appeared in the data as a sophomore in both 2009-10 and 2010-11 was presumed to have been retained and included in the comparison group cohort). In some cases a student’s likely cohort could not be determined and these students were omitted from the analysis. Based on these criteria alone, the comparison group—the class of 2012—consisted of 2,371 students. The first GEAR UP cohort was comprised of 1,926 students and the second cohort was comprised of 1,889 students.

Initial analysis of outcomes using this definition of the first GEAR UP cohort highlighted similar—

but not always statistically significant—findings to those presented in this report: students in the first GEAR UP cohort, particularly traditionally underserved students, tended to have better academic, college-knowledge, and postsecondary outcomes than their peers in the previous cohort. Further analysis revealed that these trends continued when the defined GEAR UP cohort was restricted slightly to students receiving a minimum threshold of services. In fact, because GEAR UP achieved near universal reach, only 10 percent of the class of 2013 received fewer than six service hours throughout high school. In order to ensure, therefore, that this analysis truly compared students who received GEAR UP services to those who did not, the first GEAR UP cohort is defined as the 1,714 students above the minimum six GEAR UP service hour

threshold for inclusion. 13

Data Sources

This analysis relied on identifiable student-level data from several key sources: SFUSD administrative data, GEAR UP service data, National Student Clearinghouse data (provided by SFUSD), district senior surveys, and GEAR UP student and parent surveys. In addition, aggregate school-level data was obtained through the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California Student Aid Commission (CSAC).

SFUSD provided Harder+Company with six years of individually identifiable school administrative data for students attending GEAR UP high schools in the years and grade levels illustrated in Exhibit

22. In addition to data on student grade level, school, and class, this analysis primarily relied on the following SFUSD data:

Demographics: gender, ethnicity, parent education, and free or reduced price lunch status;

Academics: GPA, CAHSEE, English proficiency, special education, graduation, SAT scores.

13 In Cohort 2, the threshold was more than 7 service hours.


In addition, SFUSD supplied matched student records from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) verifying postsecondary enrollment of comparison group and GEAR UP cohort students. These data included the type of institution (two-year, four-year, etc.) along with its name and location. This analysis used students’ first recorded postsecondary enrollment information from NSC data from the year following graduation. For example, postsecondary data for the comparison group reflects 2012 NSC data and data for the comparison group reflects 2013 NSC data.

GEAR UP leadership also provided Harder+Company with school-level financial aid application data for Cohort 1. Financial aid application rates were calculated using school enrollment data available from the CDE14 and application data provided by CSAC.

Finally, this report also relied on data collected through the SFUSD Senior Survey and a GEAR UP student survey. The SFUSD Senior Survey was developed by the district and is administered to all district seniors, though it is not required. The survey addresses college-preparatory activities students engaged in during high school and their 14 http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/

postsecondary plans. The response rate for these self-reported data among students in this study was 67 percent for the comparison group and 65 percent for the first GEAR UP cohort. The GEAR UP survey was administered to all GEAR UP students and asked additional questions about high school experiences and postsecondary plans as well as for feedback on GEAR UP services and coordinators. This survey was not administered to the comparison group.

Data Analysis

Harder+Company used the statistical analysis software SPSS to clean, match, merge, and analyze data. After matching data from these various sources to individual students, the data were extensively cleaned and checked for errors and a set of derived variables were constructed for use in the subsequent analysis. All demographic and outcome data were then analyzed descriptively, producing frequencies and means. Following the descriptive analyses, a series of statistical tests were conducted to test the correlation between GEAR UP services (i.e., treatment and control group) and demographics and outcomes. Similar analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between certain disaggregated populations of interest and

outcomes across the cohorts. Analysis of the correlations between demographic characteristics and particular GEAR UP service receipt was also conducted. Depending on the level of measurement, these analyses employed either contingency table analyses using the chi-square statistic, or a comparison of group means using either t-tests or Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

Limitations

Most evaluation designs have inherent limitations in the extent to which the results can be interpreted to indicate program effectiveness. The design of this study has several key strengths including the comparison of a similar cohort of students at the same schools who did not receive GEAR UP services, the tracking of a group of students across time, and the multiple years of individually identifiable data across a variety of data sources. However, there are also a number of limitations of the study design, described below. These limitations should be taken into account when considering the findings and their implications.

Complicated school enrollment or grade progression patterns for some students resulted in extensive missing data or


indecipherable cohort designation. As a result, students with these traits, who were likely some of the district’s most transient or high-need students, were excluded from the analysis. GEAR UP’s influence on these populations, therefore, remains unclear.

The majority of data used in this analysis were secondary data collected by other entities. As a result, the analysis was limited to measuring only those demographic characteristics and outcomes that could be supported with existing data. Unmeasured traits like motivation likely also played a role in student outcomes and GEAR UP participation. Likewise, GEAR UP may have influenced students’ academic and postsecondary trajectories in ways these data sources could not measure.

SFUSD experienced some important local and state policy changes during the seven years GEAR UP was administered. These include the establishment of Frisco Day—providing students with the opportunity to visit local colleges—in 2010; SFUSD’s adoption of new graduation requirements aligned with college entrance requirements beginning with the class of 2014; and the passage of Assembly Bills

130 and 131 increasing financial eligibility for many students, among others. It is likely that these changes affected some of the student outcomes discussed here, and may have affected students in the comparison group and GEAR UP cohorts differently as new policies were introduced or as policy implementation improved over time. It is important to consider, therefore, that while students in the class of 2012 had similar school and academic opportunities to students in the GEAR UP cohorts making them a good comparison group, some of these policy changes may also help explain differences between the groups.

As explained above, the analysis described in this report focuses on the 1,714 students in the first GEAR UP cohort who received at least six hours of GEAR UP services throughout high school (and at least seven hours of services in Cohort 2). This was done in order to ensure that GEAR UP cohorts defined in this analysis truly received the “treatment” and could be compared to the non-treatment comparison group. Findings using this definition of the first GEAR UP cohort were similar to those conducted with more inclusive definitions of the cohort. Still, it is important to note that

this definition likely introduced some selection bias into the analysis and while the overall trends in outcomes remain the same, some caution should be used in measuring the size of the difference in means between groups.

Primary data, including senior and parent survey data and service data records, rely on self-reported information from respondents. Items asking respondents to remember events that occurred in the past may be subject to poor memory or selective recall bias, i.e., recalling more favorable events. In addition, though the surveys were confidential, there may have been an element of “social desirability” or “response” bias. This occurs when respondents are concerned about what the research or others present will think about their responses. Respondents may report what they think they should say rather than being completely candid about their opinions. In addition, with GEAR UP service records, though definitions were provided for the various service types and categories, these may have been used differently by different coordinators and at different schools.

Harder+Company Community Research is a comprehensive social research and planning firm with offices in San Francisco, Davis, San Diego, and Los Angeles, California. Harder+Company’s mission is to help our clients achieve social impact through quality research, strategy, and organizational development services. Since 1986, we have assisted foundations, government agencies, and nonprofits throughout California and the country in using good information to make good decisions for their future. Our success rests on providing services that contribute to positive social impact in the lives of vulnerable people and communities.

Date post:	13-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	brian-risi
View:	29 times
Download:	4 times

GEAR UP Final Report UPDATE 4 13 15

Documents