Achievement and
Opportunity in America:
Where are we? What more can we
do?
University of Texas Arlington
5 April 2016
Arlington, TX
Copyright 2016 The Education Trust
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
America: Two Powerful Stories
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
1. Land of Opportunity:
Work hard, and you can become
anything you want to be.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
2. Generational Advancement:
Through hard work, each generation of
parents can assure a better life — and
better education — for their children.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
These stories animated hopes and dreams of
people here at home
And drew countless immigrants to our shores
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Yes, America was often intolerant…
And they knew the “Dream” was a work in progress.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
We were:
•
•
•
•
The first to provide universal high school;
The first to build public universities;
The first to build community colleges;
The first to broaden access to college, through GI Bill, Pell Grants,
…
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Percent of U.S. adults with a high school diploma
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
2012
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Percent of U.S. adults with a B.A. or more
2012
2000
1980
1960
1940
1920
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Progress was painfully slow, especially for people
of color. But year by year, decade by decade…
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Percent of U.S. adults with a high school diploma, by race
1940
1920
2000
1980
1960
2012
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Percent of U.S. adults with a B.A. or more, by race
1920
2012
2000
1980
1960
1940
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Then, beginning in the eighties,
growing economic inequality
started eating away at our
progress.
2016THE
THEEDUCATION
EDUCATIONTRUST
TRUST
©©2016
In recent years, most income gains have
gone to those at the top of the ladder, while
those at the bottom have fallen backwards.
Source: Stiglitz, “Inequality is a Choice,” New York Times, October 13, 2013.
2016THE
THEEDUCATION
EDUCATIONTRUST
TRUST
©©2016
Wealthiest US households take greater share of
income, while poorest 20% fall backwards
Share of Aggregate Income Received by
Households
60%
51%
Lowest
20%
Percent of Income
44%
40%
22%
20% 17%
4%
3%
0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements,
Table H-2. Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Households, All
Races: 1967 to 2014.
2016THE
THEEDUCATION
EDUCATIONTRUST
TRUST
©©2016
Instead of being the most equal, the U.S. has the third
highest income inequality among OECD nations.
United States
Chile
Mexico
United States
Israel
Turkey
Italy
United…
Estonia
Poland
Spain
Ireland
Greece
Switzerland
Belgium
Canada
Slovenia
Netherlands
Hungary
Austria
Germany
Finland
Norway
Slovakia
Sweden
Gini coefficient
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Note: Gini coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates total income equality and 1 indicates total income inequality
Source: United Nations, UN Data 2013, http://data.un.org/DocumentData.aspx?q=income+inequality&id=365
2016THE
THEEDUCATION
EDUCATIONTRUST
TRUST
©©2016
Inequality particularly pronounced for Black
and Latino families…
2016THE
THEEDUCATION
EDUCATIONTRUST
TRUST
©©2016
Blacks and Latino families have lower earnings…
Median Family Income by Race, 2014
$82,732
$76,658
$43,151
$45,114
Black
Hispanic
White
Asian
The College Board, “Trends in College Pricing 2015” (New York: College Board, 2015), Figure 22B.
18
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
…And less than one-tenth of the household wealth.
Median net worth of households, in
2013 dollars $141,900
$11,000
$13,700
Black
Hispanic
White
19
Pew Research Center tabulations of Survey of Consumer Finances public-use data.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Not just inequality in wages and wealth, but
growing problems with social mobility, as
well.
2016THE
THEEDUCATION
EDUCATIONTRUST
TRUST
©©2016
U.S. intergenerational mobility was improving until 1980, but
barriers have gotten higher since.
The falling elasticity meant increased economic mobility until
Earnings Elasticity
0.6
0.4
0.58
0.2
0.46
0.4
0.35
0.34
0.33
1950
1960
1970
1980
0
1990
2000
Source: Daniel Aaronson and Bhashkar Mazumder. Intergenerational Economic Mobility in the U.S.,1940 to 2000. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago WP 200512: Dec. 2005.
2016
THE EDUCATION
TRUST
© 2016 ©
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
The US now has one of lowest rates of
intergenerational mobility
Earnings Elasticity
0.6
Cross-country examples of the link between father and son wages
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.48
0.47
0.41
0.4
0.32
0.27
0.26
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.15
0
Source:
Source: Corak, Miles. Chasing the Same Dream, Climbing Different Ladders. Economic Mobility Project; Pew
Charitable Trusts, 2010.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
At macro level, better and more equal education is not
the only answer.
But at the individual level, it really is.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College Grads Earn More
Taxes Paid
Median Earnings ($)
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$-
$102,200
$91,000
$20,300 $23,400
$70,000
$14,800
$11,400
$8,600$56,500
$70,700 $78,800
$6,400 $7,500$44,800
$55,200
$4,100
$45,100
$40,400
$21,000 $29,000 $32,900 $36,200
$25,100
$35,400
Education Level
Source: College Board, Education Pays, 2013, Figure 1.1: Median Earnings and Tax Payments of Full-Time Year-Round Workers Ages 25 and
Older, by Education Level, 2011
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College Grads Less Likely to be Unemployed
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Unemployment Rate (August 2011)
14.3%
9.6%
8.2%
4.3%
Less than
high school
diploma
High school Some college
graduate or associate's
degree
Bachelor's
degree or
higher
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-4, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04htm
©©
2016
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
2016
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
They also stand out on the other things
we value.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College graduates more likely to
vote
100%
80%
Percent of US Citizens Aged 18-24 Who Voted
in the 2012 Presidential Election by Education
Level
60%
60%
40%
50%
23%
29%
20%
0%
Less than high High
school
Some
school/GED
college/associate's
Bachelor'sdegree
degree or higher
Note: Data include both those who are and are not registered to vote.
Source: Education Pays 2013, The College Board
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College graduates more likely to
volunteer
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Percent of Adults 25 and Over Who
Volunteered in 2012 by Education
Level
9%
Less than
high school
17%
29%
42%
High school Some college Bachelor's
or associate's degree or
degree
higher
Note: Data represent percentage of total population that reported volunteering from September 2008 to September 2009
Source: Education Pays 2013, The College Board
2016THE
THEEDUCATION
EDUCATIONTRUST
TRUST
©©2016
College Grads of all races far more likely to be in “Very
Good” or “Excellent” Health
73.3
80
60
40
56.4
59.2
59
29.4
27.3
30.6
15.9
20
0
Black
Latino
High School Dropout
Source:
American
Indian
White
College Graduate
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission for a Healthier America, 2009
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College Grads Even Have Better Mental
Health
100%
Percentage of respondents reporting themselves to
be in excellent mental health
80%
60%
40%
37%
45%
54%
60%
20%
0%
High school or less
Some college
Bachelor's degree Advanced degree
Source: Gallup, “Strong Relationship Between Income and Mental Health” (2007)
2016THE
THEEDUCATION
EDUCATIONTRUST
TRUST
©©2016
What schools and colleges do, in other words, is
hugely important to our economy, our democracy,
and our society.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
So, how are we doing?
©©
2016
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
2016
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
Over past 30 years, we’ve made
a lot of progress on the access
side.
n/a
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Immediate College-Going Up
Percentage of High School
Graduates Enrolled in
College the Fall After
Graduation
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
0.0%
Note: Percent of high school completers who were enrolled in 2-year or 4-year college the October after completing high
school
Source: NCES, The Digest of Education Statistics 2013 (Table 302.10).
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College-going is up for all
groups.
NCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-3) and The Condition of Education 2011 (Table A21-2).
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Immediate College-Going Increasing for All
Racial/Ethnic Groups: 1972 to 2012
Percentage of High School
Graduates Enrolled in
College the Fall After
Graduation
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
African American
Latino
White
Note: Percent of high school completers who were enrolled in college the October after completing high school
Source: NCES, The Digest of Education Statistics 2013 (Table 302.20).
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College-Going Generally Increasing
for All Income Groups
Percentage of High School
Graduates Enrolled in
College the Fall After
Graduation
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Low-Income
High-Income
Note: Percent of high school completers who were enrolled in college the October after completing high school
Source: NCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-1) and The Digest of Education Statistics 2013 (Table
302.30).
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But though college going up for lowincome students…
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Low-Income Students Today Still Not Reaching the Collegegoing Rate for High-Income Students
in 1972…
Percentage of high school graduates
immediately enrolling in college, 197282%
2012
64%
52%
1972
2012
23%
Low Income
High Income
Note: Data for black, Hispanic, and low-income represent two-year moving average because of small sample sizes.
Source: NCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-1) and The Digest of Education Statistics 2013 (Table 302.30)
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But access isn’t the only issue:
There’s a question of access to what…
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Low-Income Students and Students of Color Twice as Likely to
Enter For-profit Colleges
Asian
White
Black
Hispanic
American Indian
Pell recipient
Non-Pell recipient
5
7
18
12
10
20
8
0%
For Profit
Private 4-Year
38
36
43
40
39
45
44
35
38
20%
40%
Public 2-Year
Other
30
31
33
32
37
60%
14 1
16 1
13 1
12 1
10 2
13 1
16 1
80%
100%
Public 4-Year
Ed Trust analysis of IPEDS Fall enrollment, Fall 2012 (by race) and IPEDS Student Financial Aid survey, 201112 (by Pell recipient status).
41
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Access to what?
For-profit college companies
 11% of enrollments
 24% of Pell Grants and
federal student loan dollars
 Lowest degree completion rates of
any 4-year sector
 48% of federal student
loan defaults
IPEDS Enrollment Fall 2011 First Look (December 2012); Majority staff calculation of data provided by
U.S. Department of Education, 2008-09 in “Emerging Risk?: An Overview of Growth, Spending, Student
Debt and Unanswered Questions in For-Profit Higher Education.” Senate HELP Committee. 24 June
2010 (page 4); and Ed Trust analysis of FY 2009 data in “Institutional Default Rate Comparison of FY
2007, 2008, and 2009 Cohort Default Rates.” http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d114.pdf (page 8)
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
And what about graduation in colleges more generally?
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Black, Latino, and American Indian Freshmen Complete
College at Lower Rates Than Other Students
Graduation Rates (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
6 -year bachelor’s completion rates for first-time, full-time freshmen,
Fall 2008 cohort at 4-year institutions
Overall rate:
71%
63%
41%
White
Black
54%
Latino
Source: NCES (December 2015). Graduation Rates for Selected Cohorts, 2006-11; Student Financial
Aid, Academic Year 2013-14; and Admissions in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2014. First Look
(Provisional Data)
41%
Asian
American
Indian
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Graduation rates at
public community colleges
Graduation Rates (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3 - year completion rates (associate degrees and certificates)
for first-time, full-time freshmen,
Fall 2009 cohort at public two-year institutions
24%
White
13%
18%
Black
Latino
Overall rate:
21.2%
28%
18%
Asian
Source: NCES (Dec. 2013). First Look: Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2012; Financial
Statistics, Fiscal Year 2012; and Graduation Rates, Selected Cohorts, 2004-2009, First Look
(Provisional Data) Table 3.
American
Indian
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Chance of
attaining a bachelor’s degree
within six years,
among students who aspire to a Bachelors
degree and
begin at community college?
n/a
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Only 14 percent.
Bachelor’s Attainment Rate
(%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percent of students who started at a community college
intending to earn a Bachelor’s in 2003 and
earned a BA degree by 2009
14%
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning
Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, First Follow-up (BPS:04/06).
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Add it all up…
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Different groups of young
Americans obtain degrees at very
different rates.
n/a
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Whites attain bachelor’s degrees at nearly twice the rate of blacks and
almost three times the rate of Hispanics
Bachelor’s Degree Attainment of Young Adults
(25-29-year-olds), 2014
41%
22%
White
African American
15%
Latino
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Educational Attainment in the United States: 2014
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Percent with Bachelor’s
Degree by Age 24
Young adults from high-income families are 3 times
as likely as those from low-income families to earn
bachelor’s degrees by age 24
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
54%
3x
17%
0%
Highest income quartile
Lowest income quartile
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/03/12-chalkboard-income-education-attainmentchingos
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
These rates threaten health of our democracy.
But even for those who don’t care much about that, they
are particularly worrisome, given which groups are
growing…and which aren’t.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Changing demographics demand greater focus
on underrepresented populations.
Population Increase, Ages 024, (in thousands)
31,3
37
Percentage Increase, Ages
0-24,
137%
White
96%
Black
2,31
2
50%
4,43
1
15%
669
Latino
-9%
5,51
Note: Projected Population
6 Growth, Ages 0-24, 2010-2050
Source: National Population Projections, U.S. Census Bureau. Released 2008; NCHEMS ,Adding It Up, 2007
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Not surprisingly, our international lead is slipping away
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
We’re relatively strong in educational attainment
100%
80%
Percentage of residents aged 25-64 with a
postsecondary degree
United
States
OECD
Average
60%
44%
40%
33%
20%
0%
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Education at a Glance 2015 (2014 data).
©©
2016
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
2016
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
Our world standing drops to 11th for younger adults
100%
80%
60%
Percentage of residents aged 25-34 with a
postsecondary degree
United States
46%
OECD
Average
41%
40%
20%
0%
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Education at a Glance 2015 (2014 data).
©©
2016
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
2016
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
Young Americans today are only slightly more likely than older
Americans to earn a college degree, far trailing advances in
other countries
100%
Difference in percentage of residents aged 4554 and those aged 25-34 with a postsecondary
degree
80%
60%
40%
20%
OECD
Average
10%
United States
2%
0%
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Education at a Glance 2015 (2014 data).
©©
2016
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
2016
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
WHAT’S GOING ON?
Many in higher education would like to believe that these
patterns are mostly a function of lousy high schools and stingy
federal and state policymakers.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
They are not all wrong.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Low Income and Minority Students Continue to be
Clustered in Schools where we spend less…
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
National Inequities in State and Local Revenue Per Student
High Poverty vs.
Low Poverty Districts
High Minority vs.
Low Minority Districts
Source:
Gap
–$1200
per student
–$2,000
per student
Education Trust analyses based on U.S. Dept of Education and U.S. Census Bureau data for 2010-12
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
…expect less
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Students in Poor Schools Receive ‘A’s for Work That Would
Earn ‘Cs’ in Affluent Schools
Percentile – CTBS4
Seventh Grade Math
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
87
56
35
Low-poverty schools
41
22
High-poverty schools
21
11
A
Source:
34
B
C
D
Prospects (ABT Associates, 1993), in “Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes”, PES, DOE, 1997
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
…teach them less
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Percentage of students who were in the
top two quintiles of math performance in
fifth grade and in algebra in eighth grade
Even African-American students with high math
performance in fifth grade are unlikely to be placed in
algebra in eighth grade
94%
100%
80%
68%
63%
60%
40%
35%
20%
0%
African American
Latino
White
Asian
Source: NCES, “Eighth-Grade Algebra: Findings from the Eighth-Grade Round of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class
of 1998-99 (ECLS-K)” (2010).
2016THE
THEEDUCATION
EDUCATIONTRUST
TRUST
©©2016
…and assign them our least qualified teachers.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Students at high-minority schools are more likely to be
taught by novice teachers
50%
Percentage of Novice Teachers
40%
30%
22%
20%
13%
10%
0%
Low Minority
High Minority
Note: Novice teachers are those with three years or fewer experience.
High-minority ≥ 75% students non-white. Low-minority ≤ 10% students non-white.
Source:
Analysis of 2003-2004 Schools and Staffing Survey data by Richard Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania (2007)
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Core classes in high-poverty and high-minority secondary schools are
more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers
50%
Percentage of Classes Taught
by Teachers With Neither
Certification nor Major
45%
41%
40%
35%
30%
30%
25%
17%
20%
16%
15%
10%
5%
0%
High
Poverty
Low
Poverty
High
Minority
Low
Minority
Note: Data are for secondary-level core academic classes (Math, Science, Social Studies, English) across United States.
High-poverty ≥75% of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch. Low-poverty school ≤15% of students eligible.
High-minority ≥ 75% students non-white. Low-minority ≤ 10% students non-white.
•
The Education Trust, Core Problems: Out-of-Field Teaching Persists in Key Academic Courses and High-Poverty Schools, (2008)
©©
2016
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
2016
THE
EDUCATION
TRUST
Los Angeles: Black, Latino students have fewer
highly effective teachers, more weak ones.
Latino and
black
students
are:
READING/LANGUAGE ARTS
3X as
likely to get
loweffectiveness
teachers
½ as
likely to get
highly
effective
teachers
Source: Education Trust—West, Learning Denied, 2012.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Since 1999, large gains for all groups of students,
especially students of color
Average Scale Score
9 Year Olds – NAEP LTT Reading
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
African American
*Denotes previous assessment format
Source:
National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012”
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Since 1999, performance rising for
all groups of students
Average Scale Score
9 Year Olds – NAEP LTT Math
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
African American
*Denotes previous assessment format
Source:
National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012”
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Reading: Not much gap narrowing
since 1988.
Average Scale Score
17 Year Olds – NAEP LTT Reading
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
African American
*Denotes previous assessment format
Source:
National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012”
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Math: Not much gap closing since
1990.
Average Scale Score
17 Year Olds – NAEP LTT Math
340
330
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
African American
*Denotes previous assessment format
Source:
National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012”
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
So, too, are misguided government aid policies
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College costs have increased at 4.5 times the rate of
inflation
Percent Growth Rate
Current Dollars, 1982-2011
600%
500%
400%
300%
570%
200%
300%
100%
146%
125%
Median
Family
Income
Consumer
Price
Index
0%
College
Tuition
and Fees
Medical
Care
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Average CPI Index, 2011:
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid11av.pdf; Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage
in the United States: 2012; Table F-6.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Federal Pell Grants have failed to
keep pace with rising college costs
100%
99%
Total Cost of Attendance Covered by
Maximum Pell Grant Award
77%
80%
60%
52%
40%
36%
31%
14%
20%
0%
Public 2-Year
Public 4-Year
1979-80
2012-13
Private 4-Year
American Council on Education (2007). “ Status Report on the Pell Grant Program, 2007” and College
Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2013.
80
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Why? Not because we’re not spending a lot more
on student aid.
But, rather, because we’ve changed who
gets those dollars.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
In FY13, $21 billion federal dollars were
diverted in to education tax benefits,
many of which benefit
institutions or wealthier students.
Source: Fiscal Year 2014 Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Office of
Management and Budget, Table 16-1. Estimates of Total Income Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Years
2012-2018.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
51% of savings from tuition tax credits go to
middle- and upper-income families
Distribution of Education Tax Credits
by Adjusted Gross Income
51%
49%
Low-income
($0-49,999)
Middle and upperincome
($50,000+)
Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid 2013.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
88% of savings from tuition tax deductions go
to middle- and upper-income families
Distribution of Tax Deduction Savings
by Adjusted Gross Income
12%
Low-income
($0-49,999)
88%
Note: Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding.
Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid 2013.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Pattern is the same at state level, even
in tough times.
Source: Trends in Student Aid 2010, The College Board
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Non-need-based grant aid now represents
more than a quarter of all state grant aid
Need-Based and Non-Need-Based State Grants per FullTime Equivalent (FTE) Undergraduate Student, 1992-93 to
2011-12
100% 90%90%
87%86%85%83%
90%
81%78%
76%76%77%74%73%
80%
72%72%72%72%72%71%74%
70%
60%
50%
40%
28%28%28%28%28%29%26%
24%24%23%26%27%
30%
22%
19%
20% 10%10%13%14%15%17%
10%
0%
Percentage Need-Based
Percentage Non-Need-Based
Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid 2013.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Big Effects, too, from State Disinvestment in Public Higher
Education.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
We start out by spending less per student in the
institutions serving students with the biggest needs.
Then, over the past few years, we just cut mercilessly
from there.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
So yes, government policy is part of the problem,
too.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But
colleges and universities are not unimportant
actors in this drama of shrinking opportunity,
either.
90
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
For one thing, the shifts away from poor students in
institutional aid money are MORE PRONOUNCED than the
shifts in government aid.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
In 2011, four-year public and
private nonprofit colleges
spent over $21 billion on grant aid.
Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:12 using PowerStats. Results based on full-time, full-year, oneinstitution dependent undergraduates.
92
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But, they spent a lot of aid on students who
didn’t need it…
Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:12 using PowerStats. Results based on full-time, full-year, oneinstitution dependent undergraduates.
93
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Public 4-year colleges used to spend more than twice as much on needy
students, but now spend more on wealthy students
Institutional Grant Aid at
Public 4-Year Institutions,
1995-2012 (in millions)
$1,000
$809
$800
$869
$600
$400
$200
$340
$124
$0
1995
Lowest income quintile
2012
Highest income quintile
Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:96, NPSAS:08, NPSAS:12 using PowerStats. Results based on
full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Private nonprofit 4-year colleges used to spend more on lowincome students, but now spend nearly twice as much on wealthy
students
Institutional Grant Aid at
Private NFP
4-Year Institutions, 19952012 (millions)
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
$4,042
$2,625
$721 $605
1995
Lowest income quintile
2012
Highest income quintile
Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:96, NPSAS:08, NPSAS:12 using PowerStats. Results based on
full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Low-income students must devote an
amount equivalent to 76% of their family
income towards
college costs
Average
Family Income
Percentile
0 – 20%
Source:
Average
Income
$12,783
Average
Cost of
Attendance
$27,428
Expected
Family
Contributio
n (EFC)
$276
21 – 40%
$36,205
$29,345
$2,138
41 – 60%
$65,20
4
$29,804
$8,059
61 – 80%
$97,733
$30,719
81 – 100%
$185,81
9
$34,370
$16,259
$35,92
5
Average
Grant
Aid
Average
Unmet Need
After EFC and
Grant Aid
Average % of
Income Required
to Pay Out-ofPocket Expenses
$13,565
$13,59
1
76%
$12,246
$15,006
46%
$8,465
$13,68
9
33%
$6,842
$9,465
25%
$6,041
$5,281
17%
Source: Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:12 using PowerStats, http://nces.ed.gov/datalab/.
Results based on full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates at public and private nonprofit four-year colleges
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
So it’s not all about the students or about government. What
colleges do is important in who comes…and who doesn’t.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Moreover, what colleges do also turns out to be very
important in whether students graduate or not.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College Completion Rates:
4-Year Colleges
 Fewer than 4 in 10 (38%) entering full-time
freshmen obtain a bachelor’s degree from the
same institution within 4 years.

Within six years of entry, that proportion rises to
just under 6 in 10 (58%).
 If you go beyond IPEDS, and look at graduation
from ANY institution, number grows to about twothirds.
Source: NCES (December 2013). Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2012; Financial
Statistics, Fiscal Year 2012; and Graduation Rates, Selected Cohorts, 2004-2009, First Look
(Provisional Data) Table 4.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Many Four-Year Colleges Have Very High
Graduation Rates and Many, Very Low
Distribution of Graduation Rates (2012)
6-year bachelor's completion rates for first-time, full-time
freshmen,
Fall 2006 cohort at 4-year institutions
250
200
150
100
50
0
Series1
Source:
Ed Trust analysis of IPEDS Graduation Rates
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Some of these differences are clearly attributable to
differences in student preparation and/or institutional
mission.
n/a
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Indeed, with enough data on both institutions and
students, we can find a way to “explain” 70-80% of the
variance among institutions.
Source: Ed Trust analysis of College Results Online dataset 2011.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But…when you dig underneath the
averages, one thing is very clear:
Some colleges are far more
successful than their students’ “stats”
would suggest.
Ed Trust analysis of College Results Online dataset
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College Results Online
www.collegeresults.org
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Research Institutions
Similar Students, Different Results
Median
SAT
Size
% Pell
% URM
Overall URM Grad
Grad Rate
Rate
Penn State
University
1,195 37,763
16%
8.6%
86.7%
74.6 %
Indiana
University
1,170 31,427
21%
8.0%
72.0%
52.1%
University
of
Minnesota
Purdue
University
1,24 30,656
5
23%
7.6%
70.2%
44.4%
1,165 30,812
21%
6.9%
68.1%
54.1%
Source: College Results Online, 2013: www.collegeresults.org.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Research Institutions
Similar Students, Different Results
Median
SAT
Size
% Pell
% URM
Overall URM Grad
Grad Rate
Rate
Florida State
University
1,185 29,291
28%
25.2%
73.8%
71%
University
of Arizona
1,08
28,174
5
32%
23.8%
61.4%
53.1%
Source: College Results Online, 2013: www.collegeresults.org.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Masters Institutions – Large
Similar Students, Different Results
University of Northern
Iowa
Montclair State
University
Eastern
Illinois University
University of
Wisconsin Whitewater
Median
SAT
Size
% Pell
Overall
Graduation
Rate
1,070
10,716
25%
66.7%
1,010
12,975
37%
62.3%
990
9,287
39%
59.3%
1,050
9,685
30%
53.9%
Source: College Results Online, 2013: www.collegeresults.org.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Some making fast progress in improving
success for students of color, some have
closed gaps entirely.
2016THE
THEEDUCATION
EDUCATIONTRUST
TRUST
©©2016
Biggest Gainers in Success for Latino
Students: Public Colleges and Universities
Source:
Advancing to Completion, 2012, The Education Trust.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Biggest Gainers in Success for Black
Students: Public Colleges and Universities
Source:
Advancing to Completion, 2012, The Education Trust.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Bottom Line:
What colleges do makes a very big difference.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
What can we do?
n/a
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
First, we have to continue to improve student
preparation in our middle and high schools.
Better preparation single strongest lever we have.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
And from the leaders, we know that:
• Principal leadership is hugely important;
• We also need teachers who know their subjects, how to teach
them…and believe that all kids are capable of doing what it takes to
succeed in postsecondary education.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Beyond that, we know that:
• More students need to complete a full, college-preparatory
curriculum;
• Student supports—including more instructional time—are critical;
and,
• Teachers need help in aligning the content of their courses,
including their daily assignments to students, with college- and
career-ready standards.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Second, we also have to keep pushing for better
state and federal policy.
Key targets include expanding need-based aid and
reversing state disinvestment.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
In the meantime, though, there is a lot that
colleges can do.
What do we know from the fastest gainers?
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
1. Their leaders make sure student success is a
campus-wide priority.
n/a
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Improving student success isn’t all—or even
mostly—about programs.
It’s about institutional culture that values
success and that accepts responsibility.
n/a
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Successful leaders honor and tap into institutional
culture to privilege student success
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
In fact, successful leaders consistently treat faculty as
problem solvers, not as problems to be solved.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
2. They look at their data…and act.
Use of disaggregated data to spot problems and frame
action is pervasive.
n/a
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Successful institutions don’t just aim at the final goal—
graduation—they concentrate on each step along the
way, especially the early ones.
n/a
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Keeping your eyes on both retention
and credit accumulation
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
First-Year Retention vs. Credit Accumulation
The
Silent
Retention
Problem
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80%
82%
81%
83%
80%
81%
82%
83%
62%
83%
67%
49%
22%
27%
28%
33%
35%
39%
Fall ’00 Fall ’01 Fall ’02 Fall ’03 Fall ’04 Fall ’05 Fall ’06 Fall ’07Fall ‘08
Georgia State University.
% Retained
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
3. Where can the data take you?
Successful institutions create clear,
structured pathways to success.
n/a
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
FLORIDA STATE
ACADEMIC MAP
127
2016THE
THEEDUCATION
EDUCATIONTRUST
TRUST
©©2016
4. They take on Introductory and Developmental
Classes
n/a
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
5. Where else can the data take
you? Successful institutions don’t
hesitate to demand, require.
n/a
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
A lot of institutions know what works. And more and
more of them are advising students to do those things.
But it turns out that “students don’t do
optional.”
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
6. They bring back the ones they lose.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
It’s really not about boldness of reform.
It’s about intentionality and quality of execution.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2014 The Education Trust
In other words, what institutions do to help their students succeed
matters.
A lot.
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Download this presentation on our
website
www.edtrust.org
Washington, D.C. Metro Detroit, MI
202/293-1217
734/619-8009
Oakland, CA
510/465-6444
© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST