Search

TICAS, in partnership with MDRC and LEO, has worked for more than a year and a half with a community of seven evidence-based college completion programs. These programs, which span the country geographically, all employ a similar model that uses counselors, coaches, or case managers to connect students with a range of support -- personal, financial, and academic -- to help them complete college. All have also undergone rigorous evaluations that have shown statistically significant impacts on college persistence, completion, and student earnings after graduation. We met with them in February and again in May to discuss their experience over the last two years and to learn how they have adapted to keep as many students on track to graduate as possible. This paper summarizes those lessons learned and offers some insights for the field on innovative approaches to recruiting and retaining students during a time of enormous pressure and upheaval. [This report was authored with support from Bottom Line, CUNY ASAP | ACE, InsideTrack, NISS, One Million Degrees, Project QUEST, and Stay the Course.]

The growing cost of college is one of the most significant barriers to completion. However, research shows that frequent, intensive advising, combined with financial and other support, can make a tremendous difference in helping students complete. For two years, TICAS has worked with a group of rigorously evaluated organizations across the country that provide these comprehensive approaches to student success, or CASS, by connecting students with counselors and advisors to foster personal relationships and building a customized suite of support. Along with research partners MDRC and the Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities (LEO), TICAS convened these groups to better understand what it would take to reach all students who could benefit from these programs throughout the country. With this community of practice, TICAS created a research agenda identifying the research questions most pressing to answer at this moment in time and a framework for equity in the use of data.

High tuition makes headlines and may dissuade students from pursuing college or excluding what appear to be high-cost colleges. However, a college's "sticker price" can be misleading because it does not reflect any grant or scholarship aid that reduces the price students actually pay. As the costs of attending college have risen, the role of financial aid in making college affordable for low- and moderate-income students has become increasingly important. A decade ago, the federal government attempted to address confusion around sticker and net prices by requiring all colleges to maintain on their websites a net price calculator (NPC) that displays a personalized estimate of net cost based on the family resources input by a prospective student. At their best, net price calculators can be helpful marketing tools for colleges looking to expand access for students with financial need, showing how much grant aid students are likely to receive and how much the price comes down once those awards are applied. In this way, they are also powerful tools for students who may uncover the reality that their dream college is in closer financial reach than they may have assumed. While Net Price Calculators are a critical resource, national research has shown that they can be hard to find, hard to use, and hard to compare across colleges. In this paper, the authors explore the accessibility, ease of use, and comparability of NPCs in Michigan, and find that trends in the state mirror the national story: these tools are not consistently easy to find, use, or compare. The authors provide recommendations for the federal government, states, and colleges to improve NPCs. [This report was researched and written with support from Lindsay Ahlman, Oliver Schack, and Jessica Thompson.]

Far too often, young people do not receive honest and clear information about how to ask for and receive consent and how to promote healthy intimate relationships. Last May, the Center for American Progress (CAP) published an issue brief highlighting that, of the 24 states that mandate sex education, only 11 states and Washington, D.C., included references to healthy relationships, consent, or sexual assault in their sex education standards. Since then, momentum has grown to modernize sex education standards. Although CAP's previous brief explored only the 24 states with mandated sex education, progress has occurred in additional states, so this brief considers all of the United States. Last year, for example, six states--Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island--added language about consent or healthy relationships to their standards. Other states are taking additional steps to modernize their standards by making instruction LGBTQ-inclusive or adding information about the consequences of sharing explicit images online or through text message. This issue brief first outlines the shifting landscape of sex education in the United States and then highlights how students and newly elected female lawmakers are leading the way on this issue. [For the earlier brief, "Sex Education Standards Across the States," see ED602826.]

Communities with more college degrees have higher incomes, less reliance on social services, and greater economic growth. To ensure that Michigan's workforce has the skills needed for the modern economy, the state's leaders must build a financial aid system that helps families cover college costs. However, disjointed program designs, maintenance restrictions, and administrative barriers diminish the effectiveness of Michigan's eight state financial aid programs in reaching this vital goal. In this report, the authors examine how the fine print of these programs place unnecessary hurdles between students and the aid they need, in ways that are likely to compound inequities in college access by race and income. This report has four primary aims: (1) Highlight evidence-based principles for effective financial aid design; (2) Provide an inventory of Michigan's existing state financial aid programs, including eligibility criteria, award amounts, award duration, total spending per year, and other key design elements; (3) Evaluate and discuss each program on the basis of efficacy and equity using criteria developed by The Education Trust and Kelly Ochs Rosinger and Jilaing Wang at Penn State University and Katherine Meyer at Brown University; and (4) Provide policy recommendations for improving the design of financial aid in Michigan. This report serves as a primer on the state's financial aid programs and a policy blueprint for streamlined and equitable aid for Michigan's future. [Research and writing support for this report was provided by Jessica Thompson, Kate Tromble, Lindsay Ahlman, Shannon Serrato, and Angelique Palomar.]

State sex education standards in public schools vary widely. According to a study from the National Institutes of Health, only about half of adolescents receive school instruction about contraception before they first have sex. Only 20 states require information on condoms or contraception, and only 20 states and the District of Columbia require sex and/or HIV education to be medically, factually, and technically accurate. Meanwhile, 27 states require lessons that stress abstinence, and 18 states require instruction that teaches students to engage in sexual activity only within marriage. This issue brief describes the current state of sex education standards, with a particular focus on the inclusion of consent and the development of healthy relationships in states' instruction standards.

Civic knowledge and public engagement is at an all-time low. While the 2016 election brought a renewed interest in engagement among youth, only 23 percent of eighth-graders performed at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) civics exam, and achievement levels have virtually stagnated since 1998. In addition, the increased focus on math and reading in K-12 education--while critical to prepare all students for success--has pushed out civics and other important subjects. When civics education is taught effectively, it can equip students with the knowledge, skills, and disposition necessary to become informed and engaged citizens. Educators must also remember that civics is not synonymous with history. While increasing history courses and service requirements are potential steps to augment students' background knowledge and skill sets, civics is a narrow and instrumental instruction that provides students with the agency to apply these skills. The analysis presented in this report finds a wide variation in state requirements and levels of youth engagement. While the research highlights that no state currently provides sufficient and comprehensive civic education, there is reason to be optimistic that high-quality civics education can impact civic behavior. The current state of civics education in each state within the United States is presented.

In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, some advocates and philanthropists are shifting their focus and energy from the federal level to the state and local level in the hopes of maintaining the momentum of gains made by the Obama administration. Since the nation's founding, states and the school districts they created have been in the driver's seat when it comes to education policy; they are central to the academic outcomes and well-being of children nationwide. At the same time, the federal government also plays a critical role in the education sector. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and President Donald Trump have the potential to affect student achievement and well-being. Advocates, policymakers, and philanthropists should consider the importance of the federal role in education before diverting all energy to state and district policies. Staunch advocacy can temper the Trump-DeVos agenda by offering alternatives to Congress, forcing the administration to adopt less radical policies, and holding the administration accountable. Additionally, a focus on federal policy will help cultivate bold ideas to increase equity and advance student outcomes nationwide. This issue brief explains why it is critical to invest time and resources in federal advocacy and why federal dollars, discretion, and priorities mater. It also describes how federal policies affect students' education and well-being, as well as help determine future progress in the education sector.

The world has evolved dramatically since the public school schedule first took root. When the school day first evolved, millions of children--many as young as 10 years old--worked, and most mothers stayed at home. Today, child labor for the most part is outlawed, and 75 percent of women with school-age children work. But in many ways, schools have not updated their policies to adapt to this changed world, and this means that large numbers of working parents must split their time between being a committed parent and being a committed working professional. This report, then, aims to answer three questions: (1) How misaligned are school and work schedules? (2) What can schools do to support parents as they try to meet their obligations to their employers and to their children? and (3) How can schools and districts pay for this effort? There's a short answer to this last query because 9-to-5 school reform is less expensive than most people believe--and does not require teachers to work more for less pay. To examine these questions, the Center for American Progress analyzed the calendars, schedules, and policies of the largest school districts in the country, which serve almost 6 million students CAP researchers also examined data from the National Center for Education Statistics. The resulting analysis reveals the multitude of ways that U.S. public schools make life unnecessarily harder for working parents.

The state of Michigan has set a goal to increase the percentage of residents with a postsecondary degree or credential to 60 percent by 2030. Achieving that goal will require a concerted, strategic, and multipronged effort. Today, less than 50 percent of residents have attained a postsecondary degree or credential. While making college more affordable alone will not clear all the impediments to achieving the state's attainment goal, the cost of college is a formidable barrier for many. Students from low-income families are especially sensitive to price increases, and it's these students who must attend and complete at higher rates if the state is going to markedly grow its postsecondary completion rate. Yet, students from low-income families and first generation students have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, as reflected in lower college enrollment rates, and may need additional support and flexibility simply to enroll and complete college at levels seen in the recent past, let alone achieve the increases needed to reach the state's attainment goal. This report focuses on one of Michigan's key levers to making college more affordable for low-income students, analyzing the state's largest, most generous, and best targeted college grant program, the Tuition Incentive Program (TIP). TIP stands out in Michigan, and in comparison with grant programs in other states, due to its well-targeted and categorical method of defining eligibility and benefits. This program could serve as a model for other states as they seek to expand college access and success. The report describes the program's strengths and offers recommendations for policymakers to bolster it, including by expanding the eligibility criteria, and further aligning the incentives of the program with the state's attainment goal.