The document summarizes research on the College Ambition Program (CAP), an intervention to increase post-secondary enrollment among underrepresented groups. CAP provides tutoring, mentoring, course advising, financial aid planning, and college visits at high schools. Analysis of CAP participants found higher college enrollment and STEM interest compared to non-participants. The research design uses treatment and matched control schools, showing increases in 2-year and 4-year college enrollment over time with CAP expansion. The program highlights the importance of personal interactions for changing student behaviors and plans regarding college.

1. Providing Opportunities
for Post-Secondary
Education Among Under-
Represented Groups
Barbara Schneider
Michigan State University
March 17-18, 2016

2. • The Problem
• The Solution
• The Evidence
• What this means for Chile

3. The Problem
The proportion of low income and
minority groups is underrepresented
in colleges and universities.
The problem is global.

6. 303.9 1,155.8 661.1
50.9
64.7
80.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Low income (<20%) Middle income (20-
80%)
High income (>80%)
Percentage
Number(Thousands)
Number Enrolled in College (Thousands)
Percent Enrolled in College
SOURCE: American College Testing Program, unpublished tabulations, derived from Census data.
College Attendance by Family Income (2012)

7. What Are The Solutions?
How Can We Fix This?

8. Ambitious Generation
What was learned?
• Students unaligned –
education and work goals
are inconsistent
Aligned students:
• Have coherent life plans
• Are realistic about their
futures

9. Conceptual Plan
• consult with near-
age mentors
• visit colleges
visualize oneself
as a college
student
transform
interest into
realistic
actions
• choose realistic
colleges
create strategic
plans
• complete FAFSA
• find scholarships
• support fall
enrollment

10. The College Ambition Program
• CAP is an intervention with a staggered rollout
• Began with two treatment and two control high schools in 2010
• Thirteen in 2013-2014

11. CAP Description
• CAP Center open to all students
• CAP coordinates with school counseling staff and teachers
• Staffed by a site coordinator
• Offers: (1) tutoring and mentoring; (2) course-counseling and advising; (3)
financial aid planning; and (4) college visits

12. How CAP is Different?
• Whole school design
• Public high schools
• Includes rural schools
• Built on relationships
• Highlights STEM college programs
• Scale-up potential

13. CAP Site Coordinators

14. Measures and Materials

15. Sample
• Treatment criteria - lower than
state average college enrollment
rates
• Identified with state
administrative data, census
data, and data from the
Common Core of Data
• Each treatment school matched
with five control schools using
propensity score matching
techniques

16. School Matching Criteria
Postsecondary enrollment rates, school size, census
designation, poverty rate, and racial/ethnic diversity

17. Participants
• Urban schools serve a racially diverse population of students; while rural
schools serve a predominately white student population
• Sizes vary from around 700 to 1,200 students for the urban sites and between
300 and 600 students at the rural schools
• Schools serve a majority of economically disadvantaged students, with 70
percent of their students eligible for free and reduced lunch
• All treatment schools have a substantial number of students who would be the
first in their family to go to college

18. 2014-2015 Treatment and Comparison
School Descriptive Characteristics
4-Year
College
Going
Rates
2-Year
College
Going
Rates
Graduatio
n Rate
Dropout
Rate
% Free
and
Reduced
%
Minority
School
Size
Urban
Treatment
(n=9) 18 % 44 % 69 % 24 % 68 % 89 % 862
Comparison
(n=45) 31 % 39 % 66 % 22 % 73 % 80 % 637
Rural
Treatment
(n=4) 34 % 39 % 90 % 6 % 32 % 5 % 462
Comparison
(n=20) 38 % 43 % 91 % 5 % 40 % 8 % 477
SOURCE: Michigan Department of Education, 2015

19. Research Design
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-15
Treatment
Schools
2 4 7 13 13
Matched
Comparison
s
10 20 35 65 65
Total
Schools
12 24 42 78 78
Power analysis using Optimal Design Plus (Spybrook et al. 2011) shows that for 2012-
2013, a total of 42 schools put us close to 90% power and that in 2013-2014, we will
exceed 90%.

20. Preliminary Analysis
12th Grade CAP Participants vs. Non-participants in Treatment Schools 2014-2015
CAP Participants Non-Participants Difference
12th Graders in 2015 (N=1024) 41% 59%
Attend a 4-year College 42% 39% 3%
Attend a 2-year Institution 39% 34% 5%
Interest in a STEM Major 27% 17% 10%**
SOURCE: NSC data, 2015 CAP Exit Survey, Mentor Contact Logs
*p<.10, **p<.05

21. Any College Enrollment Treatment vs. Control Schools

22. Two Year College Enrollment Treatment vs. Control Schools

23. Research Take-Aways
• Schools are dynamic places that are changing
• Partnerships are key for research in schools
• Changing student behaviors/and plans depends
on personal interaction with a trusted
knowledgeable individual
• College interventions should be low-cost and
designed to be scaleable

24. Personal Take-Aways
• Continue in the face of disappointment
• In a crowded field be sure what you are
pursuing has a unique feature
• Replication is indeed important but the key to
replication is variation
• Pursue ideas that you are passionate about

25. Pictures of Staff
This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant #s 0929635, DRL-1255807, DRL-1316702, NIH Grant
# 1R01GM102637-01, the Michigan Department of Education, and a Pre-Doctoral Training Grant from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education Award # R305B090011. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.

26. Pictures of CAP Participants
Sophia Bozzo
Michigan State University
Majoring in Food Science
Zahna Woodson
Alma College
Majoring in Communications,
Minor in Cultural Studies
Michael Rogers
Michigan State University
Majoring in Food Science
Nate Hall
University of Michigan
Double majoring in Economics
and Informatics
Kenny Heindel
University of Michigan
Science of Information

27. Thank you
Barbara Schneider
bschneid@msu.edu

28. Related Work on Postsecondary Enrollment
Tutoring/Mentoring/
Coaching
Course Counseling Financial Aid College Visits
Avery & Christopher (2009)
Bergin, Cooks, & Bergin (2007)
Byndloss (2013)
Carroll & Sacerdote (2012)
Castleman, Arnold, & Wartman
(2012)
Castleman & Page (2013)
Castleman & Page (2014)
Domina (2009)
Hill & Winston (2010)
Hoxby & Avery (2012)
Hoxby & Turner (2013)
Jackson (2012)
Long & Boatman (2013)
Roderick, Nagoka, Coca, & Moeller
(2008)
Sabates, Harris & Staff (2011)
Sherwin (2012)
Smith (2013)
Smith & Howell (2011)
Smith, Pender, & Howell (2012)
Adelman (2006)
Allensworth, Nomi, Montgomery
& Lee (2008)
Avery (2010)
Bettinger & Baker (2011)
Conley (2005)
Constantine, Seftor, Sama
Martin, Silva, & Myers (2006)
Farmer-Hinton & McCullough
(2008)
Hargrove, Godin, & Dodd (2008)
Hurwitz & Howell (2013)
Perna, Rowan-Kenyon, Thomas,
& Bell (2008)
Riegle-Crumb, Farkas, & Muller
(2006)
Riegle-Crumb, King, Grodsky,
Muller (2012)
Seftor, Mamun, & Schrim (2009)
Stephan & Rosenbaum (2013)
Avery & Hoxby (2003, 2004)
Avery, Hoxby, Jackson, Burek,
Pope, Raman (2006)
Bettinger, Long, Oreopoulos, &
Sanbonmatsu (2012)
Cohodes & Goodman (2013)
De La Rosa (2006)
Dynarski & Scott-Clayton (2013)
Dynarski & Wiederspan (2012)
Fryer, Jr. (2010)
Grodsky & Jones (2004)
Goldrick-Rab, Harris, Kelchen, &
Benson (2012)
Harris (2013)
Heller (2006)
Horn, Chen, & Chapman (2003)
Jackson (2010)
Kane (2003)
McDonough & Calderone (2006)
Pallais & Turner (2006)
Scott-Clayton (2012)
Engle, Bermeo,& O’Brien (2006)
Gandara (2004)
Hill (2008)
Holland (2011)
Klein & Washburn (2012)
Myers, Olsen, Seftor, Young, &
Tuttle (2004)
Rocca (2013)
Roderick, Coca, & Nagaoka (2011)