Newsletter Subject

The Edge: What Does It Mean if a Big Prize for Student Success Has No Winner?

From

chronicle.com

Email Address

newsletter@newsletter.chronicle.com

Sent On

Wed, Apr 21, 2021 11:01 AM

Email Preheader Text

A foundation was going to award $5 million for an app to improve retention, but it couldn’t fin

A foundation was going to award $5 million for an app to improve retention, but it couldn’t find what it was looking for. ADVERTISEMENT [Advertisement]( [logo] [Read this newsletter on the web](. I’m Goldie Blumenstyk, a senior writer at The Chronicle covering innovation in and around academe. Here’s what I’m thinking about this week. What ever happened to that $5-million prize for a student-success app? I never thought it would take more than six years to report to you the results of the College Success Prize [I first covered in 2015](. The delay has a little to do with more-pressing news and, to be candid, my own failure to consistently and insistently follow up. But another part of the story is an unexpected conclusion to this experiment in identifying new ways to promote disadvantaged students’ progress in college. What happened illustrates what can veer off course when an organization launches a splashy contest aimed at finding innovative solutions. Notably, the contest’s sponsors might not be that forthcoming about the results, especially if they fall short of expectations and hype. And that’s too bad, because in the case of the College Success Prize, which was sponsored by the Robin Hood Foundation, the lack of transparency means educators and researchers won’t learn as much as they could from the finalists’ work with community-college students who face academic, financial, and personal challenges in trying to complete their degrees or transfer. To me, that undermines the broad value of the contest. ADVERTISEMENT [Advertisement]( Subscribe to The Chronicle The Chronicle’s award-winning journalism challenges conventional wisdom, holds academic leaders accountable, and empowers you to do your job better — and it’s your support that makes our work possible. [Subscribe Today]( I’m sure that the folks at Robin Hood, a foundation in New York City focused on fighting poverty, had good intentions when they invited organizations to compete for up to $5 million by creating an app that would increase completion rates among students at the City University of New York by at least 15 percentage points above the rate for a control group. Yet once the competition ended, the foundation did not announce the results of the randomized controlled trials with anything near the publicity it had courted in announcing the contest in 2014, or in naming three finalists a year later. Those finalists were Beyond 12, an [organization that promotes student success through online coaching]( and whose founder I recently interviewed for the[Innovation That Matters podcast series]( and another nonprofit called Kinvolved, which is known primarily for its work in K-12 settings fostering student engagement by using text messages to encourage class attendance. The third finalist, the company EAB, ultimately decided not to compete. The experiment ended in August 2018. But Robin Hood never issued a news release announcing the outcome. None of the $5 million was ever awarded. In September 2019, the foundation did post on its website [a two-paragraph statement on “prize results,”]( explaining that neither of the finalists’ interventions had raised graduation rates among students in remedial courses “by an amount statistically significant compared to the control group.” But how would anyone know to look there to find that out? And then, that’s it? Unfortunately, despite an earlier commitment, the foundation has not made public the complete third-party evaluation of the work. A Robin Hood spokesman said that commitment didn’t necessarily include publicizing a proprietary document. "The primary purpose of the report was to facilitate an internal decision in determining a winner of the prize competition, or in this case, to declare there was no winner," the spokesman said. I’ve seen the 59-page evaluation, dated June 2019, under the condition that I can summarize the findings but not publish the document. I’m glad to have that chance, although I’m pretty sure that education researchers better trained to dive into the data (and all those regression analyses) could identify some deeper and potentially useful takeaways if they could see the evaluation, too. But will they? For now, several conclusions from the report, by Abt Associates, did stand out to me. The Beyond 12 and Kinvolved apps weren’t as effective as they could be, it says, because: - Students didn’t use the apps as frequently as the organizations had hoped. - Under the contest’s timetable, the apps couldn’t be tested ahead of time and then tailored to meet students’ preferences or needs. - It might have been misguided to expect that a single-purpose app could have a significant impact on a diverse population of students. In other words, maybe the contest wasn’t designed so thoughtfully to begin with. Maybe it was too steeped in silver-bullet thinking. That’s my conclusion, informed to a degree by what I heard from Alexandra Bernadotte of Beyond 12 and Miriam Altman, co-founder of Kinvolved. While both said they benefited from being finalists, they also hinted at some frustration with the limitations they were under. Kinvolved was accustomed to engaging with administrators at the schools using its products, but with the app it developed for the College Success Prize, Altman said her team wasn’t allowed to connect with administrators at CUNY. The foundation wanted to measure the impact of the tool in isolation, she told me. As for Beyond 12, its digital-coaching app typically relies on personal interventions when called for. But those weren’t allowed in the CUNY experiment either. Still, Bernadotte said she was gratified the contest proved that “for the students who are most at risk of dropping out, an app alone is not enough.” That raises another issue: Even though the contest didn’t demonstrate that a single app could meaningfully raise completion rates — and ultimately promote social mobility — it does seem to have succeeded in reinforcing principles that are foundational to the contestants’ approaches. The foundation said it does not consider the contest or its outcome a disappointment. “As a venture philanthropy, Robin Hood does not wed itself to any one theory of change,” Kevin Thompson, managing director of communications, said in a statement. “We realize that not every idea will be successful, but we owe it to the more than 1.5 million New Yorkers who live in poverty daily to vet and test as many possible solutions to poverty as possible.” And, he added, the results “should not be misconstrued as a reflection on the finalists themselves,” especially given the contest’s “audacious goal.” The foundation remains "optimistic that technological innovations have a place in making a difference in educational outcomes," Thompson said, and it will continue to support those ideas, along with other, more-comprehensive approaches. Six years ago, when I wrote about prizes as a way to promote big goals, I noted the potential for a contest to put too much attention on finding new ideas, rather than highlighting approaches that may actually work but have yet to catch on. Now I realize that there are additional risks, like a timetable and conditions for participants. And perhaps not wanting to embarrass the finalists was the reason the foundation didn’t formally announce the results. Turnover at the foundation could have also been a factor. But Robin Hood officials did say from the start that there might not be a winner. As audacious as its goal was, its follow-through feels like a bit of a letdown — and a missed opportunity for others to learn from the process. Got a tip you’d like to share or a question you’d like me to answer? Let me know, at goldie@chronicle.com. If you have been forwarded this newsletter and would like to see past issues, [find them here](. To receive your own copy, free, register [here](. If you want to follow me on Twitter, [@GoldieStandard]( is my handle. Goldie’s Weekly Picks INFORMATION SECURITY [Cyberattacks Are Spiking. Colleges Are Fighting Back.]( By Katherine Mangan [image] Criminal hackers have taken advantage of the unique circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, causing a significant increase in the number and severity of cyberattacks. REOPENING CAMPUS [The Vaccination Dilemma]( By Alexander C. Kafka [image] Should colleges mandate Covid-19 shots? Encourage? Incentivize? All of the above? WORK FORCE [Here’s Who Was Hit Hardest by Higher Ed’s Pandemic-Driven Job Losses]( By Dan Bauman [image] People of color and those with limited labor protections have endured a disproportionate share of the losses. Paid for and Created by LinkedIn [What Higher Ed Marketers Need to Know: The New Adult Learner]( According to insights from LinkedIn, the time is now to engage adult learners. Learn how LinkedIn can help higher education marketers drive enrollment with a full-funnel strategy. Read the article. ADVERTISEMENT [Advertisement]( Job Announcement Vice Provost at Simmons University.[Visit jobs.chronicle.com]( for more details. Paid for and Created by Rowan University [‘A Safety net for all their worries’]( Focused on serving adolescents and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, Rowan Integrated Special Needs Center embeds behavioral health and care coordination into primary care, supporting their needs and complex medical conditions. Today's Global Campus Strategies for Reviving International Enrollments and Study Abroad Pandemic travel restrictions cut both ways, causing international enrollments to plummet and limiting study-abroad opportunities. This Chronicle report provides an in-depth look at how the global education experience has changed and offers strategies for assessing and adapting programs to ensure students' exposure to cultural and global diversity. [Order your copy today.]( Job Opportunities [Search the Chronicle's jobs database]( to view the latest jobs in higher education. What did you think of today’s newsletter? [Strongly disliked]( // [It was OK]( // [Loved it](. [logo]( This newsletter was sent to {EMAIL}. [Manage]( your newsletter preferences, [stop receiving]( this email, or [view]( our privacy policy. © 2021 [The Chronicle of Higher Education]( 1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037

EDM Keywords (201)

yet wrote work winner week wed website web way wanting want view vet veer use undermines trying transfer tool told today tip timetable time thoughtfully thinking think test team tailored sure support summarize successful succeeded students story steeped statement start stand sponsored share severity sent seen seem says say said risk results researchers report reflection receive reason realize rate question put publish publicity products prizes poverty potential post possible plummet place perhaps participants owe outcome others organizations organization number noted newsletter neither needs much misguided misconstrued might measure mean maybe manage making makes looking look logo live little linkedin limitations like letdown learn lack know kinvolved isolation intellectual insights innovation impact hype hoped heard gratified going goal glad frustration frequently foundational foundation forwarded forthcoming follow folks findings find finalists failure factor facilitate experiment expectations expect evaluation enough engaging endured empowers embarrass email effective edge dropping document dive disappointment difference developed determining designed demonstrate delay degrees degree deeper declare data cuny cultural creating created courted course could continue contest consistently consider connect conditions condition complete compete commitment color college chronicle changed catch case candid called bit benefited begin bad audacious assessing apps app announcing announce also allowed adults administrators added accustomed 2015 2014

Marketing emails from chronicle.com

View More
Sent On

05/12/2024

Sent On

03/12/2024

Sent On

02/12/2024

Sent On

02/12/2024

Sent On

02/12/2024

Sent On

09/11/2024

Email Content Statistics

Subscribe Now

Subject Line Length

Data shows that subject lines with 6 to 10 words generated 21 percent higher open rate.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Words

The more words in the content, the more time the user will need to spend reading. Get straight to the point with catchy short phrases and interesting photos and graphics.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Images

More images or large images might cause the email to load slower. Aim for a balance of words and images.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Time to Read

Longer reading time requires more attention and patience from users. Aim for short phrases and catchy keywords.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Predicted open rate

Subscribe Now

Spam Score

Spam score is determined by a large number of checks performed on the content of the email. For the best delivery results, it is advised to lower your spam score as much as possible.

Subscribe Now

Flesch reading score

Flesch reading score measures how complex a text is. The lower the score, the more difficult the text is to read. The Flesch readability score uses the average length of your sentences (measured by the number of words) and the average number of syllables per word in an equation to calculate the reading ease. Text with a very high Flesch reading ease score (about 100) is straightforward and easy to read, with short sentences and no words of more than two syllables. Usually, a reading ease score of 60-70 is considered acceptable/normal for web copy.

Subscribe Now

Technologies

What powers this email? Every email we receive is parsed to determine the sending ESP and any additional email technologies used.

Subscribe Now

Email Size (not include images)

Font Used

No. Font Name
Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2019–2025 SimilarMail.