The document describes a multi-sector collaborative effort in Central Texas led by the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce to increase college enrollment and career readiness rates through data-driven research and policy changes. It outlines the collective impact approach taken and successes of the Student Futures Project in providing data that has informed improvements to programs and policies. Key lessons learned include the importance of continuous engagement between researchers and practitioners and maintaining relationships and research capacity over time.

1. Putting Research into Action for Student,
School and System Success
Christopher T. King
The University of Texas at Austin
Ohio Education Research Center Conference
Columbus, OH
June 28, 2012

2. Outline
Background
Central Texas: A Multifaceted, Multi-sector
Effort
Collective (or Individual) Impact?
Student Futures Project: Research in Action
Successes
Lessons Learned

3. Our Story Begins
A school board member, a chamber VP, a
nonprofit director and an academic walk into
a bar ...
Each is concerned about problems facing the
education system in Central Texas.
Timely data about the situation and how best
to address it are difficult to access, of
dubious quality, and in short supply.

4. Background
Closing the Gaps reports (2000, 2004) cite the
challenge of changing demographics: rising %
Hispanic, first-gen students with much lower college-
going rates.
2004 Market Street Report highlights growing shortage
of college-educated talent as problem for Austin v.
other ‘benchmark’ cities/regions.
2004-2005, Greater Austin Chamber (GAC) asks UT’s
Ray Marshall Center (RMC) for help with data access
and use, forms task force to address talent shortage.
2007, Texas creates 3 Education Research Centers
(ERCs). RMC partners with UT-Dallas and others.

5. Collective Impact?
Five (5) conditions—
• Common Agenda
• Shared Measurement
• Mutually Reinforcing Activities
• Continuous Communication
• Backbone Support
Does GAC’s Central Texas Initiative qualify?
Source: Hanleybrown, Kania & Kramer, “Channeling Change: Making
Collective Impact Work,” Stanford Social Innovation Review (2012)

6. Common Agenda
Shared vision for change with common understanding of the
problem and joint approach to solving it.
Goals
• To increase the direct-
to-college enrollment
rate to 62% in 2010,
and to 70% in 2015.
• To increase college
and career-readiness
rates (added later).

7. Backbone Support
Separate organization with staff and specialized skills serving as
‘backbone support’ for the effort and coordinating participating
organizations.
Greater Austin Chamber (GAC) has:
• Played a vital, visible, respected role in educational
policy, programming and systems change.
• Raised funds via Opportunity Austin and advocated for
bond elections.
• Staff highly skilled and experienced in education at all
levels, and expertise in policy advocacy and coordination
of complex, multi-faceted efforts.
• Pressed for accountability at all levels, serving as a
‘critical friend’.

8. Mutually Reinforcing
Activities
Activities differentiated but coordinated through a mutually
reinforcing plan of action.
• Proactive college and career-readiness counseling
(ISDs, campuses)
• Tutoring to bring students up to college/career standards
(nonprofits)
• Financial Aid Saturdays (GAC, TG, ISDs, volunteers)
• Early College Connection (Austin Community College)
• Data collection & analysis (Student Futures Project of
the RMC, some ISDs)
• Lobbying for policy and systems change (GAC)

9. Continuous Communication
Consistent, open communication building trust, assuring mutual
objectives and creating common motivation.
• Monthly College Readiness and Enrollment Support
Team (CREST) meetings, chaired by ISD counselor
with reps from ISDs, campuses, colleges, non- and for-
profits.
• Periodic Financial Aid Task Force meetings.
• Real-time FAFSA and Common Application reports.
• Regular ISD and community briefings, including
reports from the Student Futures Project.

10. Shared Measurement
Collect data and measure results consistently across actors to
ensure efforts are aligned and actors are accountable.
• Student Futures Project collects and analyzes data over
time.
• In addition to real-time FAFSA and Common App
reports, Chamber produces periodic ISD and college
progress reports.
• Monthly CREST meetings convened by GAC serve as
key neutral venues for presenting and discussing results
and their implications for policies and programs.
Student Futures Project and its role …

11. Our Story Continues
The school board member, Chamber VP and nonprofit
director convince the academic to:
• Identify and assess best practices for data
collection, analysis and performance management
• Design an approach to meet Central Texas’ needs
The 2004-2005 LBJ School study led to the launch of
the Central Texas Student Futures Project, which
began with a 4 ISD pilot in Spring 2005.

12. Research Questions
 What are graduating seniors’ high school
experiences, plans and preparation for life after
high school?
 What share of high school graduates enroll in
postsecondary education, become employed,
or do both in the fall after graduation?
 What share of graduates are enrolled and/or
employed over time?
 Which factors are significantly associated with
positive postsecondary education and
employment outcomes?
 How do outcomes change over time for cohorts of
graduates and selected populations groups?
Reports can be found at: www.centexstudentfutures.org

13. Data Sources
Historical Senior Surveys
School Records  Family background/
 Student demographics influences
 Courses taken  High school experiences
 Course grades  Preparation for life after
high school
Postsecondary
Education Records Employment Records
 National Student  Texas Unemployment
Insurance (UI) wage records
Clearinghouse
 Texas Education Research
Center records

14. Student Futures Successes
SFP research has informed and contributed to policy
and practice improvements since mid-2000s. For
example:
• Data on 2- and 4-year, in- and out-of-state college
enrollments and labor market outcomes
• ‘Aspiration gap’ and strategies for addressing it
• Role of financial aid processes and uncertainty
• Understanding cumulative effects of key activities
on college-going and variation by student subgroup
• Describing and understanding varying college,
training, career & other pathways (underway via
WDQI & ERC)

15. Composition of Graduates
(2007 Districts)
Shares of Hispanic and low-income graduates gradually increasing.
Class Class Class
of of of
2007 2008 2009
Totals 9,410 10,452 10,793
Ethnicity
Asian 6% 6% 6%
Black 11% 12% 12%
Hispanic 29% 31% 32%
White 52% 52% 48%
Gender
Female 48% 50% 50%
Male 50% 50% 50%
Family Income Status
Low-income 21% 23% 26%
Not Low-income 73% 73% 70%
Special Education Status
Special Education 9% 9% 9%
Not Special Education 85% 87% 87%

16. Postsecondary Enrollment of
Central Texas Graduates in Fall
Following Graduation
by College Type, Ethnicity and Income Status
2007 2008 2009*
2-Year 4-Year 2-Year 4-Year 2-Year 4-Year
Enrolled Graduates (%) 22% 40% 22% 39% 23% 38%
Ethnicity
Asian 21% 57% 20% 63% 17% 64%
Black 23% 35% 22% 33% 26% 36%
Hispanic 22% 22% 23% 22% 25% 23%
White 23% 49% 22% 49% 23% 46%
Income Status
Low-income 21% 19% 20% 19% 24% 21%
Not low-income 23% 47% 23% 47% 24% 46%
Unknown 21% 12% 21% 12% 19% 5%
* Overall demoninator includes 100 students who lacked enough information to link to NSC
records; 61% reflects the best possible rate using NSC and THECB data.

17. Regional, State, and National
Postsecondary Enrollment
Outcomes
75%
70%
70% 69% 68% 68%
67%
66%
65%
62% 62%
61% 61% 61%
60%
57%
55%
54% 54%
53%
50% 52%
50% 51%
45%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
TX Enrollment (In-State, THECB) Central Texas Enrollment (NSC)
National Enrollment (BLS)

18. Percent of 2009 Graduates Enrolled in
Fall 2009, by College Type and District
(N=11,993)
80%
72%
70%
60%
50%
44%
41%
40% 38%
36% 35%
30% 28%
30% 27% 27%
23% 23% 22% 22% 25% 23% 24%
18% 19% 20%
20% 15% 15%
10%
0%
2-Year 4-Year

19. Percent of 2009 Graduates Enrolled
in Fall 2009, by Location and District
(N=11,993)
80%
70%
61% 60%
60% 57% 57%
54%
52% 52%
50%
40% 39% 39% 39%
40%
30%
30%
20%
10% 7% 7% 7% 8%
3% 3% 4% 4%
1% 2%
0%
In-State Out-of-State

20. Employment Status, Graduation to Fall 2011
Five Quarters Post High School
70%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0.61313156 0.628103134 0.552161532 0.539831686 54%
60%
50%
40%
2006
2007
2008
30%
2009
2010
20% 2011
10%
0%

21. Median Wages, Graduation to Fall 2011
Fall After of High School Graduation
2007 2008 2009 2010
$6,000
$2,064 $1,913 $1,737 $1,842
$5,000
$4,000
2006
$3,000 2007
2008
2009
$2,000 2010
2011
$1,000
$0

22. College Enrollment Aspiration
Gap
100%
Aspiration Gap
80% 89% 91% 91% 91% 91%
82% Want to go to college but
face barriers, some of
60% them financial
Subset of these students
40% might be considered
62% 61% “low-hanging fruit”
61% 61% 62%
57% A little help might go a
20%
long way to increasing
regional DTC rates.
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
College Intention (Survey) College Enrollment (NSC)

23. College Enrollment
Aspiration Gap, 2006 through 2011
100%
80% 89% 91% 91% 91% 91%
82%
60%
40%
57% 62% 61% 61% 61% 62%
20%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
College Intention (Survey) College Enrollment (NSC)

24. Participation in College
Preparation Activities,
2006 through 2011
100%
80% 89% 91%
24% Points
81%
77%
60% 67% 70%
55% 56% 58% 18% Points
40% 51%
46%
40%
20%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
FAFSA Submission College Entrance Test

25. Senior Survey Recent Trends
Plans for Postsecondary Enrollment
100% 91% 91% 91%
86% 88% 88% 88%
82% 81%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Overall Hispanic Low-Income
2008 2009 2010
Primary Reason for Not Choosing Postsecondary Enrollment
40%
36% 36%
31% 29% 32%
30%
24% 23%
20% 16% 18%
14% 12%
11%
10% 7% 6% 6%
0%
Financial Academic Personal Personal Other
preference obligation
2008 2009 2010

26. Senior Survey Recent Trends
Primary Reason for Not Submitting FAFSA
50%
40% 39%
40%
30%
22% 22% 22% 22%
20%
11% 10%
10% 5% 7%
0%
Do not Parents Probably Don't Don't
need aid not won't know plan
willing qualify process to enroll
2009 2010

27. Predicted Cumulative Effects on College
Enrollment
Baseline Enrollment Cumulative Effect Enrollment
-65% Overall 4% 3%
-48% Hispanic 6% 6% 5%
-45% Low Income 6% 4% 3% 3% 3%
-49% First Generation 10% 8% 5% 4% 3%
-81% Top Quartile 6%
-70% Second Quartile 6% 3% 3%
-60% Third Quartile 6% 5%
-39% Last Quartile 6% 5% 3%
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20%
Met w/Counselor about College Completed FAFSA Plan to Pay for College Using Loans
Took SAT/ACT Prep. Course Participated in College Fair Considered Financial Aid Easy

28. Lessons Learned
Establishing a robust data-driven approach to shaping
policies and programs is time-consuming and complex.
Turnover will occur among leaders, supervisors,
operating staff, counselors and others. Trusting
relationships must be continually rebuilt.
A continuous improvement, learning process is
preferred to more traditional accountability ones.
Posing the right questions and getting the right
answers are two very different things. The latter may
not be as susceptible to scheduling as the former.
Ongoing researcher/practitioner engagement, top-to-
bottom, is critical, in part to ensure researchers
understand data that practitioners are providing.

29. Lessons …
Be mindful of unintended consequences; they are
inevitable on both sides. (See “The Importance of
Trusting Relationships”)
Despite recent progress, FERPA may still be a 4-letter
word. Data access can be fragile.
Engaging non-education, non-researcher
stakeholders—especially business and civic leaders—
is difficult and time consuming, but it pays large
dividends over time.
Maintaining research capacity based within colleges or
universities is valuable and lends additional credibility
to educational improvement efforts.

30. Our Story Isn’t Over Yet
The school board member, Chamber VP and nonprofit
director and the academic are still working together,
now joined by an ever wider circle of partners and
stakeholders.
The Student Futures Project has grown to 12 ISDs,
surveys 85% of seniors in the 4-county region and
has 50,000+ students in its longitudinal database.
Other areas interested in replicating the GAC/SFP
model.
The Texas ERC now allows survey and job training
data to be uploaded and linked to education and
employment records. ERCs are being rebid at
present, though state support is lacking.

31. For More Information
Christopher T. King, Director
Ray Marshall Center
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs
The University of Texas at Austin
ctking@raymarshallcenter.org
512.471.2186
www.centexstudentfutures.org
www.raymarshallcenter.org