A Policy Brief on Increasing College Success: Individualized College Student Coaching Setting the Stage (Research Paper Sample)

Name:
Instructor:
ECO 158: Economics of Education
May 19, 2016
A Policy Brief on Increasing College Success: Individualized College Student Coaching
Setting the Stage
The aspirations of high school graduates to attain a four-year college education have increased over time. In fact, by 2002, 80% of tenth graders aspired to attain a bachelor’s degree compared to 41% in 1980, just two decades before (Venezia and Jaeger 118). This increase in aspiration is perhaps responsible for the 5% increase in college attainment between 1993 and 2004 (Stoops 2). Despite 3 million high school graduates a year (Venezia and Jaeger 118), only between 27% (Stoops 1) and 22% (Ryan and Bauman 1-2) of American adults have a bachelor’s degree.
For low-income students, who have had the highest increase in college success aspirations among all high school student cohorts, only 10% have attained a bachelor’s level education compared to 50% among high-income students (Bailey and Dynarski 117-20). In addition to lower attainment, low-income students are also less likely to enroll, continue and complete their education at both the high school and tertiary levels when compared to their high-income peers (Chapman, Laird, and Remani 5-7; NCES 1-3; Mitchem and Mortenson 10-13).
Worryingly, college completion rates are also disproportionate across the board. For instance, while there was a 31% increase in the number of young adults with college experience between 1971 and 1999, there was a dismal increase of only 4% in college completion (Bettinger and Baker 1). This gap in educational attainment across the different income levels and despite rising aspirations has prompted several policy interventions particularly the Obama Administration’s higher education initiative and USA Funds’ Completion with a Purpose. This paper will survey an intervention common to these two initiatives, namely, college student coaching.
A Description of College Student Coaching
College counseling, particularly individualized student coaching, has a positive impact on college continuation rates (2). Under the Administration’s Call to Action on College Opportunity, numerous institutions made commitments to increase, among others, college success through counseling, mentorships, and coaching programs. Notable among these is iMentor whose five-year program intends to expand counselor access to 20,000 first-generation college students in over 20 states. Another 36 colleges and organizations have made similar commitments. For example, the National College Advising Corps and its partner universities set the three-year goal of expanding access to 80,000 college students. As part of the First Lady’s Reach Higher Initiative announced at the 2014 College Opportunity Summit, the Administration and Salesforce.org have created a partnership to roll-out mobile phone application to support post-secondary social mentorship.
In similar vein, the Beyond12 (B12) organization launched its myCoach app to expand coverage by college coaches to access to 10,000 first-generation students by 2020-21. For the most part, these initiatives are championed by private sector stakeholders such as InsideTrack (Bettinger and Baker 2) and USA Funds. Indeed, public-private partnerships are the norm of delivering these services. However, federal agencies are pursuing several pilot projects to assess the effectiveness of pre-existing coaching programs at a larger scale. As part of the US Department of Education’s First in the World (FITW) grant program, the DOE granted the Central Carolina Community College, Sanford US$9.2 million in 2015 (USDoE 1). A 2014 USA Funds-led Scholar Coaching Initiative involving the Indiana Commission for Higher Education (ICHE) and the 25 campuses of Indiana State University, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) and the Ivy Tech Community College extended coaching support to over 2,000 low-income and first-generation college students (ICHE 1).
Regardless of whether these interventions are federal or private sector-led, the common gist among these programs is to provide individualized coaching support for students such that, together with their coaches, these students set long- and short-term goals, identify impediments to their success, and formulate life plans for dealing with setbacks. Other key goals include familiarizing students with on-campus and offsite resources, how to take advantage of them, linking continuing students with successful alumni and work scheduling (Bettinger and Baker 2).
Evidence of Effectiveness: A Brief Review of Pertinent Literature
Bettinger and Baker (3) report that persistence and completion rates are greater among coached students, with the positive effects of coaching extending into the twelve months after coaching. Furthermore, these rates do not change when other factors such as age, gender, scholarship, and academic scores are taken into consideration (4). An intensified effort at increasing access to counseling and coaching is well deserved.
In their collaboration with the USA Funds’ Scholar Coaching Initiative, the Indiana Commission of Higher Education reported that of the nearly 2,500 freshmen engaged, over 62% students from Indiana State University progressed to their second year of education, 3.8% higher than the institution’s historical average (USA Funds 1). Retention was even higher at Ivy Tech Community College, 45.7%, 8.8% above the historical average. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) had 61% progression to year two among the coached students (USA Funds 1).
Scope for and Barrier to Formal Evaluation
It cannot be left unsaid just how important educational attainment is in the modern-day world as it transitions to a knowledge economy. Attaining tertiary education often has major implications for lifetime earnings, quality of life, employability, and social mobility (Baum, Ma, and Payea 5-7). Not only are college graduates far likely to get jobs, but they also enjoy higher salaries, health insurance, and retirement benefits (Bettinger and Baker 10-11). Assuming that college enrollees know how to behave so as to maximize their chances of success is faulty. Not only are high school graduates poorly prepared for the college experience, but they struggle to persist and complete their education as well. This is especially true for first-time, low-income students.
The science speaks for itself: coaching is an effective policy intervention to ameliorate these obstacles to success. There are positive behavioral impacts on the effect of counseling and individualized support on student performance: students manage their time better, overcome setbacks more gracefully, employ available resources more effectively, and achieve more of their goals within acceptable time frames. In concert with other interventions, personalized support promises higher enrollment, greater persistence, and eventual success.
However, there are limits to which this intervention can both be deployed and assessed. Personalization of care may become impeded when the program is scaled. Although similar problems are likely to be found among coached students, it is often the nuances of personal life histories and character traits that determine if a student will develop grit. Unlike the conveyor belt that is the formal education system, it will be immensely difficult to arrive at standards and herein lies both the strength and weakness of this intervention. By giving coaches the freedom in selecting tools and strategies when dealing with students, the program may eventually become a marshland of disjointed standards akin to the sex education programs across the United Sates. On the other hand, creating enduring standards at scale will cripple the ability of coaches to respond to individual differences. Furthermore, the resources necessary to re-train counselors in this new paradigm means that the program will not be brought to bear until then.
Additionally, in a privacy conscious world, it is almost impossible to discount the fact that students may feel that their privacy is being invaded with regular and intense coaching sessions. This is the bane of personalized care, the inability to establish trust quickly. Trust is key to cultivating the discipline necessary for the student to consistently align behind a set of goals. After all, the coach cannot be an omnipresent figure, putting out fires as they happen in real-time. Without adequate trust, the student might feel pressured and fail to own his or her academic process, thereby wasting the entire effort. Moreover, mobilized use of this policy intervention may also discourage college teachers to provide alternative mentorship, potentially disengaging professors and teaching assistants from their students.
These challenges pose significant questions in final assessments of student coaching: can relationships be scaled? Can trust be scaled? What are the limits of mentorship networks? Nonetheless, these are questions of implementation as opposed to issues of efficacy. I am convinced that enhanced coaching will undoubtedly increase academic persistence and eventual graduation rates.
Conclusion
Encouraging students to apply to college is not enough. To empower an entire generation of marginalized high school graduates, it is imperative that education stakeholders facilitate higher post-secondary graduation rates. Building personal linkages between coaches and college students at risk of dropping out is a formidable policy intervention. Weaving a tapestry of individualized support around these students will provide a boost for retention and success and contribute to the eventual alleviation of the attainment gap between low-income students and their high-income peers.
Works Cited
Venezia, Andrea and Laura Jaeger. Transitions from High School to Colleg...