Category Archives: Education

The Evidence-Based Movement

Posted on by

“Despite decades of efforts and trillions of dollars in spending, rigorous evaluations typically find that around 75 percent of programs or practices that are intended to help people do better at school or at work have little or no effect,” says Future of Children senior editor Ron Haskins in a recent New York Times op-ed related to his new book.

Haskins isn’t arguing for massive budget cuts for federally funded social programs—instead, he’s hoping the new Congress won’t cut funding for evaluation research, which is a relatively new federal initiative. Evaluation research helps us know which programs work and don’t work; then we can expand what works and modify or eliminate what doesn’t work. Haskins concludes his op-ed by affirming that “social policy is too important to be left to guesswork.”

Research is one of the best tools to inform policy decisions because it’s more objective than political ideology. A lot is at stake when deciding which programs will be used to tackle social problems. This is especially true when considering child-related issues because what happens to people as children is likely to have lifelong effects. Regardless of what Congress decides to do, the Future of Children can be used as a nonpartisan resource to promote effective policies and programs for children and families based on the best available research.

For instance, when addressing childhood disability, begin with our volume “Children with Disabilities.” You’ll learn about the importance of policy measures that increase coordination between different types of services. Additionally, you’ll see how technology can improve outcomes but can also expand disparities unless access is provided equitably.

If you’re interested a multigenerational approach, read our volume “Helping Parents, Helping Children: Two Generation Mechanisms.” You’ll learn about what the most promising programs are doing for families. For example, you can read about how preschool and home-visiting programs can alleviate children’s stress, how increasing parent’s education levels can strengthen children’s healthy development, how improving parent’s health can improve children’s health, how carefully timed income support can promote children’s healthy development, and how helping poor families build assets can help children succeed.

For those interested in improving the literacy of young Americans, see “Literacy Challenges for the Twenty-First Century.” You’ll read of the breadth and complexity of literacy challenges, but also find policy implications such as the need to focus more attention on informational text and analytical writing in K-12 education, as well as arguments to increase access to strong preschool programs for children from low-income and non-English-speaking families.

Whatever your political persuasion, the best research can bring people together to solve social problems. Whenever possible, let’s leave guesswork behind and follow the evidence. To read our research publications, visit futureofchildren.org.

A Two-Generation Solution to Education Disparity

Posted on by

Education tends to pay off. Higher educational attainment is associated with higher earnings, lower unemployment and better health. In the Future of Children, Neeraj Kaushal explains that education also influences important lifestyle decisions such as marriage, sex, childbearing, and substance use.

Importantly, parents’ education not only affects themselves, but also affects the wellbeing of their children. Better-educated parents often pass down the tradition of education to their children along with its benefits. The intergenerational payoffs of education are persistent and perhaps even underestimated.

While some families benefit immensely from education, other families face structural obstacles to advancing their socioeconomic status via further educational attainment. Racial and ethnic disparities are apparent by education, and children with less-educated parents are less likely to succeed in school. Furthermore, Kaushal points out, the U.S. education system reinforces socioeconomic inequality across generations by spending more money on educating richer children than poorer children.

These challenges lend support to the idea of targeting education-related interventions toward less-educated parents and their children. This might be done via a two-generation approach in which parents and children are served simultaneously. While the theoretical basis for these programs is strong, the empirical evidence is only emerging. What we do know is that investing in parents is likely to have a lasting effect on children’s health and development, which in turn increases their wellbeing as adults. There is also evidence that adult offspring’s educational attainment influences the health and life expectancy of the parents, even after accounting for parents’ socioeconomic resources. This may be due to children’s knowledge of health and technology they share with their parents and having more financial means to support them. It’s arguable that investing in programs that aim to increase parents’ education and skills at the same time as they invest in children’s development could go a long way to reduce intergenerational inequality.

For more information about two-generation programs, see the Future of Children volume Helping Parents, Helping Children: Two-Generation Mechanisms.

The Promise of Two-Generation Programs

Posted on by

This week, the Future of Children released a new issue titled Helping Parents, Helping Children: Two-Generation Mechanisms. As the executive summary says, “because the home environment is so important for children’s development, many people think that ‘two-generation’ programs, which serve parents and children simultaneously with high-quality interventions, can be more effective (and perhaps more efficient) than programs that serve them individually.” These programs generally entail parents enrolling in education or job training at the same time they enroll their children in high-quality child care. The issue explores six mechanisms, or pathways, through which parents and the home environment may influence children’s development–stress, education, health, income, employment, and assets–to discover how we might best use these mechanisms to bolster two-generation programs.

A recent story in the Washington Post, which highlights findings from our issue, describes the two-generation approach, especially as it relates to alleviating poverty. It features Future of Children Senior Editor Ron Haskins, who remarks that although it is too early to tell whether the two-generation approach is effective in alleviating poverty, it certainly shows promise. P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, co-author of one paper in the issue, describes in the story how it is unreasonable for the child to be the only point of intervention when a family is going through difficult times: “Those gains [from childhood intervention alone] may not be enough if a child is coming home to a family with great hopes, but is stressed by making ends meet, working multiple jobs, looking for work or facing food insecurity.” To lift a child out of poverty, the family likely needs help as well.

The quality of the home environment and parent-child relationships are crucial for children’s development because they have lasting effects into adulthood and carry intergenerational implications. We invite you to explore the two-generation mechanisms and programs found in this issue of the Future of Children.

Making Sense of International Comparisons of Students

Posted on by

We are regularly exposed to news reports about the results of international tests, in which children’s scores in the United States lag behind those of their peers in many other nations in math, reading, and science. The results spur public debate as to why the nation’s educational system is “mediocre” or why test results could be meaningless altogether–for instance, China, with very high rankings, reports scores only from the wealthy cities of Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Is it even worth participating in these tests? What can they tell us, if anything, about America’s educational system and how to make it better?

In the Future of Children, Daniel Koretz weighs in with some answers. He stresses that these tests do not provide unambiguous information about the effectiveness of American high schools compared to those of other nations. For example, participant countries vary by year, making it difficult to compare U.S. students with an international average, and the varying curriculums and complex sampling designs also pose problems.

Despite their many limitations, Koretz argues there is value in these tests. In using the results, we should consider multiple tests rather than a single source. We should ignore small differences between countries and consider comparing the U.S. to nations that are similar, such as Australia or Canada, or that are particularly high-achieving. Perhaps the most important benefit of testing is the numerous hypotheses that result about what impedes or improves student performance, which can then be tested and evaluated.

While there are certainly more important indicators of student success (e.g., graduation rates, college degrees), test scores offer useful information, which should be considered but not relied on solely. To learn more about how to make sense of test scores and how to improve the educational system, see the Future of Children issue on America’s High Schools.

Obama’s Education Initiative

Posted on by

President Obama recently proposed a set of measures to make college more affordable. Some experts have argued for more innovation to drive down education costs, and the President is suggesting drastic changes to how the federal government promotes postsecondary education. Pending Congressional approval, federal financial aid would be partly linked to college rankings on measures like tuition, graduation rates, the percentage of lower-income students attending, and how much money graduates make. Some of this information is already available through an online college scorecard released earlier this year. The motivation for this approach is to encourage institutional innovation and allow students attending highly ranked colleges to receive better financial aid.

The President has also proposed other ideas, including experimenting with competency-based degrees that reflect students’ knowledge more than the hours they’ve spent in the classroom, massive open online courses, three-year degree programs, performance-based financial aid, and more.

With changes likely coming to post-secondary education in the coming years, it is crucial to base policy decisions on the best research available. The Future of Children‘s issue on Postsecondary Education in the United States is a good place to start.

For example, while online learning is often believed to be an institutional cost-cutting measure, Bell and Federman explain that the evidence is inconclusive. There are significant start-up and recurrent technological support costs, yet implementation may result in savings in instructor compensation costs over time–particularly if institutions adopt more machine-guided courses. Research shows online learning can be effective for students, but we know little about how to do it right. One challenge colleges will likely face is a high dropout rate–especially among low income students without a fast Internet connection. In promoting innovation, the federal government will need to consider how to support technology delivery and use among disadvantaged students.

Obama has proposed performance-based financial aid. Dynarski and Scott-Clayton found that linking student financial aid to achievement can improve college performance and completion more than grants with no strings attached. This measure will likely be effective for enrolled students, but another issue is outreach to prospective students. For instance, many of them overestimate the cost of attending college by as much as three times, and a recent national survey of young adults found that fewer than three in ten individuals people without a college degree knew what the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) was. In revamping the financial aid program, policymakers should keep in mind that program complexity undermines aid’s effectiveness. Aid needs to have simple, easy-to-understand eligibility rules and application procedures. To find more research and policy recommendations see the Future of Children‘s issue on Postsecondary Education in the United States.

Reforming College Remediation Programs

Posted on by

Despite the rising percentage of working-age adults with a college degree, low college completion rates are still a major problem in the US and will have to rise much more to meet the demands of the future workforce. One problem, especially as workers have been displaced following the economic crisis, is that many students are arriving or returning to college underprepared for college work. Future of Children author Eric P. Bettinger, Angela Boatman, and Bridget Terry Long report that the number of high school graduates who are ready for college-level material may be as low as one-third, with even lower levels among some nontraditional students.

Colleges have adjusted to the needs of incoming students by offering greater access to developmental or remedial courses, placing close to 40 percent of incoming freshmen into such courses. Structure and quality vary widely, and they have shown mixed results in their effectiveness. Some argue that too many students are placed in remedial courses unnecessarily, with high costs to institutions and the public. Evidence suggests that remedial courses may have positive effects for those who need them, but may actually have negative consequences for those who don’t.

Bettinger, Boatman, and Long say one way colleges might improve the effectiveness of such programs is to reexamine placement procedures. For example, some states have begun offering placement exams to high school sophomores and juniors, as opposed to waiting until their college freshman year, to give students the opportunity to consult with parents, advisors, and educators about areas to focus on as they prepare for college. Some institutions are also making efforts to redesign their developmental programs, stressing remediation not as a curricular roadblock but as a means to launch students on to college-level work and give them the skills they need to succeed in a college major. For the best evidence for what works, read the latest research on this topic in the Future of Children issue on Postsecondary Education in the United States.

Is College a Good Investment?

Posted on by

Many of this year’s graduating high school seniors already have their eyes set on a specific university, but others wonder if pursuing a postsecondary degree is really worth the time and cost. The public continues to debate whether college is a good investment, but in a review of the latest research, Future of Children authors Philip Oreopoulos and Uros Petronijevic find truth somewhere in the middle. They suggest that college can be a good investment if students prepare well and plan their studies and occupational pursuits carefully.

About 19 percent of 2011 high school graduates who took the ACT and were considered academically ready never enrolled in college or didn’t return to college after the first year. Some of these students may have had better alternatives, but many may have been unprepared in nonacademic ways, such as lacking information about college expenses and financial aid. Andrea Venezia and Laura Jaeger write that many students may not know enough about themselves or their future goals to know which college would be best. In addition, students from low-income and disadvantaged backgrounds may feel obliged to attend a less-selective program that is closer to home, even though they qualify academically for more selective institutions. Evidence suggests that such students are less likely to graduate.

In helping students prepare for postsecondary education, educators and policymakers should move beyond an academic focus. Precollege programs across the country have begun to emphasize guiding students through the decision making process and other nonacademic preparation. College is a better investment when students are well informed about the expenses and financial aid options associated with specific programs at specific schools. For more on this topic, check out the Future of Children issue on Postsecondary Education in the United States.

From Prison to Postsecondary Education

Posted on by

For every three people enrolled in a postsecondary institution, one person is under correctional supervision (incarcerated, on parole, or on probation). College has been part of the American Dream for decades, but prisoners and parolees have for the most part been ignored in discussions on improving college enrollment and completion rates.

Most high school students would like to achieve some sort of postsecondary education, but many leave high school unprepared for college work. This may be especially true for young adults involved with the criminal justice system, who are more likely to be from poor, racial-ethnic minority, or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds. Indeed, education levels among the correctional population are much lower than among the general population. Some evidence suggests that increasing educational attainment among offenders may effectively reduce recidivism, but few studies have rigorously examined how postsecondary education affects the correctional population.

The Pathways from Prison to Postsecondary Education Project, recently launched by the Vera Institute of Justice, “seeks to demonstrate that access to postsecondary education, combined with supportive reentry services, can increase educational credentials, reduce recidivism, and increase employability and earnings.” The initiative will take place in three states over five years, and evaluations will be conducted by the RAND Corporation. At least one of the states, New Jersey, already has correctional postsecondary education programs in place, including Princeton University’s Prison Teaching Initiative.

The Future of Children issue on Postsecondary Education highlights the dramatic changes that are taking place in institutions of higher education and the students who attend them. As policymakers and educators make efforts to increase enrollment and improve program quality and completion, they should not forget the 7 million people under correctional supervision and what access to college for them might mean for their families and the nation as a whole.

Finding and Fixing Flaws in Financial Aid Policy

Posted on by

Recent reports underscore what many argue are serious problems with current financial aid policy. Lawmakers debate about how to handle the soon-to-expire low interest rate on federal student loans. Meanwhile, public and private colleges and universities have awarded more merit-based than need-based scholarships in recent years, leaving low-income students to seek other options or saddle large amounts of debt. As noted by Susan Dynarski and Judith Scott-Clayton, important questions to ask in addressing such issues are how effective current policies are in increasing student enrollment, performance, and completion, and what influence financial aid has on students’ choices following graduation.

From their review of the research on financial aid, Dynarski and Scott-Clayton draw four important lessons for lawmakers, colleges, and universities. First, money matters. Financial aid increases student enrollment and may improve persistence and completion. Second, all aid programs are not equally effective. Studies show that personalized information and assistance in the financial aid process can increase college entry. Third, academic incentives are helpful. Achievement-based financial aid may increase college performance and completion rates. Finally, the design of student loans may be improved to be clearer about student risks and repayments upfront.

Financial aid had become increasingly important for college enrollment and completion. Lawmakers and college administrators should draw upon the best evidence as policy changes continue to develop. To review the latest evidence on postsecondary financial aid policy, see the newest issue of Future of Children, Postsecondary Education in the United States.

College at a Crossroads

Posted on by

As the latest issue of the Future of Children reports, higher education in the US is changing dramatically. On the one hand, access to college has expanded at a remarkable rate. On the other hand, scores of students are finishing high school unprepared for college work. Meanwhile, today’s economy has left many public colleges and universities strapped for resources and unable to meet student demand. Thus, many students, particularly those from low-income families, are forced to either seek an alternative route or drop out.

One rapidly growing option for students is for-profit colleges. Also known as proprietary colleges, they often exist as large national chains led by online institutions. Future of Children authors David Deming, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence Katz explain that for-profit colleges seem to be most helpful when they offer short, well-defined programs offering a clear path to a specific occupation. While these programs have grown to efficiently meet student demand as public institutions have struggled, their students carry higher levels of debt and are more likely to default on loans. Indeed, much of the revenue these institutions rely on comes from federal student aid. Moreover, the rate of return for these students is lower. Upon leaving school, they are more likely to be unemployed and have lower earnings than students at other institutions.

To keep up with student demand, many state systems and community colleges have sought to expand access to online learning programs. The Babson Survey Research Group estimates that by 2010, 31 percent of college and university students were enrolled in at least one online course. As Marketplace reports, more selective institutions may also begin offering more options for online learning. Examining the research, Bradford Bell and Jessica Federman find that online learning can be an effective tool in higher education, insofar as it creates conditions that are conducive to learning specific content. See the latest research on e-learning in the new issue of the Future of Children, Postsecondary Education in the United States.