Desde el Kalamazoo Promise en 2005, los programas de colegio gratuito, también conocidos como programas de promesa, han aumentado significativamente como forma de ayuda financiera destinada a abordar la asequibilidad y el acceso a la educación superior. Estos programas son innovadores porque enfatizan la ubicación geográfica sobre el mérito académico y la necesidad financiera, lo que hace que los estudiantes sean elegibles en función de dónde asisten a la escuela o residen. En las últimas décadas, estos programas han multiplicado, con más de 400 operando actualmente a nivel estatal y local.
Aunque existe una sustancial evidencia sobre el impacto de los programas de promesa en los estudiantes, se sabe menos sobre cómo funcionan estos programas desde la perspectiva de los administradores. La investigación reciente llena esta brecha al ofrecer perspectivas a los formuladores de políticas. Esta investigación involucró entrevistas con 32 administradores y profesionales de la educación superior de siete colegios comunitarios ubicados en California, Florida, Michigan y Nueva York. Estos participantes trabajaron directamente con estudiantes en diversas unidades de la institución, incluyendo la experiencia de primer año, admisiones, ayuda financiera y asesoramiento académico.
### Recomendaciones para la Política ### Recomendaciones para la Práctica2. Proactive and Persistent Advising
Practitioners underscored the crucial role of persistent and regular advising in helping students navigate college. They recommended more effective advising to students and greater support for advising staff. One concrete recommendation is for programs to proactively offer advice rather than waiting for students to ask questions. This is important because students often do not know what they do not know. Proactive advising can be achieved via clearer college websites, regular outreach to students, checklists with topics for advisors to cover in advising sessions, and automated alerts to students that leverage university data to warn students when they are in danger of losing program eligibility. Studies show that proactive or “intrusive” advising in promise programs can positively impact retention and degree completion, while also potentially closing achievement gaps for racially minoritized and low-income students.
Another recommendation is to allow for longer advising sessions rather than the more “transactional” model in which advisors register students and “get them in and get them out.” This recommendation aligns with research on authentic “person first” advising relationships. Assigning students the same advisor from their first to second year could also help maintain continuity and build stronger relationships. These suggestions hinge on adequate capacity for advising, which remains a challenge for some higher education institutions.
3. Building Community
Two practitioners recommended that promise programs foster a greater sense of community through developing a shared identity connected to the program. Research suggests that belonging is associated with student success outcomes, and this association may be stronger for marginalized students.
4. Resource Constraints
The above recommendations were often accompanied by an acknowledgment of the resource constraints that hinder more holistic or effective student support. An additional recommendation is to increase investments in student success within promise programs. Prior research shows that adding these supports improves the effectiveness of these programs on post-enrollment outcomes. Some practitioners noted a disconnect between the incentives for recruitment and those for student success, observing that promise programs often prioritize access while giving less attention to ensuring students thrive once enrolled. This observation is consistent with existing research on promise programs, which finds consistent positive effects on enrollment but less consistent effects on student success outcomes, including credential attainment.
5. Ensuring Non-Promise Students Are Not Harmed
Institutional resources are sometimes redirected toward promise students, or promise students are granted advantages over their non-promise peers. Practitioners and policymakers should monitor the effects of promise supports on non-promise students to ensure non-promise students are not unintentionally harmed.
Feedback for Promise Programs’ Success
College administrators and practitioners work directly with students day-to-day and have the experience and expertise to offer recommendations for policy and practice. Heeding their feedback will ensure these free college programs live up to their promises.
