Executive Summary

GATE 

W A Y

TO COLLEGE

Lessons from Implementing a 

Rigorous Academic Program 

for At-Risk Young People

Jacklyn Altuna Willard 

Brian Bayes 

John Martinez

September 2015

Gateway to College 

Lessons from Implementing a Rigorous Academic 

Program for At-Risk Young People

Jacklyn Altuna Willard

Brian Bayes 

John Martinez

September 2015
This report is funded by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation’s Social Innovation Fund, a 

program of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). The Edna McConnell 

Clark Foundation’s Social Innovation Fund includes support from CNCS and 15 private coinvestors: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Duke Endowment, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The JPB Foundation, George Kaiser 

Family Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Penzance Foundation, 

The Samberg Family Foundation, The Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, The 

Starr Foundation, Tipping Point Community, The Wallace Foundation, and Weingart Foundation. 

Dissemination of MDRC publications is supported by the following funders that help finance 

MDRC’s public policy outreach and expanding efforts to communicate the results and implications of our work to policymakers, practitioners, and others: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 

Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, Ford 

Foundation, The George Gund Foundation, Daniel and Corinne Goldman, The Harry and Jeanette 

Weinberg Foundation, Inc., The JBP Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, 

Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Sandler Foundation, and The Starr Foundation. 

 

In addition, earnings from the MDRC Endowment help sustain our dissemination efforts. Contributors to the MDRC Endowment include Alcoa Foundation, The Ambrose Monell Foundation, 

Anheuser-Busch Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Ford Foundation, The George Gund Foundation, The Grable Foundation, The Lizabeth and 

Frank Newman Charitable Foundation, The New York Times Company Foundation, Jan Nicholson, Paul H. O’Neill Charitable Foundation, John S. Reed, Sandler Foundation, and The Stupski 

Family Fund, as well as other individual contributors. 

The findings and conclusions in this report do not necessarily represent the official positions or 

policies of the funders. 

For information about MDRC and copies of our publications, see our website: www.mdrc.org. 

Copyright © 2015 by MDRC®. All rights reserved. 
iii

Overview 

Despite efforts to improve the high school graduation rate in the United States, an estimated 7,200 

students drop out of high school every day — a staggering 1.3 million every year. Further, a recent 

report by the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University projects that by 

2020, nearly 65 percent of U.S. jobs will require at least some college education, out of reach for 

those who are unable to earn a high school diploma. Much more comprehensive alternative education programs are needed that put dropouts and students at risk of dropping out on a path to earn 

high school diplomas while also providing them with the academic skills and support necessary to 

be successful in their postsecondary pursuits.

Gateway to College provides a comprehensive alternative education program in which students 

work toward earning their high school diplomas while simultaneously earning credits toward an 

associate’s degree or postsecondary certificate. It is uniquely ambitious in providing struggling 

students with opportunities often reserved for the highest achievers, in the belief that high expectations and the right support can help more students complete high school and transition to college.

This report describes the implementation of Gateway to College. It has two main goals. The first is 

to provide an in-depth account of the Gateway to College model and to more precisely define the 

youth population the program serves. A clearer picture of the service population can provide insight 

into Gateway to College’s unique value and identify the students who might benefit most from it. 

The second goal is to describe the implementation of the Gateway to College model at three sites, 

assess the extent to which it is implemented as designed at those sites, and draw lessons for other 

Gateway to College sites.

The implementation study is guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the core elements of the Gateway to College model? Whom does the model serve?

2. Were the core elements of the Gateway to College model implemented as planned?

3. What kinds of adaptations were made to meet the demands of the local context and the needs of 

the local student population?

4. What factors facilitated or impeded successful program implementation?

This study finds that, at a broad level, the three study sites implemented the Gateway to College 

model as designed. However, Gateway to College struggled with finding the right balance between 

being flexible and providing concrete guidelines for implementation. The same would be true of any 

program serving at-risk and dropout young adults that is interested in implementing a flexible model 

on a large scale, but given the challenges the program sites faced with retaining students, Gateway to 

College may need to take a close look at which aspects of the model need to be bolstered, consider 

setting clearer guidelines about what implementation practices are in line with the model’s core 

principles and values, and strengthen the mechanisms by which the program’s National Network 

provides ongoing training and support. All of these are natural next steps in the program’s evolution.

v 

Contents

Overview iii

List of Exhibits vii

Preface ix

Acknowledgments xi

Executive Summary ES-1

Chapter

1 Introduction and Study Overview 1

Background and Policy Context 1 

About the Gateway to College Program 2 

Past Research on Gateway to College 4 

Study Overview 5 

The Three Program Sites in the Study 8 

2 A Closer Look at the Gateway to College Model and the Student 

Population Served 11

About the Gateway to College Model 11 

Core Program Components and Theory of Change 12 

The Gateway to College Staff 16 

Eligibility Criteria and the Application Process 17 

Description of the Student Study Sample 22 

Choosing Gateway to College: Identifying Other Programs Attended by 

Potential Participants 27 

3 Implementation of the Gateway to College Program 31

Learning Community with Prescribed Core Courses During the 

Foundation Term 31 

Principles of Teaching and Learning 38 

Comprehensive Student Support Services 41 

Transition to Mainstream Community College 43 

Training and Support 52 

4 Summary and Discussion of Implementation Findings 55 

For Further Exploration and Consideration: Suggestions for Strengthening 

the Gateway to College Model 58 
vi

Appendix

A Lessons Learned About Student Outreach 61 

B Data-Collection Activities 67 

References 71 
vii

List of Exhibits

Table

1.1 Characteristics of Study Sites 8

2.1 Selected Characteristics of Sample Members at the Time of Application,

by Site 23

3.1 Prescribed Courses by Program Site 33

3.2 Program Group Progress Through Prescribed Courses 44

3.3 Reasons for Leaving Gateway to College 51

Figure

2.1 Outcomes for a Typical Set of 100 Inquiries About the Gateway to

College Program 20

2.2 Patterns of Enrollment in Education Among Control Group Survey 

Respondents 29

3.1 Persistence and Transition to Community College Course Work:

California Site 46

3.2 Persistence and Transition to Community College Course Work:

Colorado Site 47

3.3 Persistence and Transition to Community College Course Work:

Washington Site 48

Box

1.1 The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (EMCF) Social Innovation Fund 3

ix

Preface

Although the nation has made significant progress in addressing its high school dropout crisis, 

students who slip through the cracks — those who have dropped out of high school or who are 

so far behind in credits that they are unlikely to graduate — have very few safety nets and even 

fewer on-ramps to the road that leads to a college education and a middle-class income. Gateway to College, a dual-enrollment program, is one program that gives young people an onramp. In Gateway to College, students who have dropped out of high school or who are at risk 

of dropping out can simultaneously earn credits toward a high school diploma and a postsecondary degree. Such an opportunity has traditionally been reserved for high-achieving students, 

not those who have struggled in traditional high school settings, which makes Gateway to 

College unique and particularly ambitious.

This is the first public report on the implementation of the Gateway to College program. 

It provides an in-depth description of the Gateway to College model, an analysis of those whom 

the program actually serves, and an assessment of how well the model was implemented at

three program sites. While Gateway to College has grown into a national network, there is scant 

information about how the program as described on paper is implemented in practice, and about 

what happens when the model is implemented in diverse settings. Past research tells us that 

there are often discrepancies between design and implementation, and that these discrepancies

can make well-designed programs less effective. While this study does not attempt to measure 

the program’s impact on student achievement, exploring the implementation of the Gateway to 

College model can begin to reveal the areas of the program model that are promising and the 

areas that could be strengthened, both in design and in implementation. 

In addition, this implementation study explores the challenge Gateway to College faces 

as a national model that must tread the line between being flexible (as designed) and maintaining consistency in implementation. Many programs struggle to find this balance. While this 

study reveals that broadly speaking the Gateway to College model is being implemented as 

designed, it also suggests that the Gateway to College National Network should work on 

striking a better balance between the flexibility it currently provides its program sites and more 

concrete guidance to ensure consistent implementation. Finding that middle ground would be an 

important next step in strengthening the program’s implementation and, ultimately, better 

serving the needs of at-risk young people. 

Gordon L. Berlin 

President, MDRC

xi

Acknowledgments

The Gateway to College Implementation Study would not have been possible without the 

collaboration of Gateway to College and funding from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation 

and the Social Innovation Fund.

We owe special thanks to the Gateway to College project directors, resource specialists, 

instructors, administrative staff members, and students whose hard work and commitment 

allowed us to implement this study. A special thank you also goes to Ben Byers, Laurel Dukehart, Emily Froimson, Aubrey Perry, Devora Shamah, and the rest of the Gateway to College 

National Network team.

Additionally, we thank Caitlin Anzelone, Jessica Walker Beaumont, Dan Bloom, Janaé

Bonsu, Melissa Boynton, Fred Doolittle, Hannah Fresques, Himani Gupta, Rob Ivry, Christine 

Johnston, Sarah McNeil, Chera Reid, Phoebe Richman, Sue Scrivener, Colleen Sommo, Jed 

Teres, Johanna Walter, and Michael Weiss for their contributions to the evaluation and to this 

report. A thank you also goes to Joshua Malbin, who edited the report, and Carolyn Thomas, 

who prepared the report for publication.

This material is based on work supported by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). The mission of CNCS is to improve lives, strengthen communities, and 

foster civic engagement through service and volunteering. CNCS, a federal agency, engages 

more than five million Americans in service through AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, the Social 

Innovation Fund, the Volunteer Generation Fund, and other programs, and leads the president’s 

national call-to-service initiative, United We Serve.

The Authors

ES-1 

Executive Summary 

This study reports on the implementation of Gateway to College, a program whose mission is to 

serve students who have dropped out of high school or who are at risk of dropping out of high 

school by allowing them to earn a high school diploma and credits toward a postsecondary 

degree. Gateway to College is uniquely ambitious in providing struggling students with opportunities often reserved for the highest achievers; it believes that high expectations and the right 

support can lead to more students completing high school and transitioning to college.

The Gateway to College program began in 2000 at Portland Community College and 

has since grown into a national network of 43 colleges in 23 states partnering with more than 

125 school districts.1

Goals of This Report

This report has two main goals. The first is to provide an in-depth description of the Gateway to 

College model, and to more precisely define the youth population served by the program. This 

is important because past research suggests that one feature of effective alternative education 

programs is a “...comprehensive and rigorous mechanism for admitting the ‘right students’ to 

the program — the students whose characteristics (both positive and negative) suggest that the 

program has a high likelihood for meeting their educational, personal, and social needs.”2 Given 

the diverse and broad range of young people who fall into the “at-risk” and dropout category, it 

is important to identify whom Gateway to College actually serves. A clearer picture of this

population can provide insight into Gateway to College’s unique value and identify the students 

who might benefit the most from it. 

The second goal is to describe the implementation of the Gateway to College model at 

three program sites, assess the extent to which it was being implemented as designed at those

three sites, and draw lessons for other Gateway to College programs. Previous research has 

found that dropout-prevention programs have often worked in the past, and that the more 

effective programs tended to be the ones that were implemented with fidelity (that is, as their 

 1

Gateway to College National Network, “Gateway to College Locations” (Website:

www.gatewaytocollege.org/partner_programs.asp, 2012). Gateway to College had 43 sites at the time the study 

was being conducted. The current number of sites may vary. 2

William E. Davis, Lieve Brutsaert-Durant, and Roxanne Lee, Alternative Education Programs in Maine: 

A Further Investigation of Their Impact on Serving Students Considered to be “At-Risk” and Students with 

Disabilities (Orono, ME: Institute for the Study of Students At-Risk, College of Education and Human 

Development, University of Maine, 2002). 
ES-2 

designers intended).

3 Unfortunately, very few studies of dropout-prevention programs have

taken a close look at how programs like Gateway to College are implemented, or have assessed

how well they adhere to a core model. As other researchers have described, to understand “what 

works” for at-risk and dropout young adults in alternative education settings, it is first necessary 

to understand what programs actually look like when they are implemented. As Berman and

McLaughlin write, “The bridge between a promising idea and its impact on students is implementation, but innovations are seldom implemented as intended.”4

Background

In March 2011, Gateway to College was awarded a three-year investment of $3.5 million in 

grants from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and the Social Innovation Fund (SIF), 

matched by $3.5 million from the True North Fund and coinvestors, to further expand its model 

throughout the country.

This study of the Gateway to College model originally began as a student-level random 

assignment evaluation of the program’s impacts at nine program locations, with an implementation study included. However, due to program site attrition and challenges with student recruitment, the study shifted in design and is now focused on program implementation at three 

locations.

5 The three program sites that participated in this study are located in California, 

Colorado, and Washington. While a more rigorous evaluation of Gateway to College is still 

needed to measure the program’s impact on student outcomes, a deeper understanding of how 

the program model is implemented serves as an important stepping stone.

The implementation study draws on data from a baseline information form, a follow-up 

student survey administered approximately 12 months after students entered the study, program 

administrative data drawn from Gateway to College National Network’s management information system, and qualitative data collected during in-person field visits. The qualitative data 

include interviews with Gateway to College program staff members (instructors, Resource 

Specialists, directors, and staff members charged with conducting student outreach); focus 

groups with Gateway to College students; follow-up phone interviews with a subset of control 

 3

Sandra Jo Wilson, Emily E. Tanner-Smith, Mark W. Lipsey, Katarzyna Steinka-Fry, and Jan Morrison, 

Dropout Prevention and Intervention Programs: Effects on School Completion and Dropout Among SchoolAged Children and Youth (Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2011, available online at: 

www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/158). 4

Paul Berman and Milbrey Wallin McLaughlin, “Implementation of Educational Innovation,” The Educational Forum 40 (1976): 344-370. 5

MDRC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed and approved the original study design and protocols. All subsequent changes to the design were presented to and approved by the IRB. There were no 

significant IRB issues identified.
ES-3 

group students; interviews with postsecondary and K-12 school district partners; program 

documents such as organizational charts, lists of alternative educational options nearby, and 

course syllabi; and observations of instruction.

The Gateway to College Model

Gateway to College forges partnerships with K-12 school districts and local community 

colleges to serve young adults who have dropped out of high school or who are at risk of 

dropping out. Gateway to College participants are generally enrolled in both the K-12 district 

and the college at the same time. However, all program activities take place on the college 

campus.

To be eligible for Gateway to College, a student must be:

● Between 16 and 20 years old

● On the verge of dropping out or already not enrolled in school

● Behind in credits (for age and grade) with a history of absenteeism and a low 

grade point average

● Living in a partnering school district’s service area

● Reading at the eighth-grade level or higher

● Able to earn a high school diploma by age 21

The Gateway to College model consists of five core components:

1. A learning community with a prescribed set of core courses during the first 

semester. During their first semester, called the Foundation term, students take a 

series of linked classes together as a cohort of 20 to 25 students. The classes include 

developmental reading and writing (sometimes combined into a single English 

Language Arts class), math, and college preparatory courses taught primarily by 

Gateway to College instructors.

2. Instruction and support based on the Gateway to College Principles of Teaching and Learning, a set of guiding principles that inform instructors’ interactions 

with students.6

 

 6

The principles are: (1) creating an integrated, outcomes-based curriculum; (2) maintaining a rigorous 

learning environment; (3) creating collaborative and inclusive learning communities that are respectful and 

(continued)
ES-4 

3. Comprehensive support services, particularly during the Foundation term.

These support services are provided primarily by Gateway to College Resource 

Specialists who serve as counselors/advisers and advocates. Instructors may also 

provide support services, but this is considered to be the primary role of the Resource Specialists. 

4. A transition to mainstream community college classes in students’ second 

term. After successfully completing the Foundation term, students take standard 

community college classes with other community college students. At this time, 

students are no longer in a learning community, but may maintain contact with 

Gateway to College staff members and students.

5. Training and support for Gateway to College staff members. Gateway to College programs’ staff members spend six to nine months in intensive training when 

programs first join the Gateway to College National Network. Staff members continue to receive technical assistance from the National Network through the first 

two years of operation. After two years programs transition to “veteran” status: 

They continue to have access to services from the National Network as needed, but 

do not typically receive the same level of technical support.

Main Findings

Given the small number of program sites that ultimately ended up participating in this study, the 

findings outlined in this report are not broadly generalizable. However, those findings do point 

to important lessons related to the program model and its implementation, which can serve as 

launching points for further exploration and discussion.

● The population served by Gateway to College at these three program 

sites is both challenged and promising.

While the students served by Gateway to College at these three program sites are behind in credits and demonstrate troubling behaviors such as low grades and poor attendance, 

they should also possess a certain level of maturity, motivation, and readiness to commit to a 

rigorous academic program like Gateway to College.

Most of the students who enrolled in Gateway to College at the three study sites were 

typically still enrolled in education or had only very recently dropped out of high school (that is, 

 

focused on solutions; (4) pursuing relevant, project-based learning; (5) constructing meaning — that is, helping 

students solve new problems by drawing on previous experiences; (6) encouraging personal growth; and (7) 

embedding assessments in the curriculum.
ES-5 

within the previous six months). Students who enrolled in the program at these three locations

had usually not been disconnected from education for long periods. This is likely influenced by 

the program’s recruitment practices, which rely heavily on referrals from partnering school 

districts. This finding suggests that, in practice, Gateway to College at the three study program 

sites has a stronger focus on dropout prevention than dropout recovery.

7

● At a broad level, the three Gateway to College program sites that participated in this study implemented the core model as designed.

The three program sites participating in this study were able to implement the core 

model as designed, with some local variations. Given the level of flexibility inherent in the 

model, these local adaptations do not necessarily undermine the program’s implementation 

fidelity. Rather, the local adaptations are seen as important attributes of the program. Program 

sites’ diverse postsecondary contexts and varying target populations mean that local programs 

must exhibit considerable flexibility.

Variations in implementation among the three program sites occurred in (1) how the

career development course was implemented, (2) how the learning communities were formed, 

(3) how instructors viewed their role, (4) how programs interpreted what project-based learning 

should look like in the classroom, and (5) the rates at which students transitioned to mainstream 

community college.

Another important adaptation to the model that was present at all three program sites was 

the implementation of a transition course after the initial Foundation term. Program sites recognized the need for an additional mechanism to stay in contact with students beyond the Foundation term, and all decided to make this adaptation to the model to better serve their students.

Local variations in implementation at the three program sites were driven primarily by 

three factors: (1) the need to align program operations with the practices and priorities of 

postsecondary host institutions, (2) variations in student needs, and (3) variations in interpretations of certain principles of the model.

● The strong relationships between program staff members and students

are among the model’s areas of strength. The program as implemented 

in these three locations also succeeds at maintaining a shared culture of 

support for students and pedagogy that focuses on helping students find 

solutions to their problems. 

 7

Dropout recovery focuses on providing pathways for students who have already dropped out of high 

school to return to a formal education setting. 
ES-6 

Most students in the program reported strong relationships with Gateway to College instructors and Resource Specialists. Students at the three study sites especially appreciated being 

treated with maturity and respect by the program’s staff. If they started to fall behind, program 

staff members worked with them to identify ways of mitigating challenges rather than chastising them or solving the problem for them. Students at the three study sites also appreciated 

being in an environment of like-minded students who were motivated to graduate high school 

and pursue postsecondary degrees. 

● The biggest challenges that Gateway to College faced at these three program sites were retaining students during the initial (Foundation) term

and ensuring their transition to the mainstream community college. 

At two of the program sites, the proportion of students who left the program after one 

semester was very high (44 percent at the Washington program and 46 percent at the California 

program). By the second semester, enrollment rates across the three programs ranged from 47 

percent to 79 percent and by the third semester, enrollment rates ranged from 25 percent to 46 

percent. Fewer than half of the students at the three program sites were able to pass all of their 

Foundation courses and successfully transition to mainstream community college. The biggest 

academic stumbling block for them was English Language Arts. Fewer than half of all Gateway 

to College students passed their Foundation English course.

According to the student follow-up survey, most students who left the program without 

receiving a diploma did so because of personal circumstances such as health problems, family 

issues, or conflicts with work.

● Given the challenges and wide range in retention and transition rates 

across the three program sites, Gateway to College may want to consider additions to strengthen the model. These additions may need to be 

supported with more explicit guidance about implementation and technical assistance from the National Network.

A few possible ways the model could be strengthened include: (1) capitalizing more on 

students’ already strong relationships with staff members and fellow students in order to better 

identify and mitigate potential barriers to retention and transition; (2) bolstering academic 

support, particularly in the area of English Language Arts; (3) strengthening peer support; (4) 

extending the learning community experience (as these three program sites have already begun 

to do); and (5) implementing a systematic approach to listening to student needs to ensure that 

program practices are in alignment with their diverse circumstances. It is also still an open 

question whether the model could benefit by better identifying the types of students who are 

likely to do well in the program. 
ES-7 

When it comes to guidance, the National Network could provide program principles 

that are more concretely codified and that are supported by examples of how essential elements 

of the model should be implemented (along with examples of how they should not be implemented). This guidance could also include a more standardized process for providing programsite-specific technical assistance and better mechanisms for ensuring increased participation in 

the training and professional development provided by the National Network.

The Gateway to College National Network has not traditionally focused on ensuring 

consistency in implementation. Its role has been primarily to help new program sites launch 

their iterations of the model, to provide a rigorous training regimen during program sites’ early 

years, and to provide technical assistance as needed. In the next phase of the program model’s 

growth and development, Gateway to College may need to take more active steps to ensure a 

better balance between local flexibility and consistent, high-quality implementation. Doing so

would represent a natural next step in the program model’s evolution and one in line with the 

National Network’s current thinking. According to the Gateway to College Annual Report, the 

National Network is currently exploring the creation of a certification system that would define, 

standardize, and track continuous improvement at Gateway to College program sites.8

● From students’ perspectives, Gateway to College fills an important 

niche: It provides a mature and respectful learning environment for

at-risk young people who are ready, willing, and able to commit to a rigorous academic program and who are interested in pursuing a postsecondary education.

Several other nontraditional educational programs serving at-risk young adults operate

within the three Gateway to College program sites’ service areas. Other alternatives include 

online/blended programs, alternative high schools, and adult basic education. None of these 

other options offers a comprehensive alternative in the eyes of Gateway to College students in

those three service areas. 

Conclusion

Overall, this study of the Gateway to College model finds that broadly speaking, the program at 

the three study sites was implemented as designed. However, the challenges and wide range in 

retention and transition rates across the three study sites suggest two things: First, programs 

serving at-risk and dropout young adults that are interested in implementing a flexible model 

may need to strike a better balance between being flexible and providing concrete guidelines for 

 8

Gateway to College National Network, 10 Years of Impact: 2013 Annual Report (Portland, OR: Gateway 

to College National Network, 2013).
ES-8 

implementation. Second, Gateway to College may need to take a closer look at which aspects of 

the model need to be bolstered, consider setting clearer guidelines about what implementation 

practices are in line with the model’s core principles and values, and strengthen the mechanisms 

that allow the National Network to provide ongoing training and support. All of these are

natural next steps in the program’s evolution.
1 

Chapter 1 

Introduction and Study Overview

Background and Policy Context

Despite efforts to improve the high school graduation rate in the United States, an estimated 

7,200 students drop out of high school every day — a staggering 1.3 million every year.1

Without a high school diploma, students’ chances of pursuing higher education and earning a 

postsecondary degree that leads to a living wage become greatly diminished. The implications 

of our country’s dropout crisis are significant: Over the course of a lifetime, a high school 

dropout earns on average about $260,000 less than a high school graduate.2 Dropouts from the 

class of 2008 alone are projected to cost the nation more than $319 billion in lost wages over the 

course of their lifetimes.3

Further, a recent report by the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown 

University projects that by 2020, nearly 65 percent of U.S. jobs will require at least some 

college education, out of reach for those unable to earn a high school diploma.4 President 

Obama has also called for an increase in the number of college graduates in the United States 

by 2020. To meet this goal the United States not only has to address the high school dropout 

crisis, but also provide students with the academic preparation needed to be successful in 

college and career.

It is worth noting that most students who drop out of high school try to reengage in education.5 For many students, one of the only viable options for doing so is to obtain a General 

Educational Development (GED) credential. However, concerns persist about whether passing 

the GED test is an appropriately high benchmark of academic preparedness and whether 

earning a GED credential opens the same doors to careers and further education as a high 

school diploma. Students who earn a GED credential often have aspirations of a college degree, 

and nearly half enroll in postsecondary education. Unfortunately, only 4 percent persist to earn a 

degree.6 As a result, much more comprehensive alternative education programs are needed, 

ones that can put students on a path to earn a high school diploma while also providing them 

with the academic skills and support necessary to be successful in their postsecondary pursuits. 

 1

Wittenstein (2010).

2

Rouse (2005).

3

Alliance for Excellent Education (2008). 4

Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl (2013). 5

Nearly two-thirds of dropouts obtain a diploma or a GED credential within eight years of their originally 

scheduled high school graduation date. MDRC (2013). 6

Garvey (2011).
2 

While there is no shortage of dropout-prevention initiatives and comprehensive college-prep 

programs in the United States, very few programs take on these ambitious, dual goals. 

About the Gateway to College Program

Gateway to College, however, does take on these dual goals. Gateway to College began in 2000 

at Portland Community College with the goal of reconnecting to education those students who 

had dropped out of high school or who were are at risk of dropping out.

7 In 2011, Gateway to 

College was awarded a three-year investment from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation 

Social Innovation Fund (SIF) to further expand its model throughout the country (see Box 1.1). 

Today, Gateway to College has grown from a single-site program into a national network of 43 

colleges in 23 states, partnering with more than 125 school districts.8 The Gateway to College 

National Network, headquartered in Portland, Oregon, provides training, technical assistance, 

professional-development opportunities, and program evaluation for each individual program 

— from the due-diligence and planning process through initial program implementation, and for 

as long as the program remains in the network.

The Gateway to College program provides a comprehensive alternative education 

where students work toward earning their high school diplomas while simultaneously earning 

credits toward an associate’s degree or postsecondary certificate. Gateway to College participants are generally enrolled in both the local K-12 school district and the community college 

that is serving as the host institution. However, all Gateway to College program activities and 

classes take place on a college campus. 

All students begin with a Foundation term, a learning community experience where 

they take a set of prescribed courses in cohorts of 20 to 25. After completing the Foundation 

term, students transition to regular community college classes and receive varying levels of 

support services (depending on the local program and the needs of particular students) from 

Gateway to College’s staff. Staff members assess students’ needs, both during the Foundation 

term and afterward, in the course of interactions that vary by local program and that range from 

formal one-on-one meetings, to interactions during class time, to informal conversations.

Gateway to College serves students between the ages of 16 and 20 years who are behind in credits for their age and grade and who have low grade point averages (1.6 on average, 

historically). Most students enter the program with approximately half of the credits they need

 7

“At risk of dropping out of high school” refers to students behind in credits based on when they started 

high school. 8

Gateway to College National Network (2012). Gateway to College had 43 sites at the time the study was 

being conducted. The current number of sites may vary.
3 

Box 1.1

The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (EMCF) 

Social Innovation Fund

The Social Innovation Fund (SIF) — an initiative enacted under the Edward M. Kennedy 

Serve America Act — targets millions of dollars in public-private funds to expand effective 

solutions across three issue areas: economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth development and school support. This work seeks to create a catalog of proven approaches that can be 

replicated in communities across the country. The SIF generates a 3:1 private-public match, 

sets a high standard for evidence, empowers communities to identify and drive solutions to 

address social problems, and creates an incentive for grant-making organizations to target 

funding more effectively to promising programs. Administered by the federal Corporation for 

National and Community Service (CNCS), the SIF is part of the government’s broader agenda 

to redefine how evidence, innovation, service, and public-private cooperation can be used to 

tackle urgent social challenges.

The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, in collaboration with MDRC and The Bridgespan 

Group, is leading a SIF project that aims to expand the pool of organizations with proven programs that can help low-income young people make the transition to productive adulthood. 

The project focuses particularly on young people who are at greatest risk of failing or dropping 

out of school or of not finding work; who are involved or likely to become involved in the 

foster care or juvenile justice system; or who are engaging in risky behavior, such as criminal 

activity or teenage pregnancy. 

EMCF, with its partners MDRC and Bridgespan, selected an initial cohort of nine programs 

and a second cohort of three programs to receive SIF grants: BELL (Building Educated Leaders for Life), Center for Employment Opportunities, Children’s Aid Society-Carrera Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program, Children’s Home Society of North Carolina, Communities In Schools, Gateway to College Network, PACE Center for Girls, Reading Partners, The 

SEED Foundation, WINGS for Kids, Youth Guidance, and Children’s Institute, Inc. These 

organizations were selected through a competitive selection process based on prior evidence of 

impacts on economically disadvantaged young people, a track record of serving young people 

in communities of need, strong leadership and a potential for growth, and the financial and 

operational capabilities necessary to expand to a large scale.

The EMCF Social Innovation Fund initiative is called the “True North Fund” and includes 

support from CNCS and 15 private co-investors: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, The 

Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Duke Endowment, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The JPB Foundation, George Kaiser Family Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, Open 

Society Foundations, Penzance Foundation, The Samberg Family Foundation, The Charles 

and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, The Starr Foundation, Tipping Point Community, 

The Wallace Foundation, and Weingart Foundation.
4 

to finish high school.9 Students graduate from the program when they earn their high school 

diplomas. A typical Gateway to College graduate will have spent 1.5 to 2 years in the program 

and will have earned roughly two semesters’ worth of credits toward an associate’s degree or 

postsecondary certificate.10

Past Research on Gateway to College

Few studies have yet described or assessed the academic programs that exist in the alternative 

education field.

11 While some researchers have attempted to identify key attributes of effective 

programs,12 they have themselves cautioned that these lists of characteristics “represent the best 

judgments of researchers and advocates” and that “there has been no documentation of how 

common these features are to existing programs or which particular aspect(s) of the academic 

program is critical for which population of students served by alternative education.”13

There have, however, been two prior studies of the Gateway to College model, one 

conducted by Pacific Research and Evaluation and another conducted internally by the Gateway 

to College National Network. In 2012, the national study conducted by Pacific Research

and Evaluation found positive effects on study students’ participation in and completion of 

postsecondary education, but the response rate was too low to generalize to other Gateway to 

College students.14

The internal research conducted by the Gateway to College National Network — which 

uses data from the National Network’s centralized management information system — has also 

shown some promising, nonexperimental results. Gateway to College’s most recent three-year 

cohort graduate rate (for students who began the program during the 2011-2012 school year) 

was 30 percent, with 6 percent still enrolled and progressing through the program. On average, 

students who graduated from the program completed 28 college credit hours. However, Gateway to College does not currently have an appropriate comparison group against which to 

gauge these results. Often, these outcomes are compared with district or state high school 

graduation rates, which pertain to populations often quite different from the populations 

Gateway to College programs serve.

 9

Gateway to College National Network (2013). 10Data come from the Gateway to College National Network management information system and represent the 2012-2013 academic year. 11Ruzzi and Krameer (2006). 12Lange and Sletten (2002).

13Ruzzi and Krameer (2006). 14Rider, Winters, and Neilson (2012). The response rate was 30.6 percent.
5 

This study of the Gateway to College model originally began as a student-level random 

assignment evaluation at nine program locations, including both an impact study and an 

implementation study. The goal of the impact study was to measure the program’s effect on key 

educational outcomes. However, some of the original nine program sites had trouble recruiting 

enough qualified students to add a random assignment component to the application process, 

and thus did not continue their participation in the study. The scope of the study was adjusted 

accordingly. However, due to continued challenges recruiting enough students to meet study 

sample goals and other reasons for site attrition (that is, lack of district or administrative 

support), the study shifted in design and is now focused on understanding program implementation at three locations. While a more rigorous evaluation of Gateway to College is still needed to 

measure the program’s impact on student outcomes, a deeper understanding of how the program model is implemented serves as an important stepping stone.

While, as previously noted, limited research exists into the essential attributes of effective alternative education programs, a systematic review of dropout-prevention programs found 

that these programs have often worked in the past, and that the more effective programs tended 

to be the ones that were implemented with fidelity (that is, as their designers intended).

15

Unfortunately, very few studies have taken a close look at how programs like Gateway to 

College are implemented or have assessed how well they adhere to a core model — particularly 

when implemented in multiple locations. 

This represents an important gap in the literature, and filling that gap could help inform 

the work of practitioners and policymakers interested in how best to serve young adults in the 

at-risk and dropout population. As other researchers have described, to understand “what 

works” for at-risk and dropout young adults in alternative education settings, it is first necessary 

to understand what programs actually look like when they are implemented. As Berman and

McLaughlin write, “The bridge between a promising idea and its impact on students is implementation, but innovations are seldom implemented as intended.”16 To understand a program’s 

impact, it is important first to understand what it looks like in reality, and whether a participant’s experience is consistent with its conceptual framework. The latter is particularly important should there be a future evaluation of the program’s impact on student outcomes.

Study Overview

This is the first implementation study of the Gateway to College model and the first public 

report that focuses on the program’s implementation. This report has two main goals. The first 

 15Wilson et al. (2011). 16Berman and McLaughlin (1976).
6 

goal, addressed in Chapter 2, is to provide an in-depth description of the Gateway to College 

model, and to more precisely define the youth population served by the program. Past research 

suggests that one feature of effective alternative education programs is a rigorous admissions 

process that ensures the program is reaching those students whose characteristics make them 

best suited to the services provided.17 Given the diverse and broad range of young people who

fall into the “at-risk” and dropout category, it is important to identify whom Gateway to College 

actually serves. A clearer picture of the service population can provide insight into Gateway to 

College’s unique value and identify the students who might benefit the most from it. 

A second goal of this report is to describe the implementation of the Gateway to College model at three program sites and, to the extent possible, describe how closely implementation at the three program sites adheres to the intended core model. The three program sites, 

which are located in California, Colorado, and Washington, provide a sense of the range of 

settings in which Gateway to College operates and how the local student population, host 

institution, and neighboring school districts can influence how the model is put into practice. 

The effort to better understand program sites’ implementation of the Gateway to College model 

is described in Chapter 3 and is guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the core elements of the Gateway to College model? Whom does the 

model serve?

2. Were the core elements of the Gateway to College model implemented as planned?

3. What kinds of adaptations were made to meet the demands of the local context and 

the needs of the local student population?

4. What factors facilitated or impeded successful program implementation?

Chapter 4 discusses the benefits and trade-offs of replicating a program with guiding 

core principles that are intentionally left open to local interpretation — a strategy used by a wide 

range of organizations. Additionally, Chapter 4 provides suggestions for how Gateway to 

College might bolster the model and its implementation, and how it might address the difficult 

balance between maintaining program principles and allowing local flexibility.

As described earlier in this chapter, the Gateway to College study was originally designed to measure impacts on important educational outcomes. As part of this original study 

design, two groups of students were created using random assignment, a process similar to a 

lottery, to allow for a fair comparison of their outcomes. One group of students was assigned to 

Gateway to College, while the other was embargoed from enrolling in the program for one year, 

 17Davis, Brutsaert-Durant, and Lee (2002).
7 

and instead informed or reminded of other educational options available in the community. The 

group of students that was not admitted into Gateway to College is called the control group. A 

year after they were randomly assigned, both groups of students were asked to complete a 

survey about their educational achievement and experiences. Due to the sample reduction from 

site attrition and low survey response rates,18 there is not sufficient statistical power for a robust 

comparison of outcomes between those students who were assigned to participate in Gateway to 

College and those who were not. However, some of the results of the 12-month survey are still 

used in this report to understand the contexts in which Gateway to College programs operate.

Data Sources and Timeline of Research Activities

To meet the goals outlined in this chapter, the study team conducted several datacollection activities. First, after successfully completing the applicant screening process and 

agreeing to participate in the study, students completed a baseline information form. The form 

included questions about students’ demographics, academic histories, and motivations for 

applying to Gateway to College. These characteristics are presented and discussed in Chapter 2. 

Once they finished the baseline information form, students were entered into the lottery and 

given their group assignments (either Gateway to College or the control group). This process 

took place leading up to the fall 2012 term at the Colorado and Washington program sites and 

before the spring 2013 term at the California program site.

Second, members of the research team visited the program sites in the spring of 2013 to 

collect several types of qualitative data:

● Interviews with Gateway to College program staff members (instructors,

Resource Specialists, directors, and staff members charged with conducting 

student outreach)

● Focus groups with Gateway to College students

● Interviews with major postsecondary and K-12 school district partners

● Program documents such as organizational charts, lists of alternative educational options nearby, and course syllabi

● Observations of instruction

Third, approximately 12 months after receiving their group assignments, study participants were asked to complete a follow-up survey about their academic progress and their 

 18The overall response rate for the student follow-up survey was 57 percent. The program group response 

rate was 62 percent, and the control group response rate was 47 percent.
8 

Table 1.1

Characteristics of Study Sites

Characteristic California Site Colorado Site Washington Site

First year operating Gateway to College 2004 2008 2009

New students, 2012-2013 170 76 119

Total enrollment, 2012-2013 302 136 262

Approximate size of host institution (number of students), fall 2012 17,000 21,000 4,000

Academic calendar type Semester Semester Quarter

Is Gateway to College considered a separate high school? Yes No Yes

experiences in Gateway to College or other educational programs. The survey data are an 

important source of information about how students experienced the less structured elements of 

Gateway to College, such as their relationships with their peers and with instructors and

Resource Specialists. Fourth, the Gateway to College National Network provided data on 

course enrollment and grades for all participating students during their time in the program, as 

recorded in its management information system by staff members in each location. 

Finally, in the fall of 2014, follow-up interviews were conducted with a subset of the 

control group members who responded to the 12-month follow-up survey. While not representative of the control group as a whole, the experiences these students recounted provide a 

helpful lens through which the survey results can be viewed.

SOURCE: Information about the Gateway to College study sites comes from the Gateway to College National 

Network. Information about the host institution and calendar type is from the Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System.

The Three Program Sites in the Study

The implementation study took place at three Gateway to College program sites in three states: 

California, Colorado, and Washington. These program sites — along with the six others that did 

not continue their participation in the study — were invited to participate because of their 

maturity, high level of program stability, strong leadership, and strong potential to meet the 

study’s sample recruitment goals. However, as described, only three program sites remained in 

the study, due primarily to other program sites’ difficulties recruiting enough students to meet 

the demands of random assignment. This section and Table 1.1 describe the characteristics of 

the three program sites in the study. 
9 

California Program Site

The California Gateway to College program site opened in 2004 and now serves over 

300 students annually, making it one of the largest and oldest program sites in the National 

Network. Each term the program site brings in 80 to 90 new students, or three learning communities of approximately 30 students each. The California program site serves large proportions 

of English learners and first-generation college students. It also has the unique attribute of 

operating as an independent charter school, which provides it a degree of autonomy and 

flexibility that other program sites in the National Network do not typically possess.

At the time of the study, students in Gateway to College at the California program site

came from around ten K-12 school districts. Almost half of the Gateway to College students at 

this program site were from a single district, however. The California program site’s postsecondary host is a large, local two-year city college that served approximately 17,000 students in 

the fall 2012 semester. The program site’s relationship with the postsecondary host is quite 

strong. As the director described, “[The college] has really owned this program from the getgo.” Representatives from the college see the Gateway to College program as an opportunity to 

serve an important population in the community. As one college administrator said, Gateway to 

College is “an opportunity to create an extra portal for our students who would not normally 

feel they could come to college.”

Washington Program Site

The Washington program site launched in 2009. This program serves about 265 students and accepts about 40 students each quarter, for two learning communities of about 20 

students each.

Gateway to College students at the Washington program site came from about a dozen 

K-12 school districts during the year of the study, with almost a third coming from one district. 

Its postsecondary host is a technical college that served approximately 4,000 students in the fall 

2012 semester. Of the three program sites, it probably has the strongest emphasis on career/

technical education. The local Gateway to College director noted that it takes students longer to 

complete the program than students at the other Gateway to College sites (about 9 or 10

quarters) because the program is “focused primarily on having students work towards an 

associate’s degree.” While students are expected to receive their high school diplomas, the 

program site focuses more on getting them to transition into the college.

It is also worth noting that in the state of Washington, technical colleges were formerly 

part of K-12 school districts. When technical colleges joined the community college system in 

1991, they retained the authority to deliver vocational or technical education to high school 
10

students, which allows programs like Gateway to College to receive funding directly from the 

state rather than from partnering school districts.

This program site also benefits from strong commitment from the college’s leaders. The 

host institution feels that although it is challenging, serving young adults at different levels of 

preparedness is an important mission.

Colorado Program Site

The Colorado Gateway to College program site has been a part of the Gateway to College National Network since 2008. At the time of the study, students came from about five K-12 

school districts; the majority (roughly 60 percent) were from one of these districts. The number 

of students that the Colorado program site served varied with districts’ individual budgets, 

which determined the number of seats they allotted to Gateway to College. Generally it served 

between 100 and 150 students. Like the other two program sites in the study, the Colorado 

Gateway to College program has strong support from its postsecondary host’s leaders.
11

Chapter 2 

A Closer Look at the Gateway to College Model

and the Student Population Served

About the Gateway to College Model

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Gateway to College is a national organization with 43 program sites 

across 23 states that partners with more than 125 school districts. As a dual-enrollment program 

that serves young people who have dropped out of high school or who are at risk of dropping 

out, Gateway to College develops partnerships with staff members from both the local K-12 

school district(s) and the local college administration. Gateway to College programs often 

partner with a number of K-12 school districts, which serve as primary sources referring 

students to the program. The number of school district partners varies from program site to 

program site — some have one or two district partners, while others, like the Washington 

program site, have more than ten. Each program is hosted by a postsecondary institution, 

typically a community college. The postsecondary host provides classroom space and access to 

college resources such as tutoring, libraries, and computer labs. Gateway to College participants 

are generally enrolled in both the K-12 school district and the college. However, all program 

activities take place on the college campus.

When Gateway to College programs first join the Gateway to College National Network, they receive a three-year start-up grant that covers a year of planning and two academic 

years of serving students. Gateway to College programs are also funded locally on a per-pupil 

basis by K-12 school districts, often using state-provided funds. Colleges use per-pupil funds to 

cover the cost of tuition, books, staff time, and ongoing student support; students are not asked 

to pay for their courses. Gateway to College program sites often also seek additional resources 

through local grants, in-kind contributions from the college, and additional financial support 

from the National Network. In most cases, Gateway to College staff members (instructors, 

Resource Specialists, etc.) are employed by the postsecondary host institution.

The Role of the Gateway to College National Network

As described in Chapter 1, the development and replication of the Gateway to College 

program model are overseen by a central body called the Gateway to College National Network, which is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. The National Network provides training, 

technical assistance, professional development opportunities, and connections to the broader 

professional learning community of Gateway to College practitioners.
12

Core Program Components and Theory of Change

The Gateway to College model consists of five core components: (1) a learning community 

with a prescribed set of core courses during the first semester, (2) instruction and support based 

on the Gateway to College Principles of Teaching and Learning, (3) comprehensive support 

services, (4) transition to mainstream community college classes in students’ second term, and 

(5) training and support for Gateway to College staff members. 

Learning Community with Prescribed Core Courses During the 

Foundation Term 

Students’ first semester in Gateway to College is called the Foundation term. During 

that Foundation term, students are placed in a learning community of 20 to 25 students who take 

a series of linked classes together: developmental reading and writing (sometimes combined 

into a single English Language Arts class), math, and college preparatory courses taught 

primarily by Gateway to College instructors. The reading/writing courses focus on developing 

and strengthening a range of skills such as reading comprehension, grammar (for example,

parallel sentence structures), and vocabulary. Students may also learn to write different types of 

essays and gain basic research and citation skills — part of a curriculum designed to prepare 

them for college-level courses. Depending on students’ incoming level of academic preparedness, math courses during the Foundation term range from basic arithmetic to pre-algebra. In 

addition, students also take a Student Success course where they learn skills such as time 

management, organization, timeliness, and regular attendance. They also become familiar with 

the resources available to them as college students (that is, the writing/tutoring center, computer 

lab, library, etc.). Finally, the Career Development course provides students with an opportunity 

to explore various career options. This course is also taught by Gateway to College staff

members, but can be taken during the Foundation term or during students’ second term, which 

is called the “transition term.”

Gateway to College averages about 19 students per class, somewhat more than other

alternative education programs, which average 12 to 15 students per class.1 However, the 19-

student class size is typical for alternative education programs that are located on community 

college campuses (for example, community college-based General Educational Development 

[GED] programs).

2

The learning community, a vital feature of the Foundation term, is intended to create a 

shared experience among students, as well as a network of peer support in which students 

encourage each other and reinforce good academic habits such as regular attendance. Learning 

 1

Ruzzi and Krameer (2006). 2

Ruzzi and Krameer (2006).
13

communities in community college settings have been found to have a small, positive effect on 

overall academic progress, as measured by total credits earned.

3 The creation of a network of 

peer support in these learning communities is hypothesized to be particularly critical to the 

Gateway to College model. Past research suggests that during the adolescent years, peer 

influence is one of the most powerful social forces affecting students’ behavior and educational 

outcomes. Adolescent friends are arguably even more important than parents, teachers, or 

counselors in guiding students’ behavior and can have profound impacts on their educational 

trajectories.4

Principles of Teaching and Learning 

The second core component is pedagogy based on Gateway to College’s Principles of 

Teaching and Learning. Those principles, as outlined by Gateway to College, are: 

1. Creating an integrated, outcomes-based curriculum with the collaboration of teachers, centered on interdisciplinary themes5

2. Maintaining a rigorous learning environment by holding students to high expectations, but still tailoring the curriculum to meet students’ learning challenges and 

varying developmental levels

3. Creating collaborative and inclusive learning communities that are respectful and 

focused on solutions 

4. Pursuing relevant, project-based learning

5. Constructing meaning — that is, helping students solve new problems by drawing 

on previous experiences

6. Encouraging personal growth, which includes helping students overcome selfdefeating beliefs and recognizing that academic success is attributable to controllable factors such as hard work, persistence, and resilience

7. Embedding assessments in the curriculum so that expectations and outcomes are 

clear, and students are given the opportunity and tools to assess their own work, as 

well as provide their peers with constructive feedback

 3

Visher et al. (2012). 4

Coleman et al. (1966); Sewell, Haller, and Portes (1969); Sewell, Haller, and Ohlendorf (1970). 5

An “outcomes-based” curriculum means one created with a goal (outcome) in mind. By the end of the 

educational experience (typically either by the end of a course, semester, or academic year) of an outcomesbased curriculum, a student should have reached that goal. In Gateway to College, two examples of learning 

outcomes are being able to write an essay and learning to come to class on time. 
14

Comprehensive Support Services 

The third core component of the model is a set of support services provided primarily 

by Gateway to College Resource Specialists, who serve as counselors/advisers and advocates. 

Instructors also may provide support services, but doing so is considered to be the primary role 

of the Resource Specialists. Like the Principles of Teaching and Learning, the Gateway to 

College National Network envisions a version of holistic student support with certain characteristics that may be put into operation differently by different local programs. Those characteristics, as outlined in Gateway to College program documents, are: 

1. Dedicated student support professionals, with each student assigned a Resource Specialist who provides intensive support throughout the Gateway to College experience

2. An approach based on students’ strengths and focused on solutions 

3. The creation of a community among students to increase their academic and social 

integration into the college environment

4. The implementation of services and structures that address the needs of the whole 

student, which may include community resources outside of the program

Positive relationships with adults are at the center of both the Principles of Teaching 

and Learning and the student support services. These positive relationships, matched with high 

expectations and significant support, are posited to improve students’ engagement with 

education. Research done by Bridgeland, Dilulio, and Morison found that 69 percent of high 

school dropouts claimed adults did not expect them to perform well, and that these low 

expectations contributed to their decision to drop out.6 In addition, research by Kaufman, 

Bradbury, and Owings found that teacher expectations affect both grades and students’ 

likelihood of dropping out.7 As outlined in the Principles of Teaching and Learning and the 

description of comprehensive student support, Gateway to College aims to maintain high 

expectations and assist students by focusing on their strengths and on solutions to their problems. This approach is hypothesized to help more students remain enrolled in education, 

making progress toward their high school diplomas. 

It is also worth noting that, compared with traditional high school counselors, Gateway 

to College Resource Specialists often have relatively low caseloads of approximately 50 

students, which allows them to provide dedicated, personalized support. This accords with the 

recommendations of the Institute of Education Sciences Dropout Prevention Guide, which says 

it is critical to “choose adults who are committed to investing in the student’s personal and 

 6

Bridgeland, Dilulio, and Morison (2006). 7

Kaufman, Bradbury, and Owings (1992).
15

academic success, keep caseloads low, and purposefully match students with adult advocates” 

so that they are able to “devote time and energy to multiple facets of the student’s life.”8

Transition to Mainstream Community College Courses 

After successfully completing the Foundation term, students take standard community 

college classes with other community college students, most of whom took the more traditional 

path of earning a high school credential before starting college. These classes allow students to 

earn credits toward both a high school diploma and a college degree or certificate.

While dual-enrollment programs have been in existence for many years, they were once 

reserved for high-achieving students, and have only recently become available for moderate- to 

lower-achieving students such as those targeted by Gateway to College.9 Past research suggests 

that dual-enrollment programs serving at-risk students may reduce high school dropout rates in 

part because they challenge students academically and give them more engaging course work.

10

That level of challenge and engagement may not be present for them in some traditional K-12 

settings, but it is provided by Gateway to College.

Training and Support 

The fifth core component is training and support for Gateway to College staff members. 

Past research on supporting students at risk of dropping out suggests that staff orientation and 

training is critical to the success of the student-staff member relationship.

11 Gateway to College 

provides training and support in a number of ways — mostly during programs’ start-up phase.

As discussed, when Gateway to College programs first join the National Network, they 

receive a three-year planning and implementation start-up grant. New program sites spend six to 

nine months in intensive training with customized technical assistance, assembling the core 

components of the model and adapting them to the local environment. Staff members continue 

to receive technical assistance from the National Network’s Education Services team through 

the first two years of operation. Once a program site has completed its initial grant requirements, it transitions to “veteran” status within the broader professional learning community of 

Gateway to College practitioners. All veteran program sites continue to have access to services 

from the National Network as needed (typically through stakeholder advocacy and specialized 

data reporting), and access to webinars where promising practices are shared among program 

 8

Dynarski et al. (2008). 9

Bailey and Karp (2003). 10Lords (2000). 

11Ruzzi and Krameer (2006); Grossman and Garry (1997); Sipe (1996).
16

sites.

12 They also participate in Gateway to College’s annual professional development event, 

the Peer Learning Conference.

13 But participation in these training opportunities is optional. 

Generally, program sites do not receive the same level of technical support once they reach 

“veteran” status. All three program sites discussed in this report completed the start-up phase 

before the study began.

The Gateway to College Staff

Gateway to College programs typically have a core team led by a Project Director and supported by instructors, Resource Specialists, and administrative staff members. Gateway to College 

staff members are generally employed by the community college, with a few exceptions.

14

Project Directors lead the overall operation of their program sites. Responsibilities include building relationships with local school districts and other community-based organizations, maintaining relationships with the postsecondary host, and managing internal program 

operations (that is, staffing, overseeing instruction and support, and arranging for staff professional development).

Gateway to College instructors teach the Gateway to College courses during the Foundation term and provide students with academic support as needed. Some Gateway to College 

instructors also teach at the community college where the program is hosted.

Resource Specialists serve as counselors and advisers charged with providing student 

support services. This may include connecting students with other community- or college-based 

resources as needed. Resource Specialists also typically support students with academic 

tutoring, provide ongoing encouragement and emotional support, and may also teach student 

success or career development courses. 

Administrative support. All programs are supported by administrative staff members 

who help to maintain student databases (including the Gateway to College National Network’s 

management information system) and to manage data that are central to meeting state and local 

accountability requirements.

While each program staff member has distinct responsibilities, all are charged with 

maintaining a culture of openness and support for students. 

 12“Stakeholder advocacy” refers to the guidance and support the National Network provides program sites 

to help them with state or local policy advocacy. “Specialized data reporting” refers to the research support the 

National Network provides program sites to help them better understand their student populations. 13The Peer Learning Conference has since moved to a two-year cycle. 14Due to the California program’s unique status as a charter school, for example, some of its staff members 

are employed by a partner K-12 school district. 
17

Eligibility Criteria

To be accepted into the Gateway to College program, a student must be:

Eligibility Criteria and the Application Process

● Between 16 and 20 years old

● On the verge of dropping out or already not enrolled in school

● Behind in credits (for age and grade) with a history of absenteeism and a low 

grade point average

● Living in a partnering school district’s service area

● Reading at the eighth-grade level or higher

● Able to earn a high school diploma by age 21

Expectations are high for Gateway to College students. Tardiness and absenteeism are 

not tolerated, and after just one semester of Gateway to College-specific course work, students 

begin enrolling in mainstream community college classes. Therefore, applicants must also 

demonstrate the maturity and commitment necessary to thrive in this environment. This is 

gauged partly by how a prospective student completes the application tasks — for example, 

whether the student arrives prepared and on time for each day of assessments. Motivation and 

maturity are also focal points in the final interview before a determination is made on the 

student’s application.

The Outreach Process

Typically, Gateway to College programs take a “recruit-to-fill” approach, aiming to 

identify just enough students to fill their seats. The outreach strategies observed at the three 

program sites included formal referrals from local school districts and community-based 

organizations and informal referrals from other students, community members, counselors, and 

other educators. These outreach strategies tended to be passive — the “recruit-to-fill” approach 

does not necessarily warrant a more active outreach process. This is not atypical; some of the 

best known programs for at-risk young adults (such as YouthBuild or ChalleNGe) do not do 

intensive outreach and also tend to serve highly motivated young people.15

The program sites in this study received technical assistance from MDRC as part of 

their participation, with the goal of increasing the number of eligible students who applied. The 

 15Bloom, Levy Thompson, and Ivry (2010). 
18

technical assistance process consisted of consultant-facilitated SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, 

Opportunities, and Threats) analyses, and monitoring and support provided by MDRC site 

liaisons. These discussions covered a range of topics that included broadening or diversifying 

the pool of students being recruited, identifying additional partnership opportunities, and 

identifying specific outreach strategies (for example, the use of social media), among others.

The technical assistance provided was intended both to help program sites recruit 

enough students to meet the study’s sample needs (as part of the original random assignment 

design) and to help them become more stable in the long term, since previously they had been 

largely dependent on school-district referrals. As mentioned, the three program sites represented 

in this report were the ones that were able to successfully increase their number of eligible 

applicants and that effectively applied the outreach plans they developed during the technical 

assistance process. Several lessons were learned during this process that can benefit other 

Gateway to College program sites and other programs serving a similar population. These

lessons are summarized in Appendix A.

The Application Process

The young adults served by Gateway to College are a subset of a larger population of 

students who are not succeeding in mainstream high schools. By analyzing the Gateway to 

College application process and some district-level data, one can begin to gauge how similar the 

students in the program are to their peers. Using this approach alongside statistics from the 

baseline information form provides a richer understanding of the typical participant than the 

eligibility criteria alone can offer.

In conversations with researchers, school administrators and program staff members 

expressed a belief that the group of eligible students who could benefit from Gateway to 

College and who would be a good fit for the program is substantially larger than the group 

currently being served. Indeed, in the areas where Gateway to College operates, the low 

graduation rates in local school districts indicate that many students are not being adequately 

served in the mainstream K-12 system. However, this pool of potential students shrinks once 

one takes into account other factors that determine whether or not a student is a good fit for 

the program.

Publicly available district-level graduation rate data can be used to arrive at a rough estimate of the number of local students who have dropped out of school or who are at risk of 

dropping out.16 If one considers students who have been held back to be at risk of dropping out, 

 16California graduation data for the Class of 2013 were obtained from California Department of Education 

(2013). Colorado data for the Class of 2012 were obtained from Colorado Department of Education (2015). 

Washington data for the Class of 2013 were obtained from Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 

(continued)
19

all local students who fail to graduate in four years are potential Gateway to College students. 

Totaled across the main partner districts for each program site, the estimated size of the local 

eligible population ranges from 800 students (Washington program site) to more than 1,600 

(Colorado program site).17 According to annual enrollment statistics from the Gateway to 

College National Network and data on the intake process from the program sites themselves, the 

three program sites in the study receive 200 to 300 inquiries about the program from students 

each year.18 However, without better information about the number of local students who meet 

other eligibility criteria (such as reading at an eighth-grade level or higher), it is unclear how 

much room to grow the typical Gateway to College program site has. 

To show how often an inquiry about Gateway to College resulted in an application or 

an acceptance, the three program sites provided information on the number of students who 

advanced to each stage of the application process during the study enrollment period (leading up 

to the fall 2012 term in the Colorado and Washington program sites, and spring 2013 for the 

California program site). In some cases, the program sites also provided reasons why certain 

students were not accepted. These data were supplemented by interviews with program staff 

members about the application process. A typical progression of a set of 100 inquiries about 

Gateway to College is represented in Figure 2.1.

Across the three program sites in the study, students are most often referred to the program by their high school guidance counselors — usually because they have been identified as 

struggling in the traditional school setting or because they have been identified as being unlikely 

to graduate on time. The approach a particular guidance counselor takes can influence how 

many of that counselor’s students follow up with Gateway to College. In fact, focus groups and 

interviews with students and K-12 partners suggest that some counselors are selective about 

referrals while others are not. Several students mentioned that many students “probably don’t 

hear about [Gateway to College]” and that the only reason they heard about it was because 

someone specifically referred them to it. Other counselors seem to rely on the curiosity and 

motivation of their students. As one high school counselor said, “Anyone that wants information is given information. And then it’s up to [the student] to take the next step if they want

 

State of Washington (2015). Definitions and instructions for calculations using adjusted graduation cohorts can 

be found in U.S. Department of Education (2008). 17A district was considered a “main” partner district if at least 5 percent of study participants at the local 

Gateway to College program site lived in that district. Using this criterion, 3 of the 5 California district partners 

are main partners, 4 out of 4 Colorado district partners are main partners, and 6 out of 13 Washington district 

partners are main partners. 18Calculated using National Network management information system data for the 2012-2013 academic 

year.
20

100 students inquire about 

Gateway to College: 

calling or visiting the 

office, providing basic 

information, signing up 

for an information session

73 students attend an 

information session

65 students apply to 

Gateway to College: 

taking placement tests, 

submitting paperwork 

and essays

52 students are accepted 

by Gateway to College

Figure 2.1

Outcomes for a Typical Set of 100 Inquiries About the Gateway to College Program

SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on Gateway to College program records on students interested in applying 

during the study enrollment period. 

NOTES: The data were provided by sites in a variety of formats and were reconciled to create an approximation.

 Ratios represent the typical experience at a Gateway to College study site. Sites are weighted equally, not 

according to enrollment levels.

 At the Washington program site, where Gateway to College operates alongside a more typical dual-enrollment 

program for high-achieving students (known as Academy), there is a combined information session for everyone 

interested in either program. Due to that shared application process, records from the Washington program site 

included students who expressed interest in either program. To account for this, the total numbers provided by the 

site were calibrated based on the ratio of students accepted to Gateway to College over the total number of 

students accepted to either program.

73

100

65

52
21

to pursue it.” Other students heard about the program from teachers, friends, or family members. A counselor or family member can inquire on the student’s behalf and schedule a date to 

attend a more detailed in-person information session or orientation.

Sometimes students learn enough from the initial contact to understand that they would 

not qualify or to determine that Gateway to College is not an environment where they would 

thrive. Before the information session, the program often asks basic questions about a student, 

mostly pertaining to eligibility factors such as age, school district, academic standing, and 

referral source. Occasionally, if a student is too young or is coming from a district without a 

funding arrangement with the program, Gateway to College staff members will inform the 

student about the issue before the information session takes place. If a student inquires about the 

program but does not attend an information session, it is generally considered an indication that 

he or she is no longer interested in participating; if the inquiry was made by a parent or counselor, the student may not have been very interested in the first place. For every 100 inquiries 

about Gateway to College, about 73 students attend an information session.

At the information session, students learn about the benefits of the program and what it 

means to participate. At the time of this study, at some program sites students also took an 

assessment called the API that determined whether or not they were able to read and write at an 

eighth-grade level.19 Applicants either fill out an application during the information session or 

complete it beforehand and turn it in when they arrive. Those who meet the basic eligibility 

requirements are then invited back for one to two additional days of assessments.

At the Washington program site, where Gateway to College operates alongside a more 

typical dual-enrollment program for high-achieving students, there is a combined information 

session for everyone interested in either program. Staff members consider transcripts, grade 

point averages, credits earned, and age to determine which program is appropriate for a given

applicant. Most students who attend an information session or orientation do take further steps 

in the application process, and return to take additional tests or submit transcripts and required 

essays. For every 100 that inquire, 65 students at least partially complete an application for 

Gateway to College.

Gateway to College programs typically administer the placement tests preferred by their 

host colleges; the program sites in the study used either the Compass or ACCUPLACER test. A 

student’s test results are considered alongside the number of credits he or she needs to graduate, 

and program staff members assess whether they think the student stands a chance of graduating

Gateway to College in a timely manner. Most students who are turned away by the program are 

 19The API stands for the Adult Placement Indicator, an assessment that has since been phased out at most 

Gateway to College program sites. It provided a quick (10- to 15-minute) test of students’ reading skills. 
22

rejected on the basis of their placement test scores and estimated time to graduation. This is a 

major reason why, of the 65 students who complete applications, only 52 are offered seats in the 

Gateway to College program (although some students do decide on their own not to attend the 

program, even at this later stage). 

The students deemed academically suitable for the Gateway to College program are invited back for an interview with a program staff member. At program sites where data on 

interviews were available, it was clear that very few students were turned down based on their 

performance in the final interview. This suggests that students who reached this stage of the 

process likely possessed the skills and attributes the programs were looking for. 

Discussions with program staff members supported this conclusion: Staff members believed that applicants lacking in maturity or “grit” were unlikely to pursue their applications this 

far.20 However, the interview stage is still useful as a final check in determining whether or not a 

student is indeed the right fit for the program. As such, the students accepted into Gateway to 

College are those who have been deemed a good fit for the program by virtue of their academic 

readiness and their willingness to commit to meeting the demands of the program model.

Description of the Student Study Sample

After successfully completing the application process but before entering the lottery, study 

participants were asked to complete a baseline information form. As described in Chapter 1, this 

form asked students questions about their personal and family background, academic background, and educational enrollment status. Their responses are discussed in this section and 

presented in Table 2.1 alongside averages for the full Gateway to College National Network 

(where available).

Basic Demographic Information

On average, students at the program sites in the study were slightly over 17 years old 

when they applied to the program. Their ages ranged from 15 to 19, with similar numbers being 

older and younger than 17. Most (61 percent) were male. The student population in the broader 

National Network is on average very similar to the three program sites in the study, though 

closer to 50 percent male. At the California program site, a majority of students were Hispanic, 

while at the Colorado and Washington program sites, most students were white. Black students 

are underrepresented in the study sample compared with a typical Gateway to College program,

 20“Grit” indicates traits such as resilience, motivation, and perseverance, as described by Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, and Kelly (2007).
23

Table 2.1

Selected Characteristics of Sample Members at the Time of Application, by Site

California Colorado Washington Full Gateway

Characteristic Site Site Site Sample Averagea

Male (%) 61.0 57.8 63.6 60.9 52.5

Average age (years) 17.1 17.1 17.0 17.1 17.3

Race/ethnicityb (%)

Hispanic, any race 70.0 31.3 7.6 43.6 28.6

White 10.0 57.8 74.2 39.2 36.2

Black 7.5 0.0 0.0 3.6 25.6

Other 5.0 6.3 10.6 6.8 6.5

Multiracial 7.5 4.7 7.6 6.8 3.2

Speaks language other than English at home (%) 44.6 20.3 15.4 30.8 -

Education status (%)

Currently enrolled in an education program 86.4 65.6 77.3 78.6 -

Left school 6 months ago or less 13.6 21.9 15.2 16.1 -

Left school more than 6 months ago 0.0 12.5 7.6 5.2 -

Program in which currently enrolledc (%)

Mainstream high school 40.3 50.0 62.1 48.6 -

Alternative high school 37.8 9.4 7.6 22.5 -

Credit-recovery program 4.2 0.0 1.5 2.4 -

Online program 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.2 -

Home school 1.7 1.6 3.0 2.0 -

GED program 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.4

Amount of HS credit requirement metd (%) 53.1 51.8 38.5 49.0 49.0

Missing (%) 8.1 1.6 7.6 6.3 -

Amount of HS credit requirement metd (%)

0-25% 8.1 12.5 24.2 13.4 -

26-50% 35.0 42.2 43.9 39.1 -

51-75% 32.5 25.0 22.7 28.1 -

76-100% 16.3 18.8 1.5 13.0 -

Missing 8.1 1.6 7.6 6.3 -

Highest grade completed (%)

9th grade or lower 6.5 17.2 15.2 11.5 -

10th grade 19.5 42.2 39.4 30.4 -

11th grade 42.3 31.3 31.8 36.8 -

12th grade 8.1 4.7 3.0 5.9 -

Missing 23.6 4.7 10.6 15.4 -

Ever suspended (%) 43.0 46.9 51.5 46.2 -

Ever expelled (%) 12.2 4.7 4.5 8.3 -

Missing (%) 5.7 0.0 3.0 3.6 -

(continued)
24

Table 2.1 (continued)

California Colorado Washington Full Gateway

Characteristic Site Site Site Sample Averagea

Would be first in family to attend college (%) 38.2 12.5 15.2 25.7 -

Missing (%) 3.3 0.0 4.5 2.8 -

Ever lived in a foster home (%) 6.7 0.0 6.2 4.8 7.4

Qualified for free or reduced-price lunch 

last year (%) 67.5 40.6 48.5 55.7 -

Missing (%) 2.4 1.6 3.0 2.4 -

Household eligible for public assistance (%) 36.6 17.2 33.3 30.8 -

Missing (%) 3.3 0.0 6.1 3.2 -

Currently employed (%) 7.4 32.8 18.5 16.7 -

Reasons for difficulty staying and succeeding

in schoole (%)

Academic problems 79.7 79.7 93.8 83.3 68.1

Infrequent attendance 61.0 90.6 76.9 72.6 72.6

Problems with my family or household 45.5 56.3 44.6 48.0 49.8

Problems with my peers 35.0 65.6 46.2 45.6 45.3

Nobody cared 34.1 56.3 43.1 42.1 47.7

Teachers don't know me 40.7 40.6 43.1 41.3 36.9

Problems with school administration/faculty 21.1 45.3 40.0 32.1 45.1

Frequent moving 27.6 28.1 30.8 28.6 30.7

Health problems not related to drugs/alcohol 15.4 37.5 24.6 23.4 29.1

Too many family responsibilities 18.7 32.8 16.9 21.8 33.4

Didn't feel the environment was safe 17.1 25.0 21.5 20.2 25.1

Conflicts with work/need more work hours 5.7 17.2 10.8 9.9 16.5

Problems with the legal system 8.9 14.1 7.7 9.9 16.7

Health problems related to drugs/alcohol 5.7 9.4 4.6 6.3 10.7

Problems speaking or reading English 6.5 4.7 1.5 4.8 6.3

Homelessness 4.1 3.1 3.1 3.6 10.1

Reasons for applying to Gateway to Collegef (%)

To earn my high school diploma 99.2 100.0 98.5 99.2 -

To get started on my college goals 92.7 92.2 84.6 90.5 -

To be able to get a better job 87.0 93.8 86.2 88.5 -

To improve my feelings about myself 63.4 68.8 60.0 63.9 -

To make my family happy 68.3 43.8 46.2 56.3 -

To catch up to my peers 41.5 20.3 29.2 32.9 -

To get ready to join the military 10.6 6.3 6.2 8.3 -

To satisfy probation or parole requirements 8.1 4.7 4.6 6.3 -

Sample size 123 64 66 253 -

(continued)
25

Table 2.1 (continued) 

SOURCES: MDRC calculations using student responses to the baseline information form (BIF) and (where 

indicated) Gateway to College National Network management information system (MIS) data.

NOTES: Missing values are not included in individual variable distributions of data from the BIF when less than 

2 percent of the full sample is missing. For variables with higher rates of missing values, a missing category is 

shown. Where the missing category is not shown, no items had more than five people missing. No imputations 

were done for missing data. HS = high school. a

 Aggregate data provided by the Gateway to College National Network. Averages shown are for all new 

students enrolled during the 2012-2013 school year across the network. A hyphen indicates that data were not 

available for a particular measure or group of measures. Data on gender were missing for 13 percent of students. 

Data on race and ethnicity were missing for 26 percent of students. Missing rates for other measures are not 

available.

b

 Hispanic sample members are categorized as Hispanic, regardless of race. "Other" includes "Asian or Pacific 

Islander" and "American Indian or Alaskan Native" as well as "other." Sample members categorized as "multiracial" indicated multiple race categories and did not indicate Hispanic heritage. c

 Percentages do not sum to 100 because not all sample members were enrolled in an educational program 

when they entered the study and not all sample members who indicated enrollment specified the type of program 

they were enrolled in. Credit-recovery programs allow students to enroll independently in courses to catch up on 

credits required to graduate from high school. For this summary, students who reported enrolling in a creditrecovery program while also being enrolled in high school or alternative high school are shown as enrolled in 

high school or alternative high school only. 

d

 Calculated using data from the Gateway to College National Network MIS as credits needed divided by total 

credits required to earn a high school diploma in the student's reported district. Strong agreement was found 

between BIF responses and MIS data for total credits earned where data were available from both sources. 

Consequently, for students where MIS data were not available, the self-reported BIF responses were used if 

available. Percentages shown do not include students for whom data are missing. e

 Respondents were asked whether the issues listed were "never," "occasionally," "sometimes," "often," or 

"always" a problem for them. The percentages shown combine all responses except "never a problem for me." f

 Respondents were asked whether the reasons listed were "not important," "somewhat important," or "very 

important." The percentages shown reflect those who responded that the reason was "very important" to them.

 

and also compared with statistics from national studies of students who do not graduate on 

time.21 Also, more than 30 percent of students in the sample regularly spoke a language other 

than English at home.

Enrollment and Academic Status

Ninety-five percent of study participants were either still enrolled in an educational program at the time of their application to Gateway to College or had dropped out in the previous

six months. While Gateway to College offers itself as an option for young adults who have 

 21For the national comparison, see America’s Promise Alliance (2014) and Ingels and Dalton (2013). 
26

dropped out, it more commonly seems to be used for dropout prevention, made possible by 

referrals from high school guidance counselors. Whether an applicant was coming from a 

mainstream high school or an alternative institution varied greatly by site; for example, the 

California program site has many more alternative high schools in its service area than the other 

two program sites.

At the time they applied, students in the sample had earned about half of the credits 

needed to complete their high school diplomas, matching the National Network average, and 

most had completed at least tenth grade. Of the sample members, students at the Washington 

program site were furthest from graduating on average, and by far the least likely to have earned 

at least 75 percent of the credits necessary to graduate.

The students in the study sample were somewhat more likely to have had disciplinary 

issues than a national sample of high school dropout students. Forty-six percent had been 

suspended from high school at some point and 8 percent had been expelled. In comparison, a 

national study reported that 38 percent of students who had dropped out of high school had been 

suspended or expelled.22

Family and Socioeconomic Background

Many students who apply to Gateway to College come from low-income backgrounds. 

On average across the three program sites in the study, 56 percent of students qualified for free 

or reduced-price lunches, and 31 percent lived in households eligible for public assistance. 

Students at the California program site were the most likely to be in financial need: 68 percent 

qualified for free or reduced-price lunches, and 37 percent lived in households eligible for 

public assistance.

Seventeen percent of students were working at the time of application. The wide variation shown in employment rates among program sites in the study may be influenced by the 

timing of study enrollment: The Colorado and Washington program sites enrolled students over 

the summer, when they were more likely to be working, while the California program site 

recruited during the fall and early winter.

In addition, 5 percent of the study sample had spent time in a foster home, which is 

slightly less than the National Network average (7 percent) and a national survey of high school 

dropouts (11 percent).23

 22America’s Promise Alliance (2014). 23For the national survey, see America’s Promise Alliance (2014). 
27

Interestingly, most study participants had at least one parent or sibling who had attended college, which likely influenced the high proportion of students in the sample with postsecondary aspirations. As discussed more below, a large number of students in the sample said 

that it was very important to them to get started on their college goals.

Student Challenges and Aspirations

Academic problems and infrequent attendance were the issues students cited by far the 

most often as ones that had affected their ability to stay or succeed in school, both at the 

program sites in the study and across the National Network. Eighty-three percent of study 

students indicated that academics were a challenge; 73 percent indicated that attendance was an 

issue. Personal problems with family, teachers, or peers were also fairly common obstacles. In 

focus groups, several students mentioned making mistakes in high school, and alluded to the 

fact that their attendance issues were sometimes caused by their not fitting in the traditional high 

school environment (for example, they felt the format and environment were not well aligned 

with their learning styles, or they had trouble with teachers or other students), or by being in a 

place in their lives where they were not ready to take their education seriously. This is in line 

with recent research that suggests that “young people who stop going to school are likely to be 

navigating home, school, or neighborhood environments that they experience as toxic.”24

As expected, more than 99 percent of students in the study said that they applied to 

Gateway to College because finishing the requirements of a high school diploma was “very 

important” to them. Roughly 90 percent of students in the study said the same about starting on 

their college goals and about being able to get better jobs. More than 60 percent of students in 

the study indicated that applying to Gateway to College was very important for them in order to 

feel better about themselves. An example of why this might be emerged in a student focus 

group where one student mentioned fearing being a “super senior” at her high school and being 

too old for high school. Interestingly, the importance of friends and family varied quite a bit by 

program site. Students at the California program site were the most likely to be driven by a 

desire to make their families happy or to measure up to their peers.

Choosing Gateway to College: Identifying Other Programs 

Attended by Potential Participants

Gateway to College operates alongside a variety of alternative education programs available to 

young adults who have dropped out of high school or who are at risk of dropping out. However, 

 24America’s Promise Alliance (2014). Young people in “toxic” environments described themselves as 

survivors of violence, exposed to violence, affected by negative health events in their families, or subject to 

school climates and policies that were unsafe, unsupportive, or disrespectful.
28

as described above, Gateway to College is more targeted than other alternative education 

programs. While Gateway to College bears some similarity to other second-chance programs 

such as YouthBuild and ChalleNGe that also target students highly motivated to connect or 

reconnect with education,25 only Gateway to College targets students who aspire to complete a 

postsecondary education despite having fallen behind in a mainstream high school setting, and 

who also possess the academic skills to be “college-ready” in a relatively short period of time. 

In addition, students must also demonstrate the will and readiness to break the patterns that 

resulted in their past poor performance. In the absence of Gateway to College, it appears that 

these unique students fall back on a familiar set of educational alternatives: programs that do not 

feature the strong connection to the college environment that Gateway to College provides.

All study participants were surveyed about their educational experiences 12 months after random assignment. The responses of the control group — students who qualified for 

Gateway to College but were embargoed from enrolling for a year — reveal how Gateway to 

College’s target population views and utilizes the other educational programs available.26 The 

enrollment patterns of the control group students are presented in Figure 2.2.

The most notable finding was the increase in the number of students enrolled in online 

programs or “blended” models that integrate self-paced online learning with in-person instruction. Many control group students stayed in mainstream or alternative high schools, at least for 

the first semester after entering the study; some students took adult basic education classes 

instead. The survey data on students’ satisfaction with their education, coupled with some indepth follow-up interviews with respondents, indicate that while these students saw value in 

the classes they took, in general they did not consider the alternatives to measure up to Gateway to College. Furthermore, at the Colorado and Washington program sites a substantial 

portion of the control group maintained their interest and enrolled in Gateway to College in a 

subsequent term.27

In a follow-up interview, a control group student who enrolled in Gateway to College 

after the embargo was asked to compare her experience at her former school with her experience in Gateway to College. Her response was that it was “definitely not even comparable” and 

that “Gateway was a different experience altogether.” She mentioned that the main reason she

 25Bloom, Levy Thompson, and Ivry (2010). 26Among control group members, the response rate for the survey was 47 percent. This low response rate 

means respondents are not necessarily representative of all control group members; nevertheless, the experiences of respondents provide important insight into which alternative programs are the most relevant for this 

population. 27This pattern was confirmed in the Gateway to College National Network database. A few students managed to enroll before the one-year embargo period had expired. 
Figure 2.2 

Patterns of Enrollment in Education Among Control Group Survey Respondents 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

ed llro20 en stend15 nop resf10 e ogaercent

5

P

0

Mainstream Alternative Online/ Adult basic Home Gateway to Community

high school high school blended education/GED school College college

Semester 1 Semester 2 Semester 3

SOURCE: Calculations from Gateway to College 12-month survey data.

NOTES: Sample size = 34.

29
30

found so much value in the program is that all the students had similar situations and levels of 

motivation: “All the people that were in my class were in the same boat. They all wanted to get 

their education done and have a career. They were all so motivated. It was just so awesome.” 

Interviewees in other programs indicated disconnection from their peers for various reasons, 

including differences in priorities, perceived cultural differences related to socioeconomic status 

(for example, one student described her classmates as wealthier and living “in a bubble”), and in 

the case of online programs, physical separation. In one online program, students were instructed not to collaborate on work (although they sometimes did, having met at their former high 

school); in another, while connecting with other students (for example through activity clubs) 

was encouraged, the interviewee saw little reason to participate.

Based on the findings from these three program sites and comparisons with the national 

student body of Gateway to College, the population served by Gateway to College is both 

challenged and promising: While they are behind in credits and demonstrate behaviors such as 

low grades and poor attendance, they must also possess a certain level of maturity, motivation, 

and readiness to commit to a rigorous academic program like Gateway to College. In most 

respects these young people resemble high school dropouts nationwide, but by design, Gateway 

to College participants also possess a foundation of basic academic skills (that is, they can read 

and write at an eighth-grade level or higher) that will need to be further developed in a relatively 

short time to launch further academic achievement. While other nontraditional educational 

programs serving at-risk young adults exist alongside Gateway to College, none emerges as a 

comprehensive alternative in the eyes of the students themselves.
31

Chapter 3 

Implementation of the Gateway to College Program

This chapter describes the implementation of the Gateway to College model at the three 

program sites in the study and is guided by three main research questions:

1. Were the core elements of the Gateway to College model implemented as planned?

2. What kinds of adaptations were made to meet the demands of the local context and 

the needs of the local student population?

3. What factors facilitated or impeded successful program implementation?

The discussion of implementation in this chapter is organized according to the five core 

elements of the program model: (1) a learning community with a prescribed set of core courses 

during the Foundation term, (2) instruction and support based on the Gateway to College 

Principles of Teaching and Learning, (3) comprehensive support services, (4) transition to 

mainstream community college classes in students’ second term, and (5) training and support

for Gateway to College staff members. All Gateway to College program sites are expected to 

implement these core elements. However, the model design also provides a great deal of 

flexibility to program sites in how they implement those elements. 

The three program sites that participated in this study are not necessarily representative 

of all Gateway to College program sites in the National Network. They are merely the three that 

were able to meet the study’s recruitment targets, as mentioned in Chapter 1. As such, the 

findings derived from these program sites cannot be generalized to the entire Gateway to 

College National Network. However, they demonstrate some of the diversity of the target 

population as well as conditions under which the program hopes to flourish. Understanding the 

forms that Gateway to College takes in different circumstances is particularly important as the 

program continues to develop its model and identify new potential program sites. Specific 

adaptations and articulations of the model are discussed in this chapter, along with the factors 

pertinent to explaining variations in implementation. 

Learning Community with Prescribed Core Courses During the 

Foundation Term

The first component of the Gateway to College model consists of two elements: a set of core 

courses that students must take in their Foundation term (English Language Arts, math, Student 

Success, and Career Development), and the learning community of classmates with whom they 
32

take all of these courses. The core courses are a vehicle for instilling and strengthening the basic 

academic and study skills that students will need in their second term when they transition to 

standard community college classes. As described in Chapter 2, the learning community is 

intended to create a shared experience among students and to create a network of peer support 

in which students encourage each other and reinforce good academic habits such as regular 

attendance. Given students’ previous challenges with traditional educational environments, peer 

support is thought to be critical to their success.

Core Courses

As shown in Table 3.1, all three program sites provide an English Language Arts (ELA) 

course, a math course, and at least one Student Success course during the Foundation term, as 

the model prescribes. However, there was some variation with respect to the Career Development course. At the Washington program site, the Career Development course was much more 

central to students’ experiences than at the other two program sites in the study. The course, 

which was implemented during the Foundation term as prescribed by the model, focused 

heavily on career exploration, helping students identify a career pathway to pursue, and helping 

students understand their learning and working styles. As one staff member said, the career 

exploration course is where “they’re figuring out what they want to do their second term and 

beyond.”

This centrality of the Career Development course was heavily influenced by the fact 

that the Washington program site is hosted by a technical institute whose students are required 

to choose a career pathway. To help Gateway to College students assimilate quickly to the 

college’s career technical education environment, the program site emphasized the career 

exploration component of the model more heavily. In fact, the Washington program site

supplemented the Career Development course in the Foundation term with a second careeroriented course called “Professional Development Skills” during students’ transition term. This 

additional course provided students an opportunity to learn about the skills and behaviors 

employers would expect from them. It also gave the program a way to maintain close contact 

with students after they transitioned into mainstream community college courses. Implementing 

a course during the transition term is a strategy implemented by all three program sites in the 

study in addition to, or in place of, what is typically envisioned by the National Network, as will 

be further discussed later in this chapter.1

 

 1

The National Network envisions that a standard program will “keep tabs” on students after they transition 

using periodic check-ins with Resource Specialists and regularly scheduled lab times.
Table 3.1

Prescribed Courses by Program Site

Course Type California Sitea Colorado Site Washington Site

Pre-Foundation term intersession: 

Student Success I Intro to 

College

Intro to 

College - - College Strategies: 

New Student Welcome

Main Foundation term:

ELAb Foundation ELA Writing Fundamentals Reading Improvement and 

Beginning English (writing)

Mathc Foundation Math Fundamentals of Math,

Pre-Algebra

Introductory 

Algebra

Elements of Arithmetic,

Pre-Algebra,

Introduction to Algebra,

Intermediate Algebra

Student Success I - - Intro to 

College Semester Survival - 

Student Success II

College 

Success 

Strategies

College 

Success 

Strategies

College 

Success 

Strategies

Academic Achievement College Strategies

Career Development Career 

Exploration - - - Exploring Community and Work

Post-Foundation term intersession:

Career Development - Career 

Exploration

Career 

Exploration - - 

Transition term:

Student Success II - Semester Survival - 

Career Development - - Professional Development Skills

(continued)

33
34

 

Table 3.1 (continued) 

NOTES: aDuring the time period studied, the California program site formed three learning communities 

on a first-come, first-served basis. Different learning communities took the courses at slightly different 

times.

 b

At the California and Colorado program sites, students enrolled in one ELA course during the main 

Foundation term: Foundation ELA and Writing Fundamentals, respectively. At the Washington program 

site, all students enrolled in two English courses concurrently: Reading Improvement and Beginning 

English.

 c

At the California and Washington program sites, students enrolled in a computer-based math course, 

which allowed students at various levels to receive individually tailored instruction in a larger-group 

setting. At the California program site, that class was Foundation Math. At the Washington program site, 

students started in the math modules appropriate for their skill levels. At the Colorado program site, 

students were placed into one of two different sections. Advanced students took Introductory Algebra in a 

single class; students who needed more support took Fundamentals of Math and later Pre-Algebra. 

In contrast, the Colorado program site, which is hosted by a more traditional community college, focused on giving students the tools to transfer to four-year institutions, and emphasized the career component less.2 At the time of the study, no Career Development course was 

offered during its Foundation term. The Colorado program site decided to discontinue the 

course because its staff members learned from students that they needed additional academic 

support in their Foundation term, not a course that focused on career exploration. As one staff 

member described, students in the Career Development course would say, “How do I pass 

Chem 101? I don’t know what I want to do for the rest of my life, but I know right now, I don’t 

know the periodic table.” In place of a dedicated course, elements of the Career Development 

curriculum were incorporated into other required Foundation courses. For example, the core 

ELA course uses the Roadtrip Nation curriculum, which allows students to explore subjects 

they are passionate about and careers they might be interested in.3

At the California program site, the career development course is usually offered in the 

summer or winter after the Foundation term. As a program that describes itself as being focused 

on both college and career, the California program site’s career development course included 

topics such as an introduction to a variety of career opportunities, personal and interpersonal 

awareness skills, academic study skills, and information related to transferring to a four-year 

2

The Colorado program site also offers career technical-oriented programs, but emphasizes them less, 

especially compared with the Washington program site. 3

In 2007, Roadtrip Nation created a career exploration curriculum called The Roadtrip Nation Experience 

designed to help students explore pathways for their futures. This project-based curriculum combines video 

interviews with introspective activities to help students connect their passions to school and potential careers. It 

also develops students’ real-world skills by guiding them to research, cold-call, and interview a local leader 

who shares their interests.
35

institution. Like the Colorado program site, the California program site uses the Roadtrip Nation 

curriculum, but as part of its post-Foundation-term career-exploration course instead of its ELA 

course. In addition, students participate in a “Leadership Shaping” course where both collegeand career-related topics are covered. At this program site, the emphasis on career development 

also mirrors the goals of the host institution, a college that describes itself as having a balanced 

focus on transfer to a four-year institution and career technical education.

The variation in how program sites implement this component of the model is largely 

driven by two main factors: the host institution’s mission and curriculum, and the needs of the 

Gateway to College student population as identified by the local Gateway to College staff. 

Alignment with the host institution is important because of the program’s dual-enrollment 

design. The three program sites in the study emphasized the Career Development course 

component to the degree that staff members felt would best position students to transition to the 

host institution and meet its course requirements.

In summary, all of the program sites in the study implemented three of the four courses 

prescribed for the Foundation term, but only one of the three (the Washington program site) 

implemented the Career Development course as prescribed. However, all three program sites 

managed to maintain the content and intent of the Career Development course — that is, they

provided students with an opportunity to explore possible career paths and exposed them to 

career-related skills. Conversations with Gateway to College National Network and local staff 

members reveal that this level of adaptation is expected and that the model allows for flexibility 

so long as program sites are able to deliver the basic intended information.

Data from the student follow-up survey suggest that the curriculum being implemented 

at the three program sites in the study resonates with students’ needs. Gateway to College 

students who responded to the survey overwhelmingly agreed that their course work — both the 

course content and the study skills they had gained — was meaningful preparation for both 

college and “the real world.” Where additional work may be needed is in more clearly developing the model’s parameters of flexibility: how much is acceptable with respect to both content 

and mode of delivery, and examples of what acceptable variation might look like. 

For example, it may be helpful to have an explicit discussion about how central the Career Development component should be to the program model, since at one program site the 

Career Development course was central to the Foundation term experience, while at another the 

course was discontinued and its elements incorporated into another course. In the next phase of 

the program model’s evolution, Gateway to College may want to consider providing specific 

guidance about how the Career Development component should be incorporated into the 

student experience. This guidance could include a range of examples, and would likely need to 
36

be paired with conversations between individual program sites and the National Network to 

ensure that local needs and contexts are being appropriately considered.

Again, at this stage of the model’s development, its lack of specificity does not necessarily interfere with implementation fidelity, in large part because the elements of the model as 

currently designed are intended to be broad. However, it may become necessary to balance the 

flexibility of the model with more specific guidance about high-quality implementation as the 

model continues to expand into new settings.

The Learning Community

It is central to the model that students take the prescribed courses together during their 

Foundation term as part of a learning community. To examine the extent to which this 

occurred, researchers examined course enrollment data from the National Network management information (MIS) system along with program-site-provided data that contained details 

about student placement into learning communities. All three program sites successfully 

created and maintained two to three learning communities per semester, each consisting of 

about 20 to 30 students. However, each program site had a different approach to forming

learning communities.

The California program site, which had three learning communities of approximately 

30 students each, organized its communities on a first-come, first-served basis. Students were 

enrolled into the program and placed in a learning community based on when they applied and 

were admitted; as shown in Table 3.1, two of the learning communities took a Student Success 

course during the winter intersession before the main Foundation term. Using the winter 

intersession in this way was important to the California program site as an immediate engagement strategy because the postsecondary host’s academic calendar did not always align with 

local school districts’ academic calendars. Rather than turn away qualified students, the program site started the curriculum slightly early. At the Washington and Colorado program sites, 

the course schedule did not have to be modified to align adequately with local district calendars.

At the Colorado program site, differences in students’ math skills led to some blending 

of the learning communities. Cohorts were divided into two primary learning communities of 

approximately 20 students each. These groups stayed together for English Language Arts and 

both Student Success courses (see Table 3.1 for course structures), but were divided for math 

according to their placement. The more advanced students took Introductory Algebra in a single 

class that drew from both learning communities; the students that needed an introduction to 

more basic math concepts took Fundamentals of Math and later Pre-Algebra. In this approach, 

students shared every class with the students in their learning community who were at the same 

level in math. This was necessary because the staff realized that students were entering the 

program at vastly different levels of math skill. As one staff member said, “Instead of just 
37

sticking all these kids in [the same levels], we are trying to adapt to meet them where they are.” 

According to one staff member, the level and type of differentiation needed in instruction can 

vary from year to year. The program must adjust how the learning communities are formed and 

the levels of math offered after it sees students’ math placement results.

In contrast, the California and Washington program sites tailored math instruction to

students’ skill levels by offering personalized computer-based instruction within a larger-group 

setting. Sometimes the Gateway to College instructor would lead lessons for the whole group. 

Other times, instructors would pay attention to individual students or occasionally to small 

groups of students working on the same topic. The computer-based math courses are similar to 

what one might see in a community college developmental education course (that is, a remedial 

course) implementing an accelerated math model. This strategy allowed the programs to keep 

the learning communities together while still responding to varying student needs, although the 

peer social dynamic in this kind of class might well be different from one in which students at 

the same level are working on the same projects.

Again, in this component of the Gateway to College model, each program site demonstrates a need for some flexibility in implementing the model. As was the case with the core 

courses, the learning communities were formed in different ways based on local Gateway to 

College staff members’ assessments of student needs. This approach is not atypical of programs 

that serve at-risk and dropout young people. In fact, it is often considered necessary to allow 

flexibility in the implementation of programs for young people like these, since they have such 

diverse needs. As past research has shown, there is no single profile of dropout young adults.

4

Gateway to College serves a well-defined population, yet the three program sites in the study

showed significant variations in student demographics, backgrounds, and levels of academic 

readiness. Programs need to consider how to respond to students’ diverse needs.

At the broadest level, the learning community component of the model was implemented as intended: All three program sites in the study created cohorts of students that were 

maintained throughout the Foundation term. The program sites chose different approaches to 

creating learning communities based on their informal assessments of students’ needs. Given 

the wide range of student needs and host-institution instructional practices, this level of variation appears to be necessary and appropriate. It may be helpful to articulate to program sites 

more explicitly that this level of flexibility is acceptable and to have a conversation about which

practices (for example, different ways of grouping students) can be implemented without 

violating the intent of the model, and which cannot.

 4

America’s Promise Alliance (2014). 
38

Principles of Teaching and Learning

Instruction in Gateway to College courses is guided by the program’s “Principles of Teaching 

and Learning.” These principles are not intended to specify course content. Instead, they are 

intended to guide the design and assessment of all learning in Gateway to College National 

Network programs, and the help the National Network provides program sites. According to the 

National Network, program staff members may not necessarily know the Principles of Teaching 

and Learning by that name. Interview protocols were therefore designed to explore staff 

members’ understanding of the principles and how they implemented them in their interactions 

with students. Interviews with program staff members and observations of instruction revealed 

that while none of the staff members mentioned the principles by name, all generally embodied 

the principles in their instructional approaches and attitudes. The following section describes 

how the program sites in the study put the Principles of Teaching and Learning into operation, 

followed by a discussion of ways that their implementation might be strengthened.

The Gateway to College principles as defined by the National Network can be found in 

Chapter 2. Yet staff members at the three program sites did not necessarily see clear distinctions 

between some of the principles described separately in that list. Analysis of the interview data 

revealed that Gateway to College staff members talked about “creating collaborative and 

inclusive learning communities” and “encouraging personal growth” in very similar ways. Also, 

“maintaining a rigorous learning environment” and “embedding assessments” tended to be 

discussed in tandem. The discussion that follows is therefore organized the way staff members 

seemed to conceive of the principles: (1) Integrated, Outcomes-Based Curriculum;

5 (2) Relationships and Personal Growth; (3) Constructing Meaning; (4) Relevance and Project-Based 

Learning; and (5) Rigor (Including Assessment). 

Integrated, Outcomes-Based Curriculum 

Gateway to College instructors across all three program sites reported designing instruction with the question in mind: “What do students need to know and be able to do to be successful in college?” Interviews with instructors at the three program sites in the study and a review 

of course syllabi revealed that courses often aimed for two sets of learning outcomes: ones 

related to academic content (for example, being able to write a proper essay by the end of the 

term) and behavioral outcomes (for example, regular attendance and timeliness). Some instructors reported working with others across the program to design an integrated curriculum; others 

collaborated only within their departments (for example, they worked with other math teachers 

in the program or at the host college). However, at all three program sites instructors and 

 5

See the footnote in Chapter 2 in the subsection “Principles of Teaching and Learning” for a definition of 

an “outcomes-based” curriculum. 
39

Resource Specialists met regularly throughout the term to talk about individual student progress, attempting to ensure that instruction and support reinforced one another. 

Relationships and Personal Growth 

As described in National Network program documents, Gateway to College believes 

that “a caring, solution-focused approach to working with students is the foundation for all 

learning” and that “personal connections with students” are very important. All instructors 

across all three program sites described their relationships with students as positive and 

healthy, but they varied in how they described an ideal teacher-student relationship. One 

instructor noted that while she strives to maintain a positive relationship with students, at the 

same time, “I don’t want to be their best friend. I want to be very clear that I’m their instructor.” In contrast, another instructor described her relationship with students as “walking a fine 

line between having fun and working hard.” It is possible that this variation is influenced by 

variations in instructors’ background and training.

When asked about how a “solution-focused” approach translated into instruction or interactions with students, Gateway to College instructors described an ongoing process of regular 

encouragement and building on successes to reinforce positive habits. They described how they 

and Resource Specialists tried to communicate with students about advocating for themselves 

and their education, taking responsibility for their decisions, and thinking through the ramifications and consequences of their decisions, academic or otherwise.

Constructing Meaning 

To help students understand new concepts, most Gateway to College instructors said 

they used a combination of visual aids and real-world experiences, by, for example, drawing on 

everyday experiences to describe math concepts or discussing a news headline in an ELA 

classroom. Instructors also tried to give students assignments that allowed them to explore 

topics that were meaningful to them. For example, during one classroom observation, one 

student talked with her instructor about how she might get more information for her paper on a 

recently passed bill pertaining to support for teen mothers — a topic for which she showed a 

clear passion.

Relevance and Project-Based Learning 

Currently, staff members at the three program sites in the study do not seem to have a 

consistent understanding of what constitutes project-based learning, what it should look like in 

Gateway to College classrooms, or how central it is to the model. In general, project-based 

learning describes a teaching method in which students learn skills and concepts by working on 

real-world problems, often through extended, in-depth projects. Project-based learning is most
40

readily seen in the Career Development course and least in the core academic courses (math and 

ELA). However, part of the idea behind project-based learning is that engaging in it should help 

students see the relevance to their lives of the topics they learn about, and as mentioned in the 

previous paragraph, there is some evidence that instructors are finding other ways of accomplishing this. In the follow-up survey, Gateway to College students did seem to value the 

projects they were assigned: roughly 90 percent agreed that the projects in their courses were 

“interesting” and “engaging.”

Rigor (Including Assessment)

High expectations are communicated to students beginning when they first apply and 

continuing throughout their Gateway to College experience. For example, if a student is not 

turning in work, instructors will alert the Resource Specialist, who will sit down with the 

student to remind him or her of what is expected and the consequences of not performing. But 

the Resource Specialist will also work with that student to understand the barriers causing poor 

performance and will help the student identify solutions. In these interactions, Resource 

Specialists make an effort to “put the ball in [students’] court” by asking them to identify 

potential solutions, rather than identifying solutions for them. Meanwhile, programs cultivate 

“an ethic of excellence” in part through the use of regular assessments, oral evaluation of 

students’ performance, and peer edits guided by scoring documents the programs provide. 

Ways Implementation Might Be Strengthened

At a broad level, it appears that the three program sites in the study have interpreted the 

Principles of Teaching and Learning fairly consistently. However, there may be additional 

nuances in how these principles are interpreted locally that this study is not able to assess. These 

slight variations are likely the result of differences in interpretation of the principles rather than 

the influences of postsecondary hosts or variations in student needs, which hold the most sway 

over the implementation of learning communities and core courses (the first major component 

of the model). Currently, the National Network provides limited guidance about how well these 

small variations align with the intent of the model. It is not clear, for example, whether or not 

the various ways instructors described instituting “a caring, solution-focused approach to 

working with students” are truly in line with the model’s intent.

The low level of variation in the implementation of this component of the model suggests two things. First, the underlying values inherent in the Principles of Teaching and Learning are, broadly speaking, consistently present at all three program sites in the study. This is 

particularly impressive given that, as described in Chapter 1, these three program sites participated in little ongoing training once they reached “veteran” status. Second, however, the limited 

degree to which the current assessment was able to detect variation in implementation also 
41

points to lack of specificity in how these principles should be put into practice. That lack of 

specificity made it difficult to assess whether or not this component of the model truly is being 

implemented as intended — and also makes it difficult for the National Network to provide 

targeted technical assistance or even to determine if it is needed. At this stage of the program 

model’s growth the National Network might want to consider developing a range of concrete 

messages that communicate how the Principles of Teaching and Learning may be interpreted 

and implemented.

Comprehensive Student Support Services

The support provided by Gateway to College instructors and staff members is guided by Gateway to College’s principles of “holistic student support.” These principles include: (1) caring 

relationships, (2) safe environments, (3) a mindset centered on students’ strengths, (4) an 

approach focused on finding solutions to students’ problems, and (5) community connections. 

Like the “Principles of Teaching and Learning,” “holistic student support” may not be known by 

name to Gateway to College staff members. Thus, the research team took a similar approach here 

as was taken with the Principles of Teaching and Learning: the semistructured interview protocols were designed to explore program staff members’ understanding and implementation of the 

holistic support principles without mentioning them by name. Like the Principles of Teaching 

and Learning, the principles of holistic support are generally embodied in interactions among 

students, instructors, and Resource Specialists. 

Sources of Support During the Foundation Term

Particularly during the Foundation term, students in Gateway to College receive support 

primarily from three sources: Resource Specialists, instructors, and peers. Of these, students 

mentioned Resource Specialists most often as a source of support. Resource Specialists act as 

counselors and provide services that include academic guidance and emotional support. When 

necessary, Resource Specialists also connect students to resources in the community (for 

example, to address drug and alcohol issues or homelessness). As one Resource Specialist said, 

“This role has many hats. It’s part counseling, part case management, and part teaching.” The 

support provided typically takes the form of one-on-one meetings, follow-up calls (particularly 

if a student has been absent), or informal interactions on campus or during class in cases where 

the Resource Specialist also teaches a Gateway to College course.6

Instructors also provide support, usually academic support. Students varied in their 

views of this support. In some cases, students indicated that they did not “feel a bond” with 

 6

Resource Specialists may teach Gateway to College courses such as the Student Success course or Career 

Development course.
42

instructors and felt more comfortable talking with Resource Specialists. Other students noted 

strong connections with instructors. One student noted that he appreciated the support and being 

treated like an adult: “They communicate with you. If they know you’re behind, they’ll come 

and talk to you and they’ll let you know and say, ‘Hey, you missed this due date and that’s a 

zero. But I’ll help you and if you need extra time, let me know beforehand and we can work it 

out.’” The follow-up survey also suggests Gateway to College students had strong relationships 

with their teachers and counselors: 79 percent of Gateway students reported talking with an 

adult at their program site about academic issues at least once in the past year, and doing so in 

an average of nine meetings over the course of the year; 56 percent of students reported talking 

to an adult about personal issues at least once in the past year, in an average of four meetings 

that year.

Finally, all three Gateway to College programs had mechanisms to foster peer-to-peer 

support. For example, instructors typically asked students to choose an accountability partner. 

During one classroom observation, an instructor noted that a student was not in class; several 

students volunteered to call or text the student right away. In focus groups several Gateway to 

College students mentioned turning to their peers for academic support. However, interviews 

with instructors indicated that the cohesiveness of cohorts naturally varied — some were simply 

more “tight-knit” than others. In one interview, an instructor mentioned that “the morning 

cohort certainly has a sense of family” and that “they’re pretty tight-knit; they look out for each 

other.” In contrast, this instructor described the afternoon cohort as “a little more separated.” 

The student follow-up survey found that roughly half of Gateway to College students looked to 

their peers for academic or personal support at least once per week, but more than one in four

said that they had not done so even once in the past year.

Sources of Support During the Transition Term

Once students transition into mainstream community college, by design, Gateway to 

College staff members provide much less support. The idea is that students should have developed the skills they need to navigate community college and succeed there. However, many 

Gateway to College staff members have observed that students need additional support after the 

Foundation term, and expressed concern that it might not be available to them. For example, 

one instructor worried about how well students would do once they transitioned out of the 

Foundation term because “they [won’t] have that sense of family anymore.” In response, and as 

noted earlier in this chapter, all three program sites implemented a Gateway to College course in 

the transition term in order to maintain a connection to the students. Doing so allows the 

program sites to “keep tabs” on their students and intervene if, for example, a student has 

stopped attending classes. It may be helpful to explore the possibility of officially incorporating 

such support into the model.
43

Gateway to College study students also often mentioned going back to Resource Specialists for support during the transition term, especially if their community college instructors 

did not seem approachable. In the transition term students no longer take all of their classes with 

the same group of peers, which means their peer support is not as strong. However, in focus 

groups several students reported still being in touch with a handful of other Gateway to College 

students, and having made new connections with community college students.

As was the case with the Principles of Teaching and Learning, at a broad level all three 

program sites appeared to be consistently implementing the type of student support prescribed 

by the model. However, this appearance of consistency may mask certain variations, given the 

model’s lack of specificity regarding which strategies are acceptable or unacceptable. It may be 

helpful for the program to work with program sites to develop a range of examples of how 

“holistic student support” should be implemented. Doing so could help the National Network 

identify which aspects of the model should be bolstered, and where it should provide targeted 

technical assistance. 

Transition to Mainstream Community College

As discussed, Gateway to College students are expected to transition fully to mainstream 

community college courses after the initial Foundation term. Typically, this means that Gateway to College students take all of their courses at the community college where the program is 

being hosted and become integrated into the broader college community. However, as described 

in the previous section, all three of the Gateway to College program sites in this study observed 

that their students needed additional support after the Foundation term, and that the programs 

also needed a mechanism for staying connected to their students.

In response, the Colorado and Washington program sites implemented a Gateway to 

College course in the transition term. This kept staff members connected to students as they 

adjusted to community college and allowed them to intervene if, for example, a student stopped 

attending classes. At the California program site, some cohorts took a class during the summer 

intersession, shortening the time between their Foundation experience and their introduction to 

mainstream community college life. 

Progress Through Prescribed Courses

Gateway to College considers a student to have a made a successful transition to community college if that student completes the required Gateway to College courses, remains 

enrolled for the subsequent semesters, and takes classes at the college level during those 

semesters (see Table 3.2). Across the three program sites, 89 percent of accepted students
44

passed at least one of their Foundation courses, but only 42 percent passed all of them. At all 

three program sites the most challenging course proved to be English Language Arts. Fewer 

than half of all program group members passed their Foundation English courses, although 

students at the Colorado program site passed at a higher rate than students at the California and

Washington program sites.

To the extent that the transition course helped maintain and reinforce connections 

among peers from the Foundation term, the Colorado program site was in a better position to 

Table 3.2

Program Group Progress Through Prescribed Courses

Outcome (%)

Full Program

Group

California

Site

Colorado

Site

Washington

Site

Enrolled in any Foundation courses

Passed any Foundation courses

Enrolled in all Foundation courses

Courses passed, by subject

English language arts

Math

College Success Ia

College Success II

Career Developmentb

Passed all Foundation courses

c Enrolled in transition course

c Passed transition course

94.4

89.4

76.7

45.6

71.1

83.9

67.8

56.9

42.2

62.6

50.5

93.3

89.9

57.3

36.0

60.7

89.9

53.9

56.2

34.8

NA

NA

95.3

95.3

95.3

74.4

93.0

76.7

79.1

NA

67.4

79.1

69.8

95.8

83.3

95.8

37.5

70.8

79.2

83.3

58.3

33.3

47.9

33.3

Sample size 180 89 43 48

SOURCE: MDRC calculations using Gateway to College National Network MIS data.

NOTES: In graded courses, students who earned a C or better are counted as passing the class. 

NA = not applicable.

 a

At the Washington program site, the first College Success course is a short orientation course 

that occurs at the beginning of the term. The second College Success course is a semester-long 

course. 

 b

The Colorado program site does not offer a Career Development course. The full program 

group mean for this outcome does not include students enrolled at the Colorado program site. 

 c

The California program site does not offer a transition course. The full program group mean 

for this outcome does not include students enrolled at the California program site. 
45

ease students’ transition to mainstream community college. At the Colorado program site, 79 

percent of the program group enrolled in the transition course, while only 48 percent of students 

at the Washington program site did. Figures 3.1 through 3.3 show how students at each program 

site attempted to make the transition to mainstream community college while pursuing their 

high school diplomas.

In the first semester, there was considerable variation among the program sites in the 

share of courses passed that were for college credit. This hinged on whether Gateway to 

College’s prescribed core courses counted for college credit, which was determined in agreements between the local K-12 school districts and postsecondary host institutions. Only at the 

California program site could students earn college credit for some of the prescribed core 

courses: They could for their Student Success courses, while they earned only high school credit 

for their ELA and math classes. At the Colorado program site, all prescribed core classes 

counted as remedial (noncredit) college courses. At the Washington program site, ELA and 

math counted as remedial college courses, while the Student Success and Career Development 

courses were for high school credit only. In Figure 3.3, the courses shown under Semester 1 as 

counting for college credit at the Washington program site were actually taken during the winter 

term (a common time to take classes because the Washington program site’s host college uses 

the quarter system).

After the Foundation term, when students earned college credit it was usually not for 

passing college-level math or English classes, at least not at first. Despite their remedial needs in 

core subjects (for example, math and English), students at the Colorado and California program 

sites completed college courses in science, history/social studies, art, physical education, etc. At 

the Washington program site, many of the for-credit classes were career classes, such as 

culinary arts or automotive repair (or related prerequisites).

In later semesters, student exposure to college course work was limited by attrition from 

the program. At the California and Washington program sites, about half of program group 

members left Gateway to College before Semester 2, and those who remained struggled with 

their classes. While students at the other two program sites were typically earning college credit 

for their efforts, students at the California program site were still taking mostly remedial classes 

or classes for high school credit. It is also worth highlighting that, as indicated in Table 2.1, 

students at the Washington program site tended to be further from receiving their high school 

diplomas when they applied to the program than students at the other two program sites.

By Semester 3, 25 percent of students at the California program site, 35 percent of students at the Colorado program site, and 46 percent of students at the Washington program site

were still enrolled in the program (see Figures 3.1 through 3.3). The retention rates at the
46

Program group

(89 students)

83 (93%) enrolled for Semester 1:

71% of all classes taken were passed with a 

C or better

Of classes passed, 51% were for college credit

42 (47%) enrolled for Semester 2:

36% of all classes taken were passed with a 

C or better

Of classes passed, 20% were for college credit

22 (25%) enrolled for Semester 3:

44% of all classes taken were passed with a 

C or better

Of classes passed, 33% were for college credit

6 (7%) never 

participated

41 (46%) left

after Semester 1

17 (19%) left 

after Semester 2

0 (0%) graduated 

after Semester 1

3 (3%) graduated 

after Semester 2

3 (3%) graduated 

after Semester 3

5 (6%) left 

after Semester 3

69 (78%) left 

or never enrolled

14 (16%) stayed 

through Semester 3 6 (7%) graduated

Figure 3.1

Persistence and Transition to Community College Course Work: California Site

SOURCE: Gateway to College National Network MIS. 
47

Program group

(43 students)

41 (95%) enrolled for Semester 1:

84% of all classes taken were passed with a 

C or better

Of classes passed, 0% were for college credit

34 (79%) enrolled for Semester 2:

66% of all classes taken were passed with a 

C or better

Of classes passed, 47% were for college credit

15 (35%) enrolled for Semester 3:

36% of all classes taken were passed with a 

C or better

Of classes passed, 50% were for college credit

2 (5%) never 

participated

5 (12%) left after 

Semester 1

5 (12%) left after 

Semester 2

2 (5%) graduated 

after Semester 1

14 (33%) graduated 

after Semester 2

1 (2%) graduated 

after Semester 3

2 (5%) left 

after Semester 3

14 (33%) left 

or never enrolled

12 (28%) stayed 

through Semester 3 17 (40%) graduated

Figure 3.2

Persistence and Transition to Community College Course Work: Colorado Site

SOURCE: Gateway to College National Network MIS. 
48

Program group

(48 students)

46 (96%) enrolled for Semester 1:

62% of all classes taken were passed with a 

C or better

Of classes passed, 16% were for college credit

25 (52%) enrolled for Semester 2:

39% of all classes taken were passed with a 

C or better

Of classes passed, 77% were for college credit

22 (46%) enrolled for Semester 3:

43% of all classes taken were passed with a 

C or better

Of classes passed, 87% were for college credit

2 (4%) never 

participated

21 (44%) left 

after Semester 1

(3 returned in 

Semester 3)

6 (13%) left 

after Semester 2

0 (0%) graduated 

after Semester 1

0 (0%) graduated 

after Semester 2

0 (0%) graduated 

after Semester 3

10 (21%) left 

after Semester 3

36 (75%) left 

or never enrolled

12 (25%) stayed 

through Semester 3 0 (0%) graduated

Figure 3.3

Persistence and Transition to Community College Course Work: Washington Site

SOURCE: Gateway to College National Network MIS. 
49

California program site for the previous two semesters had been a little higher, at 39 percent in 

fall 2012 and 33 percent in spring 2012. At the Colorado program site, the retention rates for the 

previous two semesters (spring 2012 and fall 2011) were a little lower than those observed in 

the study, at 28 percent and 31 percent, respectively. Finally, at the Washington program site, 

retention rates for the previous two semesters were similar to those observed in this study, at 44 

percent and 48 percent for spring 2012 and fall 2011, respectively.7 None of these historical 

retention rates are dramatically different from what was observed in the study samples at the 

three program sites. 

The Colorado program site seems to have been the most successful at producing graduates. (As discussed in Chapter 1, students graduate from Gateway to College when they earn 

their high school diplomas.) After the first semester, students who remained in the program 

earned college credit for roughly 50 percent of the classes they passed. Since the prescribed core

classes were all noncredit courses at the Colorado program site, the group who graduated from 

the program after Semester 2 had typically passed two college classes by that point. (They may 

have remained enrolled at the host community college and made further progress thereafter.) In 

addition to producing graduates at the highest rate, the Colorado program site was also the most 

likely to have students persist through Semester 3.

The high school graduation rates through one year for the program sites in the study are 

in line with their historical two-year cohort graduation rates, as shown in data maintained by the 

Gateway to College National Network.

8 Those historical data show that students starting in the 

2011-2012 school year had two-year high school graduation rates of 19 percent in California, 42 

percent in Colorado, and 7 percent in Washington. While these rates span a substantial range, 

they are not outliers: Of the 19 program sites continuously active from 2009 to 2012, 6 had 

2011-2012 high school graduation rates above 40 percent and 8 had rates of 15 percent or less. 

The average graduation rate for all 19 program sites was 30 percent.

Qualitative data from field visits did not suggest that the Washington program site

would struggle to help students stay engaged and earn credentials; staff members and students 

 7

In other public reports produced by the Gateway to College National Network, retention rates will generally appear higher than those reported in this report, in part because of certain important differences in how 

retention rates are calculated: (1) This implementation study calculates retention from the time of application 

and assignment into the program, while the National Network calculates retention from the point of meaningful 

participation in the program, excluding those students who exit the program in the first 30 days. (2) The 

National Network includes in “retained students” those students who graduated from Gateway to College and 

those still enrolled in the program, while this study’s calculation of retention rates excludes students who have 

graduated; graduates are counted and reported separately. 8

Graduation rates reported by the National Network exclude students who leave the program in the first 30 

days, move to a different school district, transfer to another diploma-completion program, or leave the program 

for medical reasons or due to death.
50

there seemed quite capable and motivated. However, program staff members in Washington did 

indicate that they placed greater emphasis on attaining a postsecondary degree than attaining a 

high school diploma — a strategy influenced by state legislation that allows students to receive 

a high school diploma automatically once they have earned a postsecondary degree. Furthermore, it takes much longer for students to graduate from the Washington program site than the 

typical student elsewhere: 34 months, more than a year longer than the National Network 

average (18), almost two years longer than the Colorado program site (12), and perhaps longer 

than the students would need to graduate from a mainstream high school. With the goal so far in 

the distance, it is worth considering whether some students might become disillusioned.

Students might lose momentum when they are given no short-term milestones (that is, a high 

school diploma, a certificate, or some other credential) to help them see their progress and 

encourage them to stick with their education.

Reasons for Leaving Gateway to College

Helping students make the leap from a high school-like environment to a college environment is a major challenge familiar to all programs that serve students who have dropped out 

of high school or who are at risk of dropping out. On the 12-month follow-up survey, students 

who participated in Gateway to College but were no longer enrolled were asked why they had 

left. Their responses (see Table 3.3) demonstrate the range of challenges Gateway to College 

participants at these program sites faced. 

Gateway to College students at the three program sites in the study who did not enroll 

in Gateway to College for Semester 3 gave a variety of explanations for leaving. Graduates of 

the program often said that they had achieved their educational goals. For others, health and 

family issues sometimes interfered, although these took various forms; for example, several 

students mentioned conflicts with work or needing to work more hours. As for program-specific 

obstacles, some Gateway to College participants had trouble meeting the academic demands of 

the required courses, and were occasionally frustrated with staff or faculty members, or with the 

program itself. Transportation challenges and infrequent attendance were often given as 

secondary reasons for leaving the program.

The difficulty in maintaining enrollment across semesters was the biggest challenge to 

program implementation at the three program sites in the study. Over the past several years, 

Gateway to College has placed a greater emphasis on improving retention, but solutions 

continue to be elusive. Improving retention rates for young people at risk of dropping out 

requires a deep understanding of the challenges they face. A recent report by America’s 

Promise Alliance found that “disengagement from and re-engagement with school both result 

from clusters of factors. There is no single reason or factor that drives students to leave school,
51

Reasons for 

Table 3.3

Leaving Gateway to College

Outcome (%)

Program Respondents Not Enrolled

in Gateway to College When Surveyed

Primary reason not currently enrolled in Gateway to College a Achieved educational goals

Health and family issues

Conflicts with work or a need to work more hours

Difficulty meeting academic demands

Issues with the program, faculty, or learning environment

Infrequent attendance 

Transportation challenges 

Frequent moving or homelessness

Problems with peers

Nobody cared

Problems with the legal system

b Other

c All reasons not currently enrolled in Gateway to College a Achieved educational goals

Health and family issues

Conflicts with work or a need to work more hours

Difficulty meeting academic demands

Issues with the program, faculty, or learning environment

Infrequent attendance 

Transportation challenges 

Frequent moving or homelessness

Problems with peers

Nobody cared

Problems with the legal system

b Other

21.3

21.3

17.0

6.4

8.5

4.3

8.5

4.3

2.1

0.0

0.0

6.4

23.4

34.0

21.3

17.0

21.3

17.0

27.7

8.5

6.4

0.0

2.1

6.4

Sample size 47

SOURCE: MDRC calculations using responses from the Gateway to College 12-month survey.

NOTES: Sample does not include those students who never enrolled in Gateway to College.

 a

Some students who stated they "achieved educational goals" earned a high school diploma or General 

Educational Development (GED) certificate. 

 b

Most "other" responses described problems of motivation, lost interest/dissatisfaction, or logistical 

challenges.

 c

Percentages do not sum to 100 because survey respondents could have selected multiple responses. 

Similarly, subcategories do not sum to the total. 
52

nor is there a uniform profile of students who fail to graduate on time.”9 This does not come as a 

surprise to those who work closely with at-risk young adults, including Gateway to College 

staff members, who are keenly aware of the diverse challenges students face and how greatly 

those needs and challenges can shift from one year to the next.

While the students at the Colorado program site had higher passing rates than students

at the California and Washington program sites, this does not necessarily indicate that the 

program in the Colorado program site is stronger than the programs at the other two program 

sites. The difference could be the result of differences in the local population or in outreach 

strategies. Or Gateway to College might be best suited to students who are close to earning their 

high school diplomas but who have gotten sidetracked or encountered significant obstacles 

before completion. Students at the Colorado program site tended to be closer to earning their 

diplomas than students at the California and Washington program sites. While it is difficult to 

come away with a clear set of program recommendations from the limited data in this study, 

those data and a review of best practices backed by strong evidence together suggest a few areas 

Gateway to College might want to explore further, as discussed in the next chapter.

Training and Support

All three program sites in the study described participating in a wide range of training activities 

through the Gateway to College National Network, including seminars, webinars, and the 

annual Peer Learning Conference. However, there was considerable variation among program 

sites in the amount and depth of that training. The California program site reported receiving the

most robust training and support from the National Network. Its experience included several 

visits from an instructional coach, collaboration with members of the National Network to 

analyze the results of a student survey, and several “brown-bag” meetings and conversations 

that took place during the Peer Learning Conference, which gave staff members an opportunity 

to share promising practices with colleagues from across the country. Staff members from the 

California program site also reported participating in supplemental training events tailored to the 

program site’s needs, including training events related to the Common Core and issues related 

to college and career readiness.

The Washington program site also reported participating in several multiday training

events, brown-bag meetings, and webinars that allowed its staff members to connect with 

other Gateway to College programs. Staff members also reported that visiting other Gateway 

to College program sites in their region was a useful training and support opportunity. The 

Colorado program site reported the least robust training experience. Aside from the Peer 

 9

America’s Promise Alliance (2014). 
53

Learning Conference, staff members reported receiving training and support only when they 

felt it was needed. 

This range of reported experiences with training and support suggests that staff members at the three program sites have varying levels of need for development and training or, 

perhaps, perceive themselves to have varying levels of need. While the National Network has 

not historically been in a position to provide a high level of ongoing training and support to 

program sites that have reached “veteran” status, it may want to consider taking on such a role 

in the next phase of the program’s evolution.

55

Chapter 4 

Summary and Discussion of Implementation Findings

As part of Gateway to College’s continued growth and development, the National Network must 

place a stronger emphasis on understanding program sites’ ability to implement the core model 

as intended. While the small number of program sites in this study limits the generalizability of 

the implementation findings, developing a deeper understanding of Gateway to College’s

implementation helps to shed light on whether there is a consistent program model that can be 

replicated and expanded in different contexts. Any organization interested in expanding a 

program to a national scale needs to consider that issue. If program sites cannot implement a core 

model as intended, they could instead end up implementing ad hoc variations out of line with the 

model’s core values, and those may not necessarily improve student outcomes.

Gateway to College aims to be nimble and responsive to different implementation contexts and student needs. This is an important strength as the program grows and is implemented 

in increasingly diverse contexts, with student populations that have varied challenges. However, 

given the challenges and wide range in retention and transition rates across the three program 

sites, the program may want to consider balancing this aim with additional guidance and 

support to ensure high-quality, consistent implementation.

It is not easy to balance flexibility in a program model with concrete guidance to program sites. It requires a central body like the Gateway to College National Network to work 

closely with individual programs to understand their varied implementation contexts (that is, 

their specific relationships with school districts, and the practices and priorities of their postsecondary host institutions) and the needs of their students, while at the same time maintaining the 

integrity of a program model that is unique, that serves the needs of at-risk students, and that 

can be implemented well on a large scale.

Gateway to College might try to find this balance by engaging in a National Networkwide discussion about the goal and intended outcome of each program component, with the aim 

of developing a range of examples that articulate which program practices align with the 

program model’s intentions and which do not. For example, it might be worth asking: Is the 

absence of a Career Development course acceptable? Is it possible to have too much or too little 

emphasis on the Career Development component? What pedagogical strategies are considered 

acceptable in maintaining “a rigorous learning environment” (one of the Principles of Teaching 

and Learning)? Given the need to preserve local flexibility and responsiveness, the list of 

program practices across the National Network may encompass a wide range of approaches. 

Finding the right balance between flexibility and concrete guidance will likely also require 

ongoing communication between the National Network and individual program sites — an idea 
56

that is already in line with Gateway to College’s current thinking regarding future implementation of the model. According to the Gateway to College Annual Report, the National Network is 

currently exploring a certification system that would define, standardize, and track continuous 

improvement at Gateway to College program sites.1

The current high-level assessment reveals that most of the model’s five core components were implemented fairly consistently at the three program sites in this study. However, 

before any researcher can conduct a more precise analysis of the implementation of these

broadly defined components, the National Network will need to develop additional definition 

and guidance to help program sites make concrete decisions about how they should operate. 

The implementation findings from the three program sites in this study suggest that the National 

Network may want to consider creating a regimen of training and support that would give

programs across the country a consistent understanding of the model’s components without 

being too prescriptive. Since local programs already do not take advantage of all the training 

opportunities currently available to them, it may also be necessary to create better mechanisms 

for encouraging staff participation.

Doing so — creating a better regimen of training and support while improving the 

mechanisms that encourage staff participation in that training — could provide two benefits. 

First, it could provide local program sites, new and old, with concrete guidance for how each 

component of the model should be implemented. Second, it could provide the National Network 

and local program sites with a framework that would help identify areas where program sites 

are out of line with the model and allow the National Network to provide more precise and 

targeted technical assistance to address those areas.

Regardless, the variations and adaptations that are readily seen at the three program

sites in the study reveal a few lessons about the Gateway to College model’s implementation. 

First, one of the main adaptations that occurred across all three program sites was the addition 

of a course after the Foundation term. Program sites recognized the need for an additional

mechanism to stay in contact with students beyond the Foundation term and all decided that this 

adaptation to the model would allow them to do so. Gateway to College may want to consider 

adopting this adaptation more formally at other program sites as well.

The main variations across the three program sites were differences in (1) how the career development course was implemented, (2) how the learning communities were formed,

(3) how instructors viewed their role, (4) what program sites determined project-based learning 

should look like in the classroom, and (5) at what rates students transitioned to mainstream 

community college. The first two adaptations were primarily influenced by two factors: the 

 1

Gateway to College National Network (2013).
57

policies and practices of program sites’ postsecondary hosts and program sites’ desire to be 

responsive to local students’ needs as they saw them (much the same impulse that led them to 

create post-Foundation term courses). These adaptations do not undermine the program’s theory 

of change or compromise the fidelity of implementation at the three program sites in the study; 

rather, they suggest that the Gateway to College model must continue to be nimble to be 

successfully implemented in varied postsecondary education settings while meeting the needs of 

diverse student populations. However, Gateway to College may need to consider balancing this 

flexibility with more concrete parameters for future implementation. 

The subsequent two variations related to the Principles of Teaching and Learning (how 

instructors viewed their role and how project-based learning was interpreted) were primarily 

influenced by variations in staff attitudes, training shortages, or inconsistent messages regarding 

how these principles should be implemented. These variations suggest that program sites would 

benefit from additional or more consistent training and support from the National Network,

once the National Network reaches a clear and consistent understanding of how these high-level 

principles should be put into operation.

The biggest variation in implementation across the three program sites in the study was 

in retention rates: whether they kept students in the program long enough to transition to 

mainstream community college. While there are limited clues to the reasons for the programsite-level differences in retention rates, one possibility is that more academic support is needed 

during the Foundation term in order to get students more consistently to the level they need to 

be successful. Given that only 42 percent of students passed all of their Foundation term 

courses, it is possible that Gateway to College is maintaining a level of rigor and high expectations that is important, but that for many students, the curriculum requires a higher level of 

academic support and intervention than what is currently provided.

Another feature observed in the qualitative data that may be contributing to this variation is that — as previously discussed — at the Washington program site, more emphasis is 

placed on attaining a postsecondary degree than on earning a high school diploma. Given the 

long road to a postsecondary degree, it is possible that the decreased emphasis on earning a high 

school diploma may be depriving students of an opportunity to experience momentum. This

may be particularly true for students at the Washington program site, who started the program 

with far fewer credits than the students at other program sites. 

It is important to remember that these observations and possible explanations are based 

on observations from only three program sites that are not necessarily representative of all the 

program sites in the National Network. Additional investigation should be conducted to further 

explore these ideas.
58

For Further Exploration and Consideration: Suggestions for 

Strengthening the Gateway to College Model

Since program sites seem to face challenges with retention and getting students to transition 

successfully to mainstream community college courses, the Gateway to College National

Network may want to consider additional ways of strengthening the model (that is, in addition 

to providing increased guidance and support for implementation). This section provides a few 

suggestions, some in response to local adaptations to the model that program sites are already 

making, others informed by data collected over the course of this study paired with best practices from the field. Given the limited number of program sites that participated in this study, these 

suggestions should be considered areas to explore and launching points for discussion rather 

than concrete recommendations backed by strong evidence.

1. Consider making more of students’ strong relationships with staff members 

and peers in the program. Most Gateway to College students reported strong relationships with instructors and Resource Specialists and appreciated being treated 

with respect and maturity — a clear strength of the three program sites in the study, 

and one that could be further used to change student trajectories. As noted in a recent study of at-risk and dropout young adults, “connectedness to others” is a high 

priority for young people and “the value placed on these relationships can lead 

young people away from or toward school, depending on their circumstance.”2

Gateway to College staff members have an opportunity to build on the strong relationships they form with students by continuing to provide them with the individual 

support, tools, and access to resources that could make the difference between 

dropping out of the program and continuing on a path to earning their diplomas and 

postsecondary degrees. 

2. Consider bolstering academic support, particularly in the area of English 

Language Arts. Fewer than half of students pass all of the Foundation courses, 

suggesting they may need additional academic support or supplemental instruction. 

At all three program sites, the biggest academic stumbling block for students was 

the Foundation English Language Arts course. 

3. Consider strengthening peer support. The follow-up student survey found that 

one in four students had not sought out support from peers even once in the previous year. Given that creating a culture of peer support during the Foundation term is 

an essential part of the program’s theory of change, Gateway to College programs 

 2

America’s Promise Alliance (2014). 
59

may want to engage in more activities that promote camaraderie and peer support 

within the learning communities.

4. Consider extending the learning community experience. One of the biggest adaptations seen across all three program sites is the implementation of additional 

formal support after the Foundation term. The program sites’ across-the-board 

recognition that this was a need, in combination with the high numbers of students 

unable to progress from the Foundation term to the transition term, suggests that it 

may be helpful to extend the learning community experience beyond the first term. 

This could take the form of adopting into the model the post-Foundation term

classes already in place at the three program sites in the study or implementing 

something more ambitious, such as extending the Foundation experience to a full 

academic year.

5. Consider implementing a systematic approach to listening to students’ needs.

Two of the local adaptations to the model (adaptations in how the career development curriculum was implemented and how learning communities were formed) 

were made in direct response to the needs of local student populations. As mentioned throughout this report, dropout and at-risk young adults, including those 

served by Gateway to College, have diverse needs and require adult advocates who 

can help them navigate their particular circumstances. Implementing a systematic 

approach to listening to students and balancing their self-identified needs with best 

practices that have a strong evidence base will likely be very important. In a recent 

study of students in this population, the first and overriding recommendation is to 

listen to students to better understand the circumstances affecting their lives and educational experiences.3 As Gateway to College continues to refine its model, it will 

be helpful to develop systematic practices that allow staff members to keep a close 

ear to the ground to truly hear students’ real-life circumstances, and to understand 

what they are struggling with. 

 3

America’s Promise Alliance (2014). 

Appendix A

Lessons Learned About Student Outreach

63

MDRC Technical Assistance

The program sites that participated in this study received technical assistance from MDRC with 

the goal of increasing the number of eligible students who applied to the program, in part to 

help program sites recruit enough students for the study’s sample. The technical assistance 

consisted of consultant-facilitated SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) 

analyses, and monitoring and support provided by MDRC site liaisons. This section shares 

lessons learned from that work, drawing from technical assistance-related conversations, 

interviews with members of the Gateway to College National Network, and qualitative data 

collected during field visits in spring 2013. 

The SWOT analysis discussions were led by an MDRC consultant with expertise in organizational management and strategic planning. The discussions ranged from two-hour 

meetings to half-day retreats. The length of the meetings typically depended on the program 

staff’s needs and availability. In addition, ongoing monitoring and support were provided 

primarily by MDRC operations teams. Each program site was assigned a team of one or two

MDRC liaisons with whom they had regular phone check-ins.

Lessons Learned from the Student Outreach Process

1. Having a staff member dedicated to student outreach is critical. The status quo

for many programs is that student outreach is the job of several people, yet none of 

them can dedicate undivided attention to the task. Program staff members are often 

pulled to attend to day-to-day program operations; student outreach is often lower 

on the priority list, let alone making planned and thoughtful decisions about outreach that are part of a larger strategy. As one staff member said, internal management of the program and developing outreach partnership strategies are “two totally 

different things. You cannot have a hundred students that you’re responsible for 

pushing through and making successful, but then also do this other enormous job 

which involves getting out of the building away from your students to find other 

ones.” To address this problem, two program sites made staffing changes. One 

hired a full-time staff person dedicated to outreach; another shifted leadership roles 

so that one person managed internal operations, freeing the other to focus on external partnerships and outreach. These staffing changes allowed the outreachdedicated staff members to focus on identifying allies and partnerships, develop 

strategies for active outreach, and foster deeper relationships with referring teachers 

and counselors.
64

2. Building relationships directly with school staff members — especially teachers and counselors — is just as important as getting district support. In the 

Gateway to College model, school districts are program sites’ primary partners. 

Within districts, school-level staff members — that is, teachers and counselors at 

local high schools — know their students personally and are in the best position to 

identify students who don’t just meet the basic eligibility criteria but are also a good

fit for the program. Recognizing this, program sites began to use various new strategies to foster and maintain relationships with teachers and counselors. Simply 

reaching out to individual teachers helps. Gateway to College staff members who 

focus on outreach have also shared that giving teachers and counselors updates on 

the students they have referred helps to strengthen relationships, as does communicating when a student is not a good fit. Teachers and counselors want to know that 

they are sending their students to the right place; maintaining regular communication facilitates that.

3. Incorporating student voices in outreach can help foster enthusiasm among 

potential applicants. In interviews, students noted that hearing about previous students’ experiences helped them see themselves in the program. The California program site, for example, began incorporating students into information sessions and 

developing materials that featured student voices. 

4. It is important to find the right balance between removing unnecessary barriers and “weeding out” students who are not a good fit. Many students meet the 

basic eligibility requirements of Gateway to College, but not all of them would be a 

good fit for the program. Programs try to address this by creating a rigorous application process that “weeds out” students who are not ready to commit to a rigorous 

program or students who do not have the infrastructure necessary to be successful 

(for example, those who lack regular transportation or child care). However, in 

some cases, the application process may be raising unnecessary barriers that keep

students from the program who might be a good fit (for example, a requirement to 

return three days in one week for various assessments). One program site addressed 

this by reducing the number of days that students had to return from three days to 

two days. This removed an unnecessary barrier while maintaining a process that 

could still weed out students who were not yet ready, willing, or able to commit to 

the program.

5. Timing plays a large role in the outreach process. Each program site is keenly 

aware of the challenges arising from the yearly ebbs and flows of the student outreach process. For example, it is more difficult to recruit students in the summer. 

Students may want to enroll midway through the semester, when enrollment is not 
65

open. A program site’s program calendar might not align with the calendar of one 

or more of its feeder districts. Few of the program sites were able to develop solutions that addressed these timing challenges. A few innovations did emerge: Some 

program sites developed additional entry points to the program (for example, one 

program site created a course focused on college resources that took place before 

the regular curriculum began) so that prospective students did not lose interest, and 

program sites also aligned themselves with partner districts’ school calendars to the 

extent that they could. 

6. It is critical to include the voices of essential stakeholders and staff members 

when developing long-term plans for outreach and recruitment. Several staff 

members noted that the consultant-led process was helpful because it was one of the 

only times they had been able to get together as a team to talk specifically about this 

issue. Doing so helped to foster enthusiasm, identify potential pitfalls, and define 

existing best practices that should be maintained. Upon reflection, one program site 

also noted that it would have been helpful to broaden the conversation beyond 

Gateway to College staff members — for example, by including a school district 

partner in the conversation.

These lessons can be applied to many program sites in the Gateway to College National 

Network, and to other programs that serve a similar population. But each program site must still

develop its own, customized plan for outreach. This is particularly the case for programs like 

Gateway to College where program sites are strongly influenced by their local contexts, the 

varying needs and challenges of their target student populations, and their relationships with 

feeder schools and districts.

Appendix B 

Data-Collection Activities

69

Quantitative Data

Several data sources provided quantitative context to support the implementation research:

• Application data. The three program sites in the study provided information 

on the number of students who made it through various stages of the application process during the study enrollment period. One program site provided 

these data in aggregate; the others provided deidentified student-level data.

• Baseline data. Students completed a baseline information form when they 

enrolled in the study. That form asked students about their personal and family backgrounds, as well as their academic history and most recent enrollment 

status. For context, the Gateway to College National Network also provided 

aggregate data on some of these demographic characteristics for all students 

enrolled across the network in the 2012-2013 school year.

• Survey data. Abt SRBI administered a survey to all students 12 months after random assignment. The survey included questions about students’ educational experiences, including the educational programs in which they had 

enrolled during the 12 months since random assignment and, for students in 

the program group, their reasons for not being enrolled in Gateway to College (if they were not). Due to a low response rate and a large difference 

between the response rates of the program and control groups (62 percent 

for the program group and 47 percent for the control group), this study 

drew upon survey results only for information on the educational options 

available to students outside of Gateway to College and on students’ reasons for leaving the program.

• Management information system data. The Gateway to College National 

Network provided data on program group students’ academic performance 

while they were enrolled in Gateway to College. These data were analyzed 

for the three academic semesters following random assignment. The National 

Network and leaders at the three program sites in the study provided additional context regarding specific courses, which helped in the summary and 

analysis of these data.

All data were processed and analyzed by MDRC data analysts using statistical programming software. A senior data analyst reviewed all programs, outputs, and results to ensure 

their quality.
70

Qualitative Data

As noted in the main report, interviews with program staff members and other key stakeholders 

were the primary data source for the implementation analysis. All interviews were conducted by 

the lead implementation researcher (the lead author of this report) along with a research assistant. In-person site visits took place in late spring/early summer 2013. Site visits included 

interviews with program staff members, focus groups with program participants, and classroom 

observations. All interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts and 

classroom observation summaries were analyzed for major themes and commonalities, and the 

results were synthesized into program-site-specific summaries.1 Quotations were used throughout the report to support qualitative findings.

 1

Given the small number of participating program sites, it was not necessary to use a qualitative analysis 

software package. All analysis was done manually.
71

References

Alliance for Excellent Education. 2008. The High Cost of High School Dropouts: What the 

Nation Pays for Inadequate High Schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent 

Education. 

America’s Promise Alliance. 2014. Don’t Call Them Dropouts: Understanding the Experiences 

of Young People Who Leave High School Before Graduation. Medford, MA: Tufts 

University.

Bailey, Thomas, and Melinda Mechur Karp. 2003. Promoting College Access and Success: A 

Review Of Credit-Based Transition Programs. Washington, DC: Office of Vocational and 

Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education. 

Berman, Paul, and Milbrey Wallin McLaughlin. 1976. “Implementation of Educational 

Innovation.” The Educational Forum 40: 345-370. 

Bloom, Dan, Saskia Levy Thompson, and Robert Ivry. 2010. Building A Learning Agenda 

Around Disconnected Youth. New York: MDRC.

Bridgeland, John M., John J. Dilulio, Jr., and Karen Burke Morison. 2006. The Silent Epidemic: 

Perspectives of High School Dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises, LLC. 

California Community Colleges’ Success Network. 2015. “A Statewide Initiative to Increase 

Student Completion Rates.” Website: http://3csn.org/completion-initiative. 

California Department of Education. 2013. “DataQuest.” 

Website: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest. 

Carnevale, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, and Jeff Strohl. 2013. Recovery: Projections of Jobs and 

Education Requirements Through 2020. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. 

Coleman, James S., Ernest Q. Campbell, Carol J. Hobson, James McPartland, Alexander M. 

Mood, Frederic D. Weinfeld, and Robert L. York. 1966. Equality of Educational 

Opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

Colorado Department of Education. 2015. “SchoolView: Data and Accountability.” Website: 

www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview. 

Davis, William E., Lieve Brutsaert-Durant, and Roxanne Lee. 2002. Alternative Education 

Programs in Maine: A Further Investigation of Their Impact on Serving Students 

Considered to be “At-Risk” and Students with Disabilities. Orono, ME: Institute for the 

Study of Students at Risk, College of Education and Human Development, University of 

Maine.

Duckworth, Angela L., Christopher Peterson, Michael D. Matthews, and Dennis R. Kelly. 2007. 

“Grit: Perseverance and Passion for Long-Term Goals.” Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology 92, 6: 1,087-1,101. 
72

Dynarski, Mark, Linda Clarke, Brian Cobb, Jeremy Finn, Russell Rumberger, and Jay Smink. 

2008. Dropout Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008-4025). Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Garvey, John. 2011. From GED to College Degree: Creating Pathways to Postsecondary 

Success for High School Dropouts. Boston: Jobs for the Future. 

Gateway to College National Network. 2012. “Gateway to College Locations.” Website: 

www.gatewaytocollege.org/partner_programs.asp. 

Gateway to College National Network. 2013. 10 Years of Impact: 2013 Annual Report. 

Portland, OR: Gateway to College.

Grossman, Jean Baldwin, and Eileen M. Garry. 1997. “Mentoring: A Proven Delinquency 

Prevention Strategy.” Juvenile Justice Bulletin (April). Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Ingels, Steven J., and Ben Dalton. 2013. High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) 

First Follow-Up: A First Look at Fall 2009 Ninth-Graders in 2012 (NCES 2014-360). 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Kaufman, Phillip, Denise Bradbury, and Jeffrey Owings. 1992. Characteristics of At-Risk 

Students in NELS: 88: National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NCES 92-042). 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Lange, Cheryl M., and Sandra J. Sletten. 2002. Alternative Education: A Brief History and 

Research Synthesis. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special 

Education. 

Lords, Erik. 2000. “New Efforts at Community Colleges Focus on Underachieving Teens.” The 

Chronicle of Higher Education 46, 43: A45-A46. 

MDRC. 2013. “Building Better Programs for Disconnected Youth.” New York: MDRC. 

Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Washington. “K-12 Data and 

Reports.” Website: http://data.k12.wa.us/PublicDWP/Web/WashingtonWeb/Home.aspx. 

Accessed on May 29, 2015. 

Rider, Steven, Katie Winters, and Terra Neilson. 2012. Gateway to College: Evaluation of PostSecondary Attainment Graduates. Portland, OR: Pacific Research and Evaluation LLC.

Rouse, Cecilia. 2005. “Labor Market Consequences of an Inadequate Education.” Paper 

prepared for the Equity Symposium on “The Social Costs of Inadequate Education,” 

October 24, 2005, New York.

Ruzzi, Betsy, and Jacqueline Krameer. 2006. Academic Programs in Alternative Education: An 

Overview. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy. 
73

Sewell, William H., Archibald O. Haller, and George W. Ohlendorf. 1970. “The Educational 

and Early Occupational Attainment Process: Replication and Revision.” American 

Sociological Review 35: 1,017-1,027. 

Sewell, William H., Archibald O. Haller, and Alejandro Portes. 1969. “The Educational and 

Early Occupational Attainment Process.” American Sociological Review 34: 82-92. 

Sipe, Cynthia, L. 1996. Mentoring: A Synthesis of P/PV’s Research: 1988-1995. Philadelphia: 

Public/Private Ventures.

U.S. Department of Education. 2008. High School Graduation Rate: Non-Regulatory Guidance.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

Visher, Mary, Michael J. Weiss, Evan Weissman, Timothy Rudd, and Heather Wathington. 

2012. The Effects of Learning Communities for Students in Developmental Education. New 

York: MDRC.

Wilson, Sandra Jo, Emily E. Tanner-Smith, Mark W. Lipsey, Katarzyna Steinka-Fry, and Jan 

Morrison. 2011. Dropout Prevention and Intervention Programs: Effects on School 

Completion and Dropout Among School-Aged Children and Youth. Campbell Systematic 

Reviews, available online at: www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/158. 

Wittenstein, Rebecca. 2010. “Progress on Graduation Rate Stalls; 1.3 Million Students Fail to 

Earn Diplomas.” News release, Editorial Projects in Education Research Center.
About MDRC

MDRC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan social and education policy research organization dedicated 

to learning what works to improve the well-being of low-income people. Through its research 

and the active communication of its findings, MDRC seeks to enhance the effectiveness of social and education policies and programs.

Founded in 1974 and located in New York City and Oakland, California, MDRC is best known 

for mounting rigorous, large-scale, real-world tests of new and existing policies and programs. 

Its projects are a mix of demonstrations (field tests of promising new program approaches) and 

evaluations of ongoing government and community initiatives. MDRC’s staff bring an unusual 

combination of research and organizational experience to their work, providing expertise on the 

latest in qualitative and quantitative methods and on program design, development, implementation, and management. MDRC seeks to learn not just whether a program is effective but also 

how and why the program’s effects occur. In addition, it tries to place each project’s findings in 

the broader context of related research — in order to build knowledge about what works across 

the social and education policy fields. MDRC’s findings, lessons, and best practices are proactively shared with a broad audience in the policy and practitioner community as well as with the 

general public and the media.

Over the years, MDRC has brought its unique approach to an ever-growing range of policy areas and target populations. Once known primarily for evaluations of state welfare-to-work programs, today MDRC is also studying public school reforms, employment programs for exoffenders and people with disabilities, and programs to help low-income students succeed in 

college. MDRC’s projects are organized into five areas:

• Promoting Family Well-Being and Children’s Development

• Improving Public Education

• Raising Academic Achievement and Persistence in College

• Supporting Low-Wage Workers and Communities

• Overcoming Barriers to Employment

Working in almost every state, all of the nation’s largest cities, and Canada and the United 

Kingdom, MDRC conducts its projects in partnership with national, state, and local governments, public school systems, community organizations, and numerous private philanthropies.