A recent study by Dr. Joshua Hyman that appears in Education Next evaluates the implementation of an 18-week college counseling curriculum and produces findings that should be interesting to state agencies and college access stakeholders everywhere.
Hyman “designed an experiment that compared post-graduation outcomes among students at high schools randomly assigned to teach, or not to teach, an 18-week college-planning curriculum, either as a standalone class or part of a senior-year humanities course.” He notes, “I find a range of benefits, at a cost of about $8 per student.”
The study took place during the 2016-17 academic year and included more than 6,700 Michigan 12th graders across 62 schools. Half of the schools in the treatment group were asked to deliver the curriculum, which was not mandatory for students but in which 63% of eligible students enrolled. The other half of the schools represented a control group but offered the curriculum to students the following academic year.
The curriculum in question was developed by the Michigan College Access Network (MCAN), a longtime National College Attainment Network (NCAN) member and partner. We’ll have more information on it in a future post!
To evaluate the curriculum’s impact on students’ postsecondary outcomes, Hyman used data from a variety of sources, including the National Student Clearinghouse. He compared the college enrollment, persistence, and completion outcomes as well as the type of school to which students matriculated and their declared major of students at treatment and control high schools.
Source: Education Next
High-Achieving, Low-Income Students’ Postsecondary Outcomes Rose the Most
- More students in treatment high schools did not enroll in college, and these schools’ college-going rates remained similar.
- However, the course influenced which students went to college. Hyman notes, “high-achieving students, defined as having above-median GPAs and scores on the SAT, are 4% more likely to enroll in either a two- or four-year college, while low-achieving students are 9.5% less likely to enroll.”
- Treatment students had higher rates of postsecondary persistence and were more likely to earn an associate degree within six years of high school graduation.
- Notably, the effects for low-income high achieving students were largest. These students were 6% more likely to enroll in college and 11% more likely to earn a two- or four-year degree.
- Contrast this with the finding that low-income, low-achieving students enrolled 9.5% less after taking the curriculum. Hyman emphasizes that, “There is no decline in the share of those students earning a degree. In other words, offering a college-planning curriculum nudges a greater share of academically prepared students to enroll and succeed in college, while some of the students who would be most likely to drop out opt not to enroll in the first place.”
Increasing Student Mobility from Two- to Four-Year Institutions
As noted, Hyman had access to students’ matriculation destinations and choice of major, and he hypothesizes that these played a role in the treatment group’s increases in college persistence. Hyman notes that, “The college-planning curriculum emphasizes both the opportunity to apply community-college credits toward a bachelor’s degree and the value of an associate degree in the labor force.” Consequently, exposure to the curriculum, increased the percentage of students who enrolled in both two- and four-year institutions following high school graduation by 27%.
Importantly, low-achieving low-income students who received the curriculum were 16% less likely to enroll in only a community college but were 94% more likely to enroll in both a two- and four-year institution.
Undermatch and Enrollment Destinations
“Undermatch” is a phenomenon by which a student enrolls at an institution whose academic admissions criteria are lower than that student’s demonstrated achievement. The curriculum “emphasizes avoiding ‘undermatch’ in school choice, because community colleges and non-selective four-year institutions tend to have fewer resources and lower graduation rates.” Many students exposed to the curriculum apparently were paying attention during this unit; the percentage of students enrolling in a “safety,” “match,” or “reach” school increased 23% for students in the treatment while those enrolling solely in a safety school decreased 6%, although this finding failed statistical significance tests.
Interestingly, low-income, high-achieving students exposed to the curriculum were 12% more likely to enroll in a safety school. Hyman concludes, “It seems [the undermatching messaging] succeeded in preventing low-achieving students who would have enrolled at these types of institutions from doing so, but not in inspiring low-income, high-achieving students to enroll in more competitive schools.”
What Did the Curriculum Cover?
The table below describes the content and cadence of the college planning curriculum developed by MCAN and delivered in this study.
| Weeks | Topic Overview |
|---|---|
| 1–3 | Cost and Benefits of Attending CollegeSchool TypesCollege Match (Students’ qualifications & preferred colleges) |
| 4–9 | Application Process & Submission (1 reach, 1 safety, 1 match) |
| 10–14 | Applying for Financial Aid |
| 14–18 | Career ExplorationResume BuildingCollege Matriculation (Enrollment & Major Selection) |
Approaching a college readiness curriculum for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds requires intentional and targeted support.This MCAN curriculum reflects a broader commitment to ensuring access and opportunity for all students and aligns with ongoing state-level policy and advocacy efforts.
This is not the first time that NCAN has covered college and career readiness curricula. For example, Illinois’ Postsecondary and Career Expectations (PaCE) Framework has been instrumental in guiding the development of individualized learning plans, career-focused instructional pathways, and professional learning opportunities in that state. These efforts also align with the Illinois State Board of Education’s College and Career Readiness Indicator (CCRI), demonstrating a statewide emphasis on comprehensive and coordinated approaches to postsecondary preparation and success.
Additionally, we previously wrote about Tempe Union High School District’s CCR framework.
States, Districts, and Schools Should Take Note
Hyman describes the curriculum intervention as “efficient” because its costs, about $8 per student, are very small even relative to the modest increases in lifetime earnings generated by increasing degree attainment. The conclusion to Hyman’s article is one we’d love to be shared far and wide:
This near-zero financial cost is an important strength of the intervention. Schools serving large numbers of economically disadvantaged students are rarely in the financial position to hire additional counselors or implement a new college-going intervention, even if it is relatively inexpensive on a per-pupil basis. Yet these students are underrepresented on college campuses and arguably most in need of direct support in navigating admissions and enrollment decisions. A college-planning curriculum delivered by classroom teachers represents a promising alternative.
NCAN will keep our eyes out for more evaluations of these kinds of interventions and continue to share them with members and the field. In the meantime, if you’d be interested in implementing such a curriculum in the schools you serve, please reach out to our partners at the Michigan College Access Network.
By Bill DeBaun, Senior Director, Data and Strategic Initiatives, and Karina Delgado, Communications Intern, NCAN