Search

Community colleges across the United States face a difficult challenge. On the one hand, they are "open access" institutions, with a mission to serve students from all backgrounds and at varying levels of college readiness. On the other hand, they must uphold high academic standards in order to maintain accreditation and prepare students for employment or transfer to four-year schools. How, then, can community colleges best serve students who want to learn but do not meet minimum academic standards? Chaffey College, a large community college located about 40 miles east of Los Angeles, began to wrestle with this question early in the twenty-first century. Under the auspices of a national demonstration project called Opening Doors, Chaffey developed a program designed to increase probationary students' chances of succeeding in college. Chaffey's program included a "College Success" course, taught by a counselor, which provided basic information on study skills and the requirements of college. As part of the course, students were expected to complete five visits to "Success Centers," where their assignments, linked to the College Success course, covered skills assessment, learning styles, time management, use of resources, and test preparation. In 2005, MDRC collaborated with Chaffey College to evaluate the one-semester, voluntary Opening Doors program. In 2006, the program was improved to form the two-semester Enhanced Opening Doors program, in which probationary students were told that they were required to take the College Success course. In MDRC's evaluation of each program, students were randomly assigned either to a program group that had the opportunity to participate in the program or to a control group that received the college's standard courses and services. This report presents the outcomes for both groups of students in the Enhanced Opening Doors evaluation for four years after they entered the study. The findings include: (1) The message matters--optional program activities had lower participation rates compared with required program activities; (2) Chaffey's Enhanced Opening Doors program had positive short-term effects; and (3) Despite the program's encouraging short-term effects, it did not meaningfully improve students' long-term academic outcomes. This report presents detailed findings from Chaffey's Enhanced Opening Doors initiative, including the cost and cost-effectiveness of the program, and considers the implications of this research for designing services for probationary students in community college. (Contains 2 tables and 7 footnotes.) [Additional funding for this paper was provided by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health and the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood. For the full report, "Serving Community College Students on Probation: Four-Year Findings from Chaffey College's Opening Doors Program," see ED526395.]

This paper asserts that a sizeable number of students at the community college have attained a baccalaureate degree or higher and have returned to the community college to take credit courses. These post-baccalaureate reverse transfer students (PRTS) enroll in the community college for a variety of reasons, but one of the more common factors is related to career advancement. They may be taking courses to enhance their current employment, or they may be seeking a degree in a different area to make themselves more marketable. Oklahoma City Community College (OCCC) examined the phenomenon of PRTSs on its campus in order to: (1) help streamline recruiting efforts to better target these individuals or the industries in which they work; (2) modify course offerings in order to better accommodate students with demanding schedules; and (3) examine the feasibility of converting career experience into credit toward certain types of technical degrees. The researchers determined from the student database that there were 184 PRTSs enrolled during the fall of 1991--165 held bachelor's degrees and 19 held master's degrees. These students took classes in 52 different categories. This paper examines the demographic statistics of this cohort, breaks down credit hours per course, and analyzes the implications of the research findings. (NB)

This report presents results from a study that examined homework issues and practices by surveying teachers, students, and parents in 13 schools in different parts of Scotland. The first of the report's 10 chapters outlines background information and the research strategy used in this study. In chapter 2, findings of previous research on homework are summarized. Chapter 3 describes the purposes of homework from the perspectives of teachers, students, and parents. The findings of the study are presented in chapters 4 through 10, and address the following questions: Is homework worthwhile? What is the nature of homework? How long do pupils spend on homework? What is the environment of homework? What is the role of parents in monitoring and support? and What principles lead to better homework practice? An appendix provides policy principles, based on the study's findings, on the following: (1) school policy; (2) homework tasks; (3) teacher's management of homework; (4) communication with parents; (5) parent workshops; (6) the school board; (7) strategies for independent learning; (8) sanctions; (9) teacher training and staff development; and (10) regional policy. (MM)

In response to budget problems, many urban school systems reduced resources for getting students to come to school, like truancy officers. Chicago, for instance, went from 150 truancy officers down to, in 1991, a total of zero. Is that a good idea? We explore here the effects of increased support by a pro-social adult, or "social capital," delivered through a structured student monitoring and mentoring program called Check & Connect (C&C). We carried out a large-scale randomized controlled trial with C&C in partnership with the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to students in grades 1-8. Program participation decreased absences in grades 5-7 by 4.2 days, or 22.9 percent, but with no detectable effects on students in grades 1-4. We also did not find statistically significant effects on learning outcomes such as test scores or GPA, or any detectable spillovers to other students within the schools where the program was administered. The modest impacts per dollar spent, compared to previous evidence on either low-cost "nudges" or relatively intensive, higher-cost interventions, raise the possibility that, for very disadvantaged students, there may be decreasing but then increasing returns to program intensity for the problem of student disengagement.