community briefing - New Haven Promise

Progress of New Haven
School Change and New
Haven Promise (2010-2013)
Gabriella C. Gonzalez
RAND Corporation
[email protected]
March 24, 2015
Sweeping Education Reforms Launched in
New Haven in 2009 and 2010
Goals •  Eliminate the achievement gap between NHPS and CT averages •  Improve the high school gradua=on rate and cut the dropout rate •  Make sure every student is academically prepared and financially able to go to college Structure: Improvements are organized into three pillars •  School organiza=on and learning environment •  Teaching and professional development •  Community engagement Sweeping Education Reforms Launched in
New Haven in 2009 and 2010
Goals •  Cul=vate an aspira=on for a college educa=on in New Haven Public School students •  Build community and parent engagement •  Promote economic development in the City of New Haven Structure: Scholars must meet eligibility requirements •  Provides up to $10,000 a year toward tui=on for an in-­‐state college •  Class of 2014 was first to be eligible for 100% of available funds The New Haven Promise Board asked RAND
to Examine Progress to Date
•  Gathers baseline informa.on –  Where students and district are at this early stage –  Can make comparisons later –  Understand whether efforts are moving in right direc=on •  Too early to tell whether reforms have succeeded –  Implementa=on is ongoing •  School Change (2010 through 2015) •  Promise (2010 through 2014) •  Difficult to pinpoint which effort is causing a specific improvement –  By design, overlapping efforts work collec=vely We are grateful for generous funding from the
Peter and Carmen Lucia Buck Foundation
The RAND Study Serves as a Critical First
Step in Documenting the Reforms’ Progress
School and district climate Reading and math test scores High school Promise drop out rates eligibility and college prepara.on School Change Goals Promise Goals College enrollment rates And Sets the Stage for Deeper Analysis
at a Later Date
School and district climate Reading and math test scores High school Promise drop out rates eligibility and college prepara.on Trends through >me •  NHPS before vs. aTer the incep=on of reforms •  NHPS trends vs. a group of similar CT districts Any differences by a school’s… • 
• 
• 
• 
Tier? TEVAL score? Student body characteris=cs? Teachers’ characteris=cs? College enrollment rates A Variety of Data Sources Provided a
Balanced and Broad Portrait
School and district climate School Learning Environment survey (Spring 2010-­‐2013) Discussions with 35 Promise Scholars and 21 parents of Scholars (Fall 2013) Reading and math test scores CT and NHPS scores on CMT and CAPT High school Promise drop out rates eligibility and college prepara.on CT and NHPS drop out data NHPS data on aQendance, grades, and discipline record Discussions with 35 Promise Scholars College enrollment rates Na.onal Student Clearinghouse School and district climate Reports of School Climate Were
Positive
On average, through >me, scores on student and teacher SLE: •  Remained rela=vely high (3.4 to 4.2 on a scale of 1 to 5) •  Were posi=vely related to a school’s average TEVAL score •  Improved from 2010 to 2011, then did not change aTerwards •  Tier I schools con=nued to have higher SLE scores than =er III schools But District and School Engagement
was Reportedly Lacking
•  Parents would like a more ac=ve role in district decision-­‐making and a deeper connec=on with schools 8
Reading and math test scores Student Achievement Scores
Gained Slightly, Especially for
Schools Deemed Most in Need
(Tier III)
On average CAPT and CMT scores: •  Increased, similar to CT schools and districts with comparable sociodemographic and academic profiles as New Haven •  Significantly improved from 2010 to 2013 for students in =er III schools •  Students in =er III schools had the largest gains But Scores Remain Below State
Averages
9
High school drop out rates Drop Out Rates Improved,
Especially for Schools Deemed
Most in Need (Tier III)
On average: •  Students who started high school in 9th grade and dropped out in 10th grade improved from 9% (2008-­‐09) to 3% (2011-­‐12) •  Schools with the greatest improvements were more likely to be =er III and have larger percentages of lower-­‐income students 10
Note: Does not include data on residency or hours of community service Percentage of NHPS graduates
Meeting Three Promise Eligibility
Criteria is Higher After
Implementation of Promise
110
Transforming an Urban School System
Figure 5.3
Percentage of Graduates Meeting Promise Eligibility Requirements,
Pre-Promise Cohort Versus Post-Promise Cohorts
100
Percentage of seniors meeting
Promise eligibility standards
Promise eligibility and college prepara.on 90
Pre-Promise (2009–10 cohort)
80
Post-Promise (cohort noted)
70
60
50
40
30
26%
30%
26%
31%
36%
28%
20
10
0
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
SOURCE: NHPS.
RAND RR777-5.3
senior-year data were used to determine eligibility for the 2012–2013
Class oInf 2essence,
010: Pthis
rior means
to the Promise, only 28% would cohort.
that
requirements
were
more
challenging for more-recent
have met graduates.
the 2012-­‐13 eligibility criteria 11
Promise eligibility and college prepara.on met each of these Promise eligibility requirements. More than 80 percent of graduates had been continuously enrolled in NHPS schools
throughout high school, and two-thirds of graduates met attendance
requirements. All graduates met the requirement of having no expulsions because, by definition, they would not have been able to graduate
from high school had they been expelled. However, fewer than onehalf of all graduates met the requirement for a GPA of 3.0 for sophomore- through senior-year courses. Overall, only 36 percent of students
But, in 2013, Only 36% of NHPS
Graduates Met Three of Five
Eligibility Requirements For a
Promise Scholarship
Figure 5.2
Percentage of 2013 Graduates Meeting Promise Eligibility Requirements
Does not include data on residency or hours of community service 100
Percentage of graduates meeting
Promise requirements
Note: 90
80
81%
68%
70
60
50
44%
40
36%
30
20
10
0
Continuously
enrolled
90% attendance
or higher
GPS of 3.0
or higher
Met all three
requirements
SOURCE: NHPS.
RAND RR777-5.2
12
Promise eligibility and college prepara.on Promise Scholars Did Not Feel
Adequately Prepared for Rigors of
College
Especially in skills research links to academic performance in college : •  Content knowledge •  Time management •  Self discipline and study skills 13
College Enrollment Rates Slightly
Increased, for Students Both Eligible
and Ineligible for Promise
Figure 5.4
College Enrollment Rates, by Promise Eligibility Status
100
Percentage of graduates immediately
enrolling in college
College enrollment rates increased after the implementation of Promise and School Change for
students who were eligible for Promise as well as for students who were
not eligible for Promise. The difference-in-difference analysis indicates
that there was no difference in post-Promise college enrollment changes
by Promise eligibility status.4 This suggests that, while college enroll-
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
All students
20
Students who met Promise requirements
Students who did not meet Promise requirements
10
0
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
SOURCE: NHPS and National Student Clearinghouse.
RAND RR777-5.4
4
We tested the robustness of this finding by reestimating the difference-in-difference
model using a subset of the sample whose GPAs ranged from 2.5 to 3.5. In restricting the
range, we more closely tested the potential effect of Promise on those most affected by its
14
College enrollment rates Promise Funding Reportedly
Expanded Post-secondary Options
Promise Scholars and parents of Scholars noted that the Promise supported decisions to: •  A`end a 4-­‐year rather than 2-­‐year ins=tu=on •  A`end an in-­‐state rather than out-­‐of-­‐state ins=tu=on •  Live on campus rather than at home And is helping to: •  Save money for graduate school •  Ensure families not incur debt 15
College enrollment rates Promise Funding Reportedly
Expanded Post-secondary Options
“the program enhances the feeling of community and gives hope to future genera=ons for a college-­‐going culture.”
-­‐ Promise Scholar “Promise made my expecta=ons for my child real because I did not have the financial resources… (nor the ability) to qualify for loans.” -­‐ Parent of Promise Scholar “Among minori=es . . . there isn’t a college-­‐going culture. . . . It was more of a mo=va=onal factor for me. . . . This is an opportunity that I can take. It was probably the final discrimina=ng factor because I was deciding whether or not I was going to college or not.” -­‐ Promise Scholar “It was nice to see that an interest is being taken in the community. New Haven, in general, I feel like, there’s this change, like [from] this separate, isola=onist … that’s changing to a more community-­‐building thing …. steps are being taken to change that, to have a more college-­‐going culture.” -­‐Promise Scholar 16
This Preliminary Analysis Suggests that
Critical Challenges Remain…
Reading and math test scores High school Promise College School and drop out rates eligibility and enrollment district college rates climate prepara.on Graduates of NHPS high schools struggle to meet requirements for a Promise Parents would Test scores s.ll remain low and scholarship like to be below state averages more engaged Promise Scholars do not feel adequately prepared for rigors of college …Yet Students are Making Progress on Key
Indicators
School and district climate Generally posi.ve Reading and math test scores High school Promise drop out rates eligibility and college prepara.on College enrollment rates College enrollment rates have Schools that were targeted for increased improvement by School Change have made steady and College-­‐going aUtudes are significant progress being prompted Promise funding appears to be opening up opportuni.es For More
Information
www.rand.org