Increasing Graduation Rates at Community Colleges

Last week, MDRC released a report on the evaluation of the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs or ASAP as it is known.  The program nearly doubled the three-year graduation rates of community college students who started in remedial classes.  This is impressive given that graduation rates of community college students are extremely low.  According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, only 20% of the students who enter public community colleges complete a certificate or associate degree in three years (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cva.asp).

ASAP is a comprehensive, long-term program designed to increase the success and ultimately the graduation rates of community college students.  The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), was created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies.  It is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization dedicated to learning what works to improve programs and policies that affect the poor (http://www.mdrc.org/about/about-mdrc-history).

ASAP was created by the City University of New York (CUNY) system office and implemented in 2007 with funding from the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity at Borough of Manhattan Community College, Kingsborough Community College, and LaGuardia Community College.  In 2009 CUNY system leaders approached MDRC about evaluating the program and they accepted. 

The program has four major components that provide structure and support for up to three years and is designed to address multiple potential barriers to student success in community colleges.  First, the program requires students to attend college full-time, are encouraged to take developmental courses early, and to graduate within three years.  This is important because it sets high standards by issuing requirements, and it sends the right message about getting done on time if not earlier.  Second, it has a student services component, which requires students to receive comprehensive advisement from an ASAP-dedicated adviser with a small caseload. Students also receive career information from an ASAP-dedicated career and employment services staff member, and extensive tutoring from ASAP-dedicated staff.  The third component requires students to enroll in blocked or linked courses in their first year. The blocked courses consist of two or more courses grouped together with seats reserved for ASAP students.  Students are also required to enroll in an ASAP seminar during their first few semesters covering topics such as setting goals and study skills. The fourth has a financial support component where students receive a tuition waiver that covers any gaps between financial aid and college tuition and fees. Students also receive free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent on participation in key program services, and free use of textbooks.

According to the report, the ASAP program costs $16,300 per student, which is 63% more than what CUNY spent per student on usual college services.  The report goes on to assert that the cost was actually lower because ASAP generated so many more graduates over the three-year follow-up period than did the usual college services. 

In the study, MDRC used a random assignment research design to evaluate the impact of ASAP intervention strategies on students’ academic outcomes over a three-year study period compared to students who received the usual services and courses at the colleges. The study targeted students who met the following eligibility criteria at the point of random assignment: had family income below 200% of the federal poverty level or were eligible for a Pell Grant (or both); needed one or two developmental courses to build math, reading, or writing skills; had previously earned 12 credits or fewer; were New York City residents; were willing to attend college full time; and were in an ASAP eligible major (http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/doubling_graduation_rates_es.pdf).  Eligible students who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to either the program group (typically called the experimental group), students who had the opportunity to receive the intervention strategies or services offered by ASAP, or to the control group, students who received the usual college services with no intervention strategies or special services.

The sample consisted of 896 students who completed a Baseline Information Form (BIF) to determine if they met the eligibility criteria listed above. Roughly two-thirds of the students in the research sample were women and most were relatively young.  Seventy-seven percent (77%) were 22 years of age or younger when they entered the study.  The study sample was racially diverse and reflected the collective student body at the three community colleges, which no racial majority. The majority of students sampled lived with their parents, were unmarried, and did not have children. 

The results of the study suggest that 40% of students in the ASAP program graduated in three years compared to 22% in the control group or those students receiving no intervention strategies.  Additionally, ASAP students completed an average of 48 credit hours compared to 39 credit hours by the control group.  Finally, 25% of the ASAP students enrolled in a four-year university compared to 17% in the control group. 

A detailed, in depth analysis of the services offered by ASAP provides revealing information that could explain why students in the program were found to be more successful.  ASAP students were required to enroll full-time, take remedial courses early, and strongly encouraged to graduate in three years.  ASAP students were advised by an academic advisor with a student-advisor load of 60:1 or 80:1, 95% of these students met on average 38 times with their advisors in the first year.  Compared to non-ASAP students who had advisors with a student-advisor load of 600:1 and 1500:1, 80% of those students met on average six times.  With regard to tutoring, 74% of ASAP students received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of 24 times during first year.  Compared to non-ASAP, 39% of those students who received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of seven times in the same period. Eighty percent (80%) of ASAP students met on average of nine times with career and employment services staff during the first year compared to 29% of non-ASAP students who met on average two times with career and employment services staff during first year

While blocked or linked courses were offered to ASAP students, few took a complete block of courses; however, most of these students took an ASAP seminar course for three semesters compared to non-ASAP students whose block course enrollment was not tracked and some of these students took a freshman seminar or student success course in their first year.  Finally, 3% to 11% of the ASAP students received tuition waivers, all ASAP students received free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent upon participating in ASAP and all ASAP student received free use of textbooks.  None of these services were provided to non-ASAP students. 

Two-tailed t-tests were conducted on the percent of ASAP students enrolled each semester over the three-year period compared to non-ASAP student enrollments and the differences were statistically significant in the first two years, but not in the third year.  This is essentially a statistical test to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental group (ASAP students) versus the control group (non-ASAP students) T-tests were also conducted on the differences between the percent of students who graduated in the ASAP group versus the non-ASAP group, credit hours earned between the two groups, and the percent of student who went on to a four-year college after three years in the community college and each was highly statistically significant.  However, recall that two-thirds of the students in the sample were women, which could account for a higher success rates.  Numerous research studies, including my own research, have demonstrated that women tend to do better in college than men.  Also, additional higher order statistical analyses such as predictive statistics, like regression analysis, were not employed.  It would have been informative to understand, via regression analysis, if there is a casual relationship between the intervention strategies and student outcomes. In other words, did the ASAP services cause students to be more successful in the community colleges?  However, it should be pointed out that social science research is not perfect. 

It makes sense that with this much attention paid and the large number of support services offered to ASAP students, it is only logical that these students would do better and thus succeed at higher rates compared to typical community college students.  My own experiences in developing student recruitment and retention programs, provides further evidence that programs which offer these many services and pay this much attention to students do, in fact, increase student success.  Early in my career, I developed a student support program with many of the same intervention strategies offered in the ASAP program and other strategies such as shadow courses. I didn’t include blocked courses initially; although, in later programs I developed and did experiment with blocked courses.  I offered scholarships from money I had raised and used it with other forms of financial aid to provide a free college education to the participants.  However, participants had to participate in all of the services offered by the program in order to receive the scholarship.  Students were monitored weekly and scholarship money was distributed monthly, based on participation in the program.  Student success in the program increased dramatically.

These results are also consistent with the prevailing theory on college student retention.  In 1975, Dr. Vincent Tinto posited the landmark theory of student integration, commonly known as the student integration model.  Dr. Tinto’s theory of student integration was the basis for thousands of studies and became the most widely studied and empirically tested theory in higher education.  While these studies attacked and supported the student integration model, over time Dr. Tinto revised his theory several times.  Essentially, Dr. Tinto theorized that if college students integrate academically and socially they will tend to stay in college, be successful and graduate.  Conversely, if students don’t “connect” academically and socially with the college or university they tend to drop out. 

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (February 26, 2015), ASAP has gained nationwide attention.  Donna Linderman, who oversees the ASAP program at CUNY, said her office had been "bombarded with requests for information from all over the country." The good news is that CUNY and MDRC are working to replicate the program in other parts of the country, starting with three two-year colleges in Ohio.  All states should take heed and provide the money to replicate this program in a small sample of community colleges. If the program works, then it should be implemented at all community colleges.  Nearly half of all college students are enrolled in community colleges, 50% are Hispanic, 31% are African American and 44% are low-income, according to the Community College Research Center (http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-College-FAQs.html).  Imagine the positive impact that doubling the graduation rates of community college students would have on our country and the impact it would have on the lives of minority, low-income community college students. 

A Free College Education

At the State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama announced a proposal to provide free college to everyone.  Free education at a community college that is, not at a four-year college or university.  His proposal is being called the free college plan and his idea is to make two years of college "as free and universal in America as high school is today", (Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 21, 2015).

Since the beginning of his administration, President Obama has been a big proponent of community colleges.  In 2009, he proposed in his budget $12 Billion for community colleges, but Congress approved only $2 Billion.  The following year, he proposed the infusion of $5 Billion to modernize community colleges through his American Jobs Act, which did not pass.  In his fiscal year 2013 budget, he proposed $8 Billion for a proposal entitled “Community College to Career Fund," which would provide money to community colleges and states to form partnerships with businesses to train an estimated two million workers in high-growth and in-demand areas.  Congress did not approve it and the President again included it again in his 2014 budget, but yet again it didn’t get congressional approval.

President Obama believes that community colleges have done a great job of educating American Citizens.  He points to significant enrollment growth in community colleges in spite of the recent recession and massive cuts to community college budgets.

Moreover, it’s important to note that community colleges educate 44 percent of all the undergraduates enrolled in higher education, including 52 percent of all Hispanic students and 44 percent of all African-Americans. The community colleges also enroll the highest percentages of low-income students with far fewer resources than other types of institutions. For example, on a per-student basis, community colleges' educational and general expenditures are less than half those at public research institutions, (Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 14, 2011)

The President’s free college plan calls for the federal government to pay for about three-quarters of students’ tuition costs and for the states to pick up the rest.  In order to receive free tuition, a student would have to be enrolled at least half-time, maintain a 2.5 grade-point-average or better, and make satisfactory progress toward a degree.  However, the plan isn’t cheap, its estimated price tag is approximately $60 Billion over a ten-year period.  Additionally, if enacted, it would save full-time students an average of $3,800 in tuition per year and impact over nine million students.  Republicans in Congress have already dismissed the idea.

One interesting issue to point out is that missing from the President’s speech this year was his previous tough talk on the high costs of college, which he has included in his past addresses to Congress. The President also didn’t mention his college-ratings plan.  In both 2012 and in 2013, President Obama took colleges to task over rising costs, putting them "on notice" that the government would not continue to subsidize the persistent increases in tuition.

Free higher education is not a new concept.  According to Wikipedia, forty-four countries provide a free college or university education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_education).  So why should the richest country in the world not provide a free system of higher education?  A good place to start would be at the community colleges and provide a free education for the first two years.  President Obama should be praised for his proposal for a free college plan. 

However, I expect that his proposal will face stiff opposition by the Republic controlled Congress.  Nevertheless, let’s hope and pray that Republicans will see the light and approve this important initiative.  Or maybe the American people can place enough pressure on the Republicans to support and pass the legislation behind the plan.  After all, don’t you think our citizens deserve a free education?  We provide a free education from kindergarten to twelfth grade.  Why not a free college education?