Larger adequacy gaps between projected adequate cost and actual spending were associated with fewer success points milestones per FTE student¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2027: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Colleges in the largest adequacy-gap quintile earned 2.24 milestones per FTE versus 2.46 in the smallest-gap quintile, a difference of about one standard deviation. → Levin 2022

Evidence¶

Levin 2022¶

Levin, J., Baker, B., Lee, J., Atchison, D., & Kelchen, R. (2022). An Examination of the Costs of Texas Community Colleges. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive quintile analysis for 2019/20: colleges sorted into five adequacy-gap quintiles of roughly equal students served, comparing student-weighted average milestones. The report notes the 0.22 difference equals approximately 1 standard deviation (0.224) of the 2019/20 measure.

"The colleges with the largest adequacy gaps (quintile 5) earned an average of 2.24 success points milestones per full-time equivalent student compared with 2.46 for the colleges with the smallest adequacy gaps (quintile 1), a difference of 0.22 success points milestones"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Colleges serving the highest shares of first-generation students tended to have larger adequacy gaps, spending $1,475 below projected adequate cost — related
• Smaller community colleges tended to have larger adequacy gaps, with colleges under 4,001 students spending $1,871 (17 percent) below projected adequate cost — related
• Colleges with higher percentages of first-generation, economically disadvantaged, academically disadvantaged, older, and English learner students earned fewer success points milestones per FTE student — related
• Texas's current funding system is progressive for several need factors, but the additional spending may not be enough for equal opportunity — related
• Cost function analysis indicates substantially higher spending is needed for equal opportunity: weights of 2.49 for first-generation and 2.63 for students older than 24 — related
• After accounting for other factors, colleges with higher shares of first-generation, older, English learner, and academically disadvantaged students still earned fewer milestones, while economic disadvantage and dual-credit shares were no longer significant — related
• Colleges with higher percentages of academically disadvantaged students spent less per FTE student, suggesting possible resource inequities — related