Expanding and Enriching College Admissions Opportunities for High-Potential Youth the Goldman Sachs Foundation’S Signature Initiative
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Gaining Acceptance: Expanding and Enriching College Admissions Opportunities for High-Potential Youth The Goldman Sachs Foundation’s Signature Initiative Catherine M. Millett and Michael T. Nettles Policy Evaluation & Research Center Educational Testing Service November 2006 Princeton, New Jersey RR06-32 Gaining Acceptance: Expanding and Enriching College Admissions Opportunities for High-Potential Youth The Goldman Sachs Foundation’s Signature Initiative Catherine M. Millett and Michael T. Nettles Policy Evaluation & Research Center Educational Testing Service Princeton, New Jersey November 2006 RR-06-32 As part of its educational and social mission and in fulfilling the organization’s nonprofit charter and bylaws, ETS has and continues to learn from and also to lead research that furthers educational and measurement research to advance quality and equity in education and assessment for all users of the organization’s products and services. ETS Research Reports provide preliminary and limited dissemination of ETS research prior to publication. To obtain a PDF or a print copy of a report, please visit: http://www.ets.org/research/contact.html Table of Contents Executive Summary . 1 Introduction. 4 The Educational Realities of Many Underrepresented Students in the United States. 4 Creating Opportunities: Selective Colleges . 6 The Signature Initiative. 7 Planning for Evaluation From the Beginning. 7 A Profile of The Goldman Sachs Foundation’s Students. 9 School Partnerships. 11 Why Work With 7th-, 8th- and 9th-Graders?. .11 Becoming a Goldman Sachs Foundation Student. 12 Applying to a Signature Initiative Program . 14 Profiles of the Four Programs. .14 A Better Chance . 15 I-LEAD. .18 CTY. 21 NYMRLA. .24 Who Goes the Distance?. .28 Looking Beyond Their Numeric Credentials. .29 The Student Perspective. 29 The Parent Perspective . .30 Enrollment at Selective Colleges . 31 What Did We Find When We Took a Closer Look?. 34 Considerations for the Future. .35 Appendix A: Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges . 36 Appendix B: Signature Initiative Programs’ 2001 Evaluation Plans . .40 A Better Chance’s Evaluation Plan — 2001. .41 I-LEAD’s Evaluation Plan — 2001. 42 Center for Talented Youth’s Evaluation Plan — 2001. 44 NYMRLA’s Evaluation Plan — 2001. 47 Appendix C: Schools Goldman Sachs Foundation-Sponsored Students Attend . 50 Appendix D: Tests Used in the Program Selection Process. 55 Admission Tests Used by Programs. .56 Appendix E: Additional A Better Chance Information. 62 Appendix F: Additional I-LEAD Information . 66 Appendix G: Additional CTY Information. .74 Appendix H: Additional NYMRLA Information. 79 Reference List. .85 — i — Table of Tables Table 1: The Goldman Sachs Foundation Signature Initiative Grantees . 7 Table 2: Profile of Newly Matriculated Goldman Sachs Foundation Students by Program as of 2006. 10 Table 3: Profile of Prospective Goldman Sachs Foundation Students by Program . 12 Table 4: The Goldman Sachs Foundation Signature Initiative Program Talent-Identification Process. 13 Table 5: The Goldman Sachs Foundation Program Application Process. 14 Table 6: Colleges Where Goldman Sachs Foundation Students Are Enrolled as of Fall 2006. 32 Table 7: Colleges and Universities Where I-LEAD Students Were Accepted Compared to Students in the Prior Class at Their High Schools . .34 Table 8: Colleges and Universities Where I-LEAD Students Were Enrolled Compared to the Comparison Group. 34 Table A1: First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Attending Four-Year Colleges and Universities By Selectivity: Fall 2004. 37 Table A2: Most Competitive and Highly Competitive Colleges and Universities in 2005. .38 Table A3: Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges 2005 Admissions Selectivity Criteria. .39 Table C1: Schools Goldman Sachs Foundation-Sponsored Students Attend. .51 Table D1: Admissions Tests Required by Signature Initiative Programs. 57 Table D2: A Better Chance Student Performance on Admissions Tests. .58 Table D3: I-LEAD Student Performance on Admissions Tests. .59 Table D4: CTY Student Performance on the SAT® at Admission . .60 Table D5: NYMRLA Student Performance on Admissions Tests. .61 Table E1: Profile of Enrolled A Better Chance Students . 63 Table E2: A Better Chance Student Performance on the PSAT®, SAT and AP® Course Enrollment. .64 Table E3: A Better Chance Grade Point Average by Grade. 65 Table F1: Profile of Enrolled I-LEAD Students. .67 Table F2: Profile of I-LEAD Students and Comparison Group Students. 68 Table F3: I-LEAD and Comparison Group Student Performance on the PSAT. .69 Table F4: I-LEAD and Comparison Group Student Performance on the SAT. 70 Table F5: I-LEAD and Comparison Group Student Enrollment in Advanced Placement® Courses. 71 Table F6: I-LEAD and Comparison Group Grade Point Average by Grade. 72 Table F7: I-LEAD and Comparison Group Enrollment in Honors and AP Courses by Grade . 73 Table G1: Profile of Enrolled CTY Students . .75 Table G2: Profile of CTY. 76 Table G3: CTY Student Performance on the PSAT, SAT and AP Course Enrollment. 77 Table H1: Profile of Enrolled NYMRLA Students. .80 Table H2: NYMRLA Student Performance on the PSAT, SAT and AP Course Enrollment. 81 Table H3: NYMRLA Grade Point Average by Grade . 83 Table H4: NYMRLA Enrollment in Honors and AP Courses by Grade . 84 Table H5: NYMRLA Enrollment in Accelerated Courses in Middle School. .84 — ii — Table of Figures Figure 1: Academic Planning for Admission and Enrollment in Selective Colleges. 11 Figure 2: A Better Chance Students’ Performance on the PSAT. .16 Figure 3: A Better Chance Students’ Performance on the SAT . 17 Figure 4: A Better Chance Student Enrollment in AP Courses . 17 Figure 5: I-LEAD and Comparison Group Class 1 and Class 2 Student Enrollment in AP Courses. 19 Figure 6: I-LEAD Class 1 and Class 2 Achievement on the SAT. .20 Figure 7: Matriculated CTY Students’ Performance on the SAT Compared to the National Pool of 7th- & 8th-Graders Who Take the SAT . 22 Figure 8: CTY Student Performance on the SAT. .23 Figure 9: CTY Student Enrollment in AP Courses. 23 Figure 10: NYMRLA Students’ Performance on the SAT Compared to the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 National Pool of 8th-Grade SAT Test Takers. .25 Figure 11: NYMRLA Class 1 and Class 2 Enrollment in AP Courses. 26 Figure 12: NYMRLA Class 1 SAT Performance. 27 Figure 13: Number of Starters and Persisters by Program. .28 — iii — Acknowledgements We would like to thank A Better Chance, Inc., Bank Street College of Education, Center for Talented Youth, and Prep for Prep for their good will and cooperation throughout the evaluation. We are grateful to our ETS research colleagues Brent Bridgeman, Daniel Eignor, Linda Scatton and Tiffany Smith for their careful reading of early drafts of this report. We acknowledge Hyeyoung Oh and Heather Corcoran for their data analysis work and review of penultimate and final drafts of this report. We are thankful to The Goldman Sachs Foundation for its support and involvement through- out the evaluation. — iv — Executive Summary In 1999, the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. launched The Goldman Sachs Foundation with a mission to promote excellence and innovation in education worldwide. Among the first programs supported by the Foundation was the Signature Initiative: Developing High-Potential Youth for Excellence and Leadership. The Signature Initiative sought to develop the academic talents, abilities and entrepre- neurial skills of underrepresented middle school and high school students. The idea was to prepare these students to be more competitive participants in the admissions processes of the nation’s most selective colleges and universities and, in turn, equipping them to compete more effectively for positions with the nation’s leading corporations. In 2000, the Foundation awarded grants to four institutions as a part of the Signature Initiative — The Center for Talented Youth (CTY) at Johns Hopkins University, A Better Chance, Inc., Bank Street College of Education and Prep for Prep. To date, the four organizations have received a combined total of $10.7 million in grant support. Each institution developed its own program model to increase the number of underrepresented students admitted to highly selective colleges. Since the program’s inception, 1,228 students have participated in a Goldman Sachs Foundation- sponsored program. Four-fifths of the students are African American or Hispanic. Slightly more than half are girls (54%). The students are from various sectors of education — 21% attend parochial schools, 38% attend public schools and 40% attend independent schools. The median family income of students in the Signature Initiative is $45,000, but 22% are members of families with annual incomes below $19,999, and only slightly above the poverty threshold. Half of the students come from households where one parent has a college degree and many parents and students are navigating the college admissions process for the first time. Students in underrepresented groups face challenges at every stage of their academic careers as they progress through the educational system. These challenges often combine to make admission to a highly selective college difficult, if not impossible. As of September 2006, however, 74% of the 330 Signature Initiative students for whom college enrollment data are available enrolled in the most competitive and highly selective colleges in the United States as ranked by Barron’s, and 54 students are attending Ivy League institutions. Surveys indicate that students participating in Foundation-sponsored programs also experi-