An Outcomes-Based Program Evaluation of Student U
Abstract
Executive Summary
Program Overview
Student U is a small nonprofit organization that offers summer and after-school educational
programs to at-risk middle and high school students in Durham, North Carolina. Founded
in 2007, the organization has grown rapidly, admitting a new cohort of fifty rising
sixth-graders each summer. Student U continues to work with each cohort until high
school graduation. The organization is currently piloting a high school program for
the oldest cohort of participants, who entered ninth grade in the 2010-2011 school
year.
Evaluation Goals and Methods
This project provides both a retrospective analysis of past program outcomes and a
set of forward-looking recommendations for future evaluation and monitoring activities.
It focuses on two separate questions:
• Has Student U’s middle school programming achieved intended student outcomes?
• What factors identify high school students who are not on track to achieve important
program outcomes, such as high school graduation and college enrollment?
Middle School Program Evaluation
Data Limitations
My analysis uses data on participants’ demographic characteristics and academic achievement
levels, measured using North Carolina End of Grade (EOG) test scores. I was able to
access longitudinal EOG data for only the first two cohorts of participants. Student
records provided by Student U were incomplete, and as a result I was able to obtain
EOG data for only 75.5% of participants in these cohorts.
Participant Attrition Rates
The data show a 17% dropout rate for the first two cohorts of participants. This
dropout rate includes all students, not just the 75% of students for whom I was able
to access EOG data. Although I find no racial or ethnic disparities between program
dropouts and continuing participants, boys were twice as likely to drop out as girls.
Interviews with program staff indicate that the students who dropped out likely needed
academic support, but were unwilling or unable to commit to Student U’s intensive
programming. This high attrition rate may undermine the program’s mission of keeping
promising educationally-disadvantaged students engaged with school.
Student Achievement
To compare participants’ academic outcomes with those of demographically similar
non-participating students, I form a non-randomized control group using nearest neighbor
matching. A comparison of the treatment and quasi-experimental control group generates
no significant effect of program participation on EOG scores. I acknowledge, however,
that the small sample size and poor data quality could undermine the validity of my
estimates. Moreover, even if the program has no effect on EOG scores, this finding
does not indicate that the program fails to achieve any of its goals. Student U also
focuses on students’ social development and attitudes toward school, which are not
considered in this analysis.
High School Program Benchmarks
Policy Review
The North Carolina Standard Course of Study defines four high school curricula that
students may complete in order to fulfill graduation requirements. Student U participants
should complete the college/university prep curriculum in order to be well prepared
for postsecondary success. In addition, the University of North Carolina system sets
minimum GPA, ACT, and SAT scores for admission to a campus of the university system.
The UNC minimum standards, however, are set at extremely low levels. In order to be
prepared for college-level academics, students should be encouraged to achieve at
levels above the minimal standards.
Literature Review
My review of academic research summarizes a variety of indicators that predict high
school graduation and college enrollment. These factors fall into three general categories:
academic performance, educational engagement, and student background characteristics.
While SU staff could collect data on many of these indicators, I recommend focusing
on those factors most closely tied to academic requirements outlined in the policy
review section, and on attitudinal factors that can be measured through Student U’s
annual student survey.
Recommendations to Facilitate Future Evaluations
Set modest, but sustainable data collection goals. While there are many available
indicators of student success, collecting data on all of them will be unsustainable.
Student U should establish a few, high-quality measures of student success. These
factors include course enrollment, course performance, SAT, and ACT test scores, and
surveys measuring student attitudes and confidence about their future educational
experiences.
Administer consistent surveys and maintain results. Without survey data, SU will
be unable to assess its impact on important non-academic goals. Maintaining and analyzing
survey responses is a time-consuming task, but Student U’s decision to begin using
a standardized, externally generated survey is a promising first step. To facilitate
evaluation of individual student performance, SU must maintain survey records in a
manner that allows individual student responses to be tracked across years.
Monitor attrition rates and explore the causes of student attrition. As outlined
in Chapter 2, participant attrition poses a significant challenge for Student U. Depending
on the reasons students drop out, this attrition may be a sign that the program is
not keeping students engaged with school. Student U should monitor attrition rates,
uncover the reasons why students drop out, and take steps to reduce attrition.
Type
Master's projectDepartment
The Sanford School of Public PolicyPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/3727Citation
McFarland, Joel (2011). An Outcomes-Based Program Evaluation of Student U. Master's project, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/3727.More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Sanford School Master of Public Policy (MPP) Program Master’s Projects
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info