IV.  Effective Practices in Outreach Programs

It seems clear that the outreach programs can make a difference in the lives of young people and in the quality of curriculum and teaching in K-12 schools.  Overall, the programs reviewed for this report have increased the numbers of underrepresented, disadvantaged students going on to higher education.  The professional development activities of various programs have also helped teachers and schools do a better job of educating all students.  In this section we examine the services provided by these programs in an attempt to understand more about what makes them successful and what might make them even more successful.  We also describe certain practices or program components that seem especially promising.

The analysis looks first at student-centered services and then at school-centered services.  As we have seen, some programs provide both major types of services, and there is no absolute distinction between types.  In fact there are instances where student-centered services can have school-wide effects by creating a more academic school culture, for example.

The whole array of programs which we have reviewed under the heading of  outreach programs defies precise classification.  The term outreach suggests services originating on college or university campuses and reaching out into K-12 schools.  This characterization of outreach is appropriate for some, but by no means all, of the programs we reviewed.  At least one of the programs AVID might be more appropriately called up-reach since it originated within K-12 and later evolved into a collaborative program with higher education. 

It is also the case that the term "outreach programs" has usually been reserved for those services which are student-centered, as opposed to the broader range of higher education activities that touch K-12 schools, such as teacher-training and professional development programs.  Some programs, such as the California Subject Matter Projects, do not have student-centered components but have been included in this review because of the extensive rethinking currently under way regarding how the University can best focus resources on helping larger numbers of underrepresented, disadvantaged students become prepared for and successful in higher education.

Limited Current Evaluation Data
We note at the outset that current evaluation data do not enable us to conduct a definitive analysis.  Few program evaluations have been conducted with rigorous designs and data collection.  No evaluations of the student-centered programs have systematically investigated the differential effects of one program component versus another.  Although this analysis is based, wherever possible, on strong evidence from program evaluations and related research,  it also draws on the cumulative weight of suggestive evidence and informed opinion.  We understand that the University is reviewing outreach services in light of new admissions policies and that our charge is to synthesize the best available evidence.  Not withstanding the limitations of current data,  we believe that the data can help to inform deliberations about future strategies.

The data provide persuasive evidence that the student-centered programs have influenced many students to go to college who otherwise would not have gone.  However, it would be erroneous to conclude that the programs reporting the highest college-going rates for their participants are the best programs.  The programs use different criteria to select or recruit students, provide different services, and have different delivery models.  For some of the programs, data management systems are not in place to ensure reliable statistics on student participants and college-going rates.  Furthermore, the University's outreach programs serve a recruitment as well as an academic- development function, and include some students who are already well on their way to qualifying for a competitive university.

School-centered strategies and programs are even more challenging to evaluate than student-centered programs.  The interventions are complex and often occur outside the K-12 classroom or school e.g., at professional development institutes.  It is much more difficult to establish a causal link between school-change strategies and the longer-term goal of preparing greater numbers of disadvantaged students for college.  Yet it has been documented that these interventions can lead to improvements in curriculum and teaching.  Although there is currently no direct evidence of causal relationships between these interventions and improved college-going rates, the school-centered strategies are part of the current discussion about outreach because of strong presumptive evidence that such assistance to K-12 schools can contribute significantly to longer-term goals.

It would be misleading to conclude that because the need is so great all programs should be expanded indiscriminately.  While there can be no argument that we need to prepare many more low-income and minority students for higher education, it is not self-evident that expanding all current programs is the best strategy for accomplishing this goal.  Although the data are ambiguous and inconclusive, we believe that some essential principles can be derived from this information about effective practices.

BACK  |  HOME  |  NEXT