What should states watch out for?

Is early intervention really the best approach? While state and local early intervention programs are now fairly common, there is still only limited evidence as to whether these programs actually enhance academic achievement (grades or test scores).

In order to successfully close gaps in college access and completion for minority and low-income youth, policymakers must closely examine some potential limitations of early intervention. Consider the following questions.

Are enough students served?

Given the programmatic nature of most early intervention strategies, normally few students in a particular school are involved. The U.S. Department of Education’s Cliff Adelman estimates that no more than 11.4% of African-American and 5.3% of Hispanic students participate in such programs.

The policy challenge is to expand the scale of programs in order to serve more students, without sacrificing the personal attention that research suggests serves students well.

Oklahoma effectively serves a larger pool of students by establishing clear college preparatory expectations for all students – for both high school courses and core academic competencies. These expectations are consistent with requirements for college entrance and success.

Do programs target students most in need?

Many early intervention programs serve students who probably would have gone on to college anyway. Therefore, Policymakers must consider whether investing in early intervention will truly increase the pool of college-ready students in their state.

Historically, college preparation programs have utilized a “triage” model, serving students who already show some promise (grades or test scores) of academic success.

However, targeting the most promising students inevitably limits the scale and effectiveness of early intervention efforts. Programs that primarily serve students who don't really need extra motivation or support cannot significantly affect the achievement gap. In contrast, reaching out to students who appear to be marginal college candidates can effectively steer more students toward college.

Does every student get a taste of college?

Students cannot learn (or desire) what they are never exposed to. For instance, the choice of a college preparatory track in high school means that a non-college track exists. How can students in a non-college track possibly know what they would miss in life by not going on to college?

In the early intervention model, "the problem" tends to be defined as poor student motivation and decision-making. The logic typically goes like this: If youths can be persuaded to take appropriate courses, and if they also receive more social and academic support, then more students will be more likely to enter and succeed in college.

A more useful way to frame this issue is to define "the problem" as the fact that, where college preparation is entirely optional, many students are never exposed to the challenges and potential benefits of higher education. In other words, many students may never realize what they are capable of achieving because they are not required to try. This stunts students' drive to achieve.

A better policy approach to achieving college-access goals is to ensure that low-income and minority students take more challenging coursework in high school. One option is to create a “default” college preparatory track for all students, like Texas did in 2001.

Are students staying in college, and graduating?

States cannot reduce gaps in minority college enrollment merely by increasing access. Low-income and minority students are also much less likely to complete college degrees than their more advantaged counterparts.

One recent study showed that only 16% of Latino high school graduates ages 25-29 received bachelor's degrees – compared to 37% of whites.

Minority students also are more likely to enroll part-time in college, and to begin at community colleges and other two-year institutions. Research suggests these factors can reduce a student's chance of degree completion.

To improve graduation rates, states can:

• Strengthen financial aid policies to better support part-time students
• Strengthen transfer programs and matriculation agreements with four-year institutions
• Improve the overall quality of community college academics.

To compensate for these limitations, states should integrate the components of successful early intervention programs into a seamless K-16 system. This approach yields postsecondary opportunity and success for all students.

(Top of this page)

Closing the Achievement Gap
NGA Center for Best Practices
Hall of States, 444 N. Capitol St., Washington, D.C. 20001-1512
Telephone: (202) 624-5300 | webmaster: webmaster@nga.org