U. S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
|
|  Yüklə 1.39 Mb.
|
The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound on Postsecondary Outcomes Seven to Nine Years After Scheduled High School Graduation Final Report Prepared by: Neil S. Seftor Arif Mamun Allen Schirm
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Princeton, N.J.
Prepared for: U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service 2009
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. EA97030001. The project monitor was Margaret Cahalan in the Policy and Program Studies Service. The views expressed herein are those of the contractor. The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does the mention of commercial products or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. government. The inclusion of such information is for the reader's convenience and is not intended to endorse any views expressed, or products, programs, models or services offered. U.S. Department of Education Margaret Spellings Secretary Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development Bill Evers Assistant Secretary Policy and Program Studies Service Alan L. Ginsburg Director Program and Analytic Studies Division David Goodwin Director January 2009 ______________________________________________________________________________________ This report is in the public domain. Authorization to produce the report in whole or in part is granted. Although permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound on Postsecondary Outcomes Seven to Nine Years After Scheduled High School Graduation, Washington, D.C., 2009. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis report on the effects of Upward Bound on students’ postsecondary outcomes reflects the contributions of many individuals. The authors would like to thank David Goodwin and Margaret Cahalan of the Policy and Program Studies Service at the U.S. Department of Education. We are grateful to David for his continued support, substantive guidance, and encouragement throughout the study and to Maggie for her many very valuable comments and other guidance. Marisol Cunnington and Jay Noell of the U.S. Department of Education also provided helpful suggestions. In addition, the report has been improved by comments from three anonymous external reviewers selected by the Institute of Education Sciences. David Myers, who directed the national evaluation of Upward Bound for many years, played a key role in shaping the study design and led previous impact analyses. Mary Moore, a principal investigator for the national evaluation, was also instrumental in shaping the study design. Mark Dynarski and Peter Schochet provided insightful suggestions throughout the analysis and drafts of the report. The authors would also like to thank the individuals who contributed to the data collection and analysis and the production of the report. David DesRoches oversaw the data collection, and Zhanyun Zhao created the survey weights. Karin Zeller constructed the analysis variables and computed the impact estimates, and Mary Grider provided technical assistance with data and programming issues. Jennifer Baskwell produced the document. CONTENTSChapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiii I INTRODUCTION 1 A. Context and Purpose of Upward Bound 1 B. Context for Interpreting Program Effects 7 1. Value-added of Upward Bound 8 2. Upward Bound Applicants 11 3. Effects for Students Who Participated During the Mid-1990s 12 4. Variation in Exposure to Upward Bound 14
A. Research Design 19 1. Selection of Upward Bound Projects and Random Assignment 19 2. Outcome Measures 22 3. Data Sources 24 4. Construction of the Outcome Measures 26 B. analytic issues 28 1. Estimation of Program Impacts 28 2. Subgroup Analysis 31 3. Use of Weights to Account for Sample Design and Survey Nonresponse 35 4. Potential Threats to the Study Design 37 III THE EFFECT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY OUTCOMES 39 A. The Effect of the Opportunity to Participate in Upward Bound (ITT) 40 1. The Effect of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and College Selectivity 43 2. The Effect of Upward Bound on Financial Aid Application and Pell Grant Receipt 43 3. The Effect of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Completion 44 Chapter Page b
(continued) . The Effect of Participation in Upward Bound (CACE) 44 C. Summary of Sensitivity Analyses 44 1. Sensitivity Analyses Pertaining to the Measurement of Outcomes 47 2. Sensitivity Analyses Pertaining to Sample Weighting 48 IV THE EFFECT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY OUTCOMES
A. The Effect of the Opportunity to Participate in Upward Bound for Selected Subgroups (ITT) 56 1. Grade at Application to Upward Bound 56 2. Applicants’ Educational Expectations at the Time of Application
3. Level of Ninth-Grade Mathematics Class 60 4. Grade Point Average in Ninth Grade 63
A. Research Questions 67 B. Research Methods 68 C. The Effect of Additional Upward Bound Participation 71 1. Postsecondary Enrollment 71 2. Financial Aid 73 3. Postsecondary Completion 74
APPENDIX C: sensitivity analyses pertaining to the measurement of outcomes C.1 APPENDIX D: SAMPLE SIZES AND WEIGHTED STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL OUTCOME VARIABLES D.1 APPENDIX E: ESTIMATION OF IMPACTS AND STANDARD ERRORS E.1 APPENDIX F: METHODS USED TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL UPWARD BOUND PARTICIPATION F.1 APPENDIX G: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES pertaining to sample weighting G.1 APPENDIX H: OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICE PROGRAMS H.1 APPENDIX I: ADDITIONAL SUBGROUP TABLES I.1 |