GEAR UP Final Report UPDATE 4 13 15

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014
GEAR UP SF
Final Evaluation Report – May 2014
(Updated April 2015)

GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Contents
Executive Summary................................................................1
Introduction................................................................................5
GEAR UP Services.....................................................................7
Cohort 1 Student Outcomes.........................................10
Academics and Graduation.........................12
College Readiness and Knowledge........15
Postsecondary Enrollment...........................17
School Outcomes.................................................................20
Programmatic Highlights ................................................21
Lessons Learned....................................................................23
Challenges.................................................................................25
Conclusion................................................................................27
Addendum: GEAR UP’s Second Cohort..................28
Appendix: Quantitative Methods...............................37
Acknowledgements:
GEAR UP Leadership and Harder+Company Community
Research would like to thank GEAR UP coordinators and
staff, students and parents, and the teachers, administrators,
and other school staff who participated in interviews and
focus groups and provided valuable insight into the
workings of GEAR UP. In addition, we would like to thank
staff at the Research, Planning & Accountability (RPA) Data
Center at SFUSD who provided key administrative data
helping to make this evaluation possible.
Photo credits:
Cover photo: UCANR

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Executive Summary
GEAR UP San Francisco
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) is a federally
funded, U.S. Department of Education program
that aims to increase the number of low-income
students who are prepared to enter and succeed in
postsecondary education. Since the 2007-08
academic year, GEAR UP San Francisco—
administered by San Francisco Unified School
District (SFUSD)—supported over 3,600 students
annually in two cohorts and a total of seventeen
schools to raise students’ expectations for academic
advancement and close the college achievement
gap. The program graduated its second and final
cohort of students in May 2014.
The Evaluation and Report
GEAR UP San Francisco partnered with
Harder+Company Community Research to
conduct an evaluation of the program’s influence
on the students, families, and schools that it served.
The evaluation used a mixed methods approach
designed to examine both the implementation and
outcomes of GEAR UP San Francisco. This report
presents a summary of major findings from core
evaluation activities and has two primary goals: (1)
highlight student outcomes by comparing GEAR
UP’s two cohorts to similar students from the prior
cohort who did not receive GEAR UP services and
(2) highlight program practices to inform the
development and implementation of current and
future student support programs.
Student Outcomes: Key Findings
Harder+Company originally produced the GEAR
UP SF Final Report in May 2014. At the time of
writing, GEAR UP San Francisco’s second cohort
of students (the class of 2014) had not completed
their final year of high school and many of the key
outcome variables needed to understand how
GEAR UP supported students through high school
and prepared them for postsecondary success were
not yet available for those students. As a result, the
original report focused only on comparing the
outcomes of 1,714 students in GEAR UP’s first
graduating class to 2,371 similar students from the
prior cohort (the class of 2012). Those original
findings are presented in the following GEAR UP
Services and Cohort 1 Student Outcomes sections of
this report.
However, since the original report was written,
GEAR UP’s second cohort of students has
completed high school and their high school and
postsecondary data have become available for
analysis. In the form of an addendum (found at the
end of this report) Harder+Company presents
findings on the characteristics and outcomes of the
1,693 students in GEAR UP San Francisco’s second
cohort.
Students in GEAR UP’s first and second cohorts
experienced similar outcomes (as illustrated in
Exhibit 1). Key findings from this study include:
GEAR UP provided services to nearly every
student. Coordinators provided services to over
98 percent of students attending GEAR UP high
schools. On average, students received over 28
hours and numerous types of services. These
findings highlight GEAR UP’s success in
conducting outreach to students and its thorough
integration into the schools it served.
GEAR UP students had higher GPAs, CAHSEE
pass rates, and high school graduation rates
than students in the comparison group. These
improvements in academic outcomes suggest that
students in the GEAR UP cohorts were better
prepared academically for postsecondary

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
education than students in the prior cohort. In
addition, GEAR UP supported students who were
academically on the “cusp” to complete the
necessary steps to ensure they graduated.
More GEAR UP students took measurable steps
to apply to college than comparison group
students. GEAR UP students were more likely to
go on a college visit and to take the SAT than
students in the comparison group. These findings
are important indicators that more GEAR UP
students were ready to apply for and eligible to be
admitted to two- and four-year colleges.
GEAR UP students applied to more colleges and
continued their education in postsecondary
settings—in four-year colleges specifically—
more frequently than students in the
comparison group. GEAR UP’s college readiness
and academic services provided students and their
families with crucial support through a process
that is notoriously difficult to navigate. For some
students, this support increased eligibility for and
admission into four-year colleges.
Traditionally underserved students in
particular benefited from GEAR UP. African
American, Latino, low-income, first generation
college-going, and English learner students in the
GEAR UP cohorts frequently experienced better
outcomes than their peers in the
comparison group. GEAR UP’s tiered
approach to service delivery contributed
to the increases in the percentages of
these students passing the CAHSEE,
going on a college visit, taking the SAT,
applying to multiple colleges, and
attending four-year colleges
immediately after graduation.
School Outcomes: Key Findings
In addition to improving student
outcomes, GEAR UP contributed to
cultural shifts in the schools it served.
Teachers, administrators, and
coordinators discussed the changes that
schools underwent while a part of the
GEAR UP program.
GEAR UP supported and
strengthened the college-going
culture at schools. For schools with
well-established college-going cultures,
GEAR UP brought additional resources
to strengthen and enhance student
services. For schools where a college-
going culture was less present, GEAR
UP raised awareness among students
AcademicCollegeReadinessPostsecondary
87%
89%
76%
74%
73%
56%
56%
93%
95%
82%
82%
78%
60%
61%
94%
94%
85%
82%
82%
64%
63%
Passed ELA CAHSEE
Passed Math CAHSEE
Graduated High School
Went on a College Visit
Applied to Multiple Colleges
Enrolled in Postsecondary
Attending Four-Year College*
Exhibit 1: Key Student Outcomes
Comparison Group GEAR UP Cohort 1 GEAR UP Cohort 2
*Percentage of those students enrolled in postsecondary institutions who were attending
four-year colleges (rather than two-year colleges).
Percentages in bold are statistically significant

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
and staff, delivered college-focused services, and
elevated dialogue about college access.
GEAR UP supported schools in promoting
higher education through school-wide events
and activities. GEAR UP activities and school-
wide events, such as College Nights and FASFA
workshops, were widely successful and
institutionalized in many schools. GEAR UP
increased expectations and demand for these
college-related events within school communities.
Program Implementation Highlights
During its seven years, SFUSD’s GEAR UP
program changed and evolved as leadership and
staff developed new strategies and implemented
new processes for improving service delivery. The
following highlights reflect overarching successes
and lessons learned from the program.
GEAR UP coordinators’ personalities,
qualifications, and district employment helped
them connect with students and provide
consistent, stable services. GEAR UP
coordinators were noted for their approachability,
their passion, and their commitment to students—
traits that positioned them as a key resource and
support for many students. In addition, being
employed by the district, possessing teaching or
counseling credentials, and being located on
campus full-time distinguished GEAR UP
coordinators from other CBOs. These criteria
increased coordinator’s access to students and
faculty and gave them professional validity that
supported implementation and effectiveness.
GEAR UP offered a variety of services that
helped students become college ready, apply
for college, and find the means to attend
college. The services offered by GEAR UP were
universally acknowledged as the right mix of
elements to support students and families; and
offering a variety of school-wide and
individualized supports was key to the program’s
success. Many of the supports that
GEAR UP provided would not have
otherwise been available to the majority
of students at these schools.
Targeting individuals enabled GEAR
UP to support the highest-need
students. In accordance with SFUSD’s
Response to Instruction and
Intervention (RTI2) success strategy,
GEAR UP used school administrative
data to create a targeting tool that
identified high-need populations and
individual students who would benefit
most from GEAR UP services. This ensured that
students received tiered levels of services and
interventions based on their need. Furthermore,
this tool enabled staff to align their efforts with
other initiatives to ensure students were connected
to the services they needed.
GEAR UP continually strengthened the
program’s structure and aligned services with
program objectives. GEAR UP program
leadership and coordinators developed core
activities aligned with GEAR UP objectives and
formalized grade appropriate work plans to help
meet program goals while remaining flexible as

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
students aged and school needs changed.
GEAR UP encouraged professional
development that supported coordinators’
ongoing learning. Through district-wide
trainings and national conferences, GEAR UP
provided coordinators with learning opportunities
to improve their practice. In addition, leadership
provided one-on-one site-specific support to
coordinators as they implemented the program
across a number of schools.
GEAR UP coordinators collaborated with faculty
and other CBOs and aligned strategies with
concurrent initiatives to deepen the program’s
impact. Collaborating with faculty, particularly in
the classroom, expanded the program’s reach.
Coordinators leveraged classroom time by working
with faculty to integrate services into existing
classroom activities. Strengthening collaboration
with school-based CBOs helped to leverage
resources, reach students, and reduce duplicative
service efforts. In addition, where GEAR UP
successfully aligned itself with preexisting parallel
college readiness efforts, particularly those
overseen by college centers or counseling
departments, it was better integrated into the
schools it served.

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Introduction
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) is a federally
funded, U.S. Department of Education
discretionary grant program that aims to increase
the number of low-income students who are
prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary
education.
GEAR UP San Francisco, which was administered
by the San Francisco Unified School District
(SFUSD), supported two cohorts of students and
seventeen schools across the district to promote
academic success and postsecondary readiness by:
 Providing students with an array of early
intervention and grade-appropriate services to
raise expectations for educational advancement
and prepare students to enter college;
 Working directly with parents, guardians, and
family members to raise awareness about the
academic and college process; and
 Collaborating with teachers, administrators and
other ally programs and organizations to create
systemic institutional change that supports
educational advancement.
Service Model
In pursuit of raising expectations for academic
advancement and closing the college achievement
gap, GEAR UP was designed to reach low-income
students early in middle school and follow them
through high school graduation. The cohort
service model provided students with a continuity
of services that were specifically tailored to meet
evolving needs as students advanced from one
grade to the next. The model also allowed
GEAR UP coordinators to develop rapport
and deeper relationships with students,
elements essential for improving student
outcomes.
GEAR UP San Francisco began in the 2007-
08 academic year when Cohort 1 and
Cohort 2 students were in the 7th and 6th
grade, respectively. GEAR UP coordinators
based at each school site served thousands
of students and their families during the
program’s tenure, which began at nine
middle schools and transitioned to eight
high schools, each unique in terms of its
school culture and mix of students, but
similar in terms of meeting the program’s
criteria for serving schools with a large
population of low-income students. GEAR UP
served over 3,600 students annually, graduated its
first cohort of students in May 2013 and its second
and final cohort in May 2014.
Schools Served by GEAR UP SF

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Exhibit 2. Evaluation Components and Primary Research Questions
Evaluation
Component
Primary Research Questions
Implementation
How did GEAR UP influence college-knowledge and instill a college-going culture in schools?
What factors at the student, program, and school level influenced program implementation and
outcomes?
Outcomes
How do the outcomes of the GEAR UP cohort compare to the outcomes of the previous year’s cohort,
which did not receive GEAR UP services?
Did GEAR UP achieve better outcomes for certain types of students?
Evaluation Approach
As GEAR UP San Francisco neared the end of its
grant cycle, the program sought to understand the
influence of its services on the students, families,
and schools that it served. GEAR UP partnered
with Harder+Company Community Research, an
independent consulting firm that specializes in
social sector research and planning to conduct this
evaluation. The evaluation uses a mixed methods
approach designed to examine both the
implementation and outcomes of GEAR UP San
Francisco. The overarching research questions
guiding each component of this evaluation are
outlined in Exhibit 2.
Core evaluation activities were conducted in the
final years of the grant cycle, which included
qualitative data collection in spring 2013 (when
Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 were in the 12th
and 11th
grade, respectively) and quantitative analysis of
SFUSD administrative data for Cohort 1 in spring
2014 and for Cohort 2 in spring 2015.1
Core
evaluation activities comprised:
1
Findings for Cohort 2, which were not available at the time the
original report was published, are described in the addendum.
 Comprehensive analysis of longitudinal school
administrative data for both GEAR UP cohorts
and a comparison group of students who
graduated a year prior (the class of 2012) and
did not receive GEAR UP services;
 Eight student focus groups (73 high school
seniors), one at each GEAR UP high school;
 Eight interviews with a total of 10 GEAR UP
coordinators (two joint interviews);
 Interviews with school staff, including a teacher
(1), counselors (4), and administrators (3);
 One parent focus group (4 parents); and
 One interview with the GEAR UP director.
The Report
This report presents a summary of major findings
from core evaluation activities, as well as
supporting evidence from ongoing programmatic
data collection (i.e., GEAR UP student surveys).
The goal of this report is twofold: (1) highlight
student outcomes by comparing GEAR UP’s two
cohorts to similar students from the prior cohort
who did not receive GEAR UP services and (2)
highlight program implementation practices to
inform the development and implementation of
current and future student support programs.
Findings are organized into the following sections:
 Cohort 1 GEAR UP Services
 Cohort 1 Student Outcomes
 School Outcomes
 Programmatic Highlights
 Lessons Learned
 Challenges

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
GEAR UP Services
From middle school to high school, GEAR UP
provided an array of early intervention and grade-
appropriate services that evolved with the changing
needs of their students. Services ranged from
broad-reaching activities (i.e., informational
workshops and presentations) to in-depth
academic and personal support (i.e., tutoring and
counseling) to experiential learning activities (i.e.,
college and job site visits). The program used a
multi-tier service delivery model to (1) ensure that
general GEAR UP services reached nearly all
students in their cohorts and (2) target high-need
student populations with tailored, higher-intensity
services designed to meet their unique needs.
This section of the report provides a summary of
the services utilized by GEAR UP Cohort 1
students in high school and their self-reported
assessment of the types of services that were most
beneficial for preparing them for college.2
Service Utilization
Despite serving two large cohorts of students at
eight different high schools, GEAR UP
2
Findings for Cohort 2 are described in the addendum.
coordinators reached nearly all students in their
cohorts. Over 98 percent of students in the class of
20133
received at least one GEAR UP service.
Though the program offered a variety of services
(Exhibit 3), GEAR UP services are aggregated into
six major service areas for the purpose of this
report. On average, the 1,714 students in Cohort 14
received over 27 hours5
of GEAR UP services
throughout high school, including:
 17 hours of workshops and presentations;
 5 hours of academic support;
 5 hours of counseling and advising; and
 Less than an hour (0.4 hours) of family
counseling and advising.
This distribution of service hours reflects the
program’s general approach to serving students.
That is, expose students to large quantities of
college information, immerse students in a college-
going culture, provide individualized academic and
3
This includes only students who attended a GEAR UP high
school for one full year.
4
See Appendix: Quantitative Methods for a complete description
of the definition of Cohort 1.
5
Total hours exclude field trips and other events as their long
duration skewed the averages.
Exhibit 3. GEAR UP Services
Service Area Service Details
Academic
support
Tutoring/Homework Assistance
Study Hall/Homework Club
Counseling/
advising/
mentoring
Comprehensive Mentoring
FinAid Counseling/Advising
Counseling/Advising/Academic
Planning
Career Counseling
Workshops/
presentations
Rigorous Academic Curricula
Workshops
College Preparation/Online Support
Computer Assisted Service
College Application/Program
Promotion
Leadership Training
Field trip/event
participation
College Visit/College Student
Shadowing
Educational Field Trips
Job Site Visit/Job Shadowing
Family/Cultural Events
Family
counseling/
advising
Family Counseling/Advising
Parent Communication
Home Visit
Family
workshops/
events
Family Workshops on College
Prep/FinAid
Family College Visits
Family Events

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
99% 95% 91%
73%
48%
29%
Workshops
Counseling/
Advising
FieldTrip/Event
AcademicSupport
FamilyEvent/
Workshop
FamilyCounseling/
Advising
Exhibit 4: Students Receiving Each GEAR
UP Service Type
personal support to meet individual needs, and
engage family members in the process.
The majority of Cohort 1 students received a mix
of GEAR UP services. Most commonly, 99 percent
of students participated in workshops and
presentations that covered a range of topics, from
college information to leadership development.
Often delivered in a group format, GEAR UP
coordinators were able to reach more students at
higher frequencies with these types of services.
In addition, 95 percent of students received
individualized or small group support in the form
of counseling, advising, and/or mentoring, and 91
percent of students participated in fieldtrips or
activities designed to expose them to college and
career opportunities (Exhibit 4).
Through their partnership with San Francisco
State University, GEAR UP was able to provide
tutoring to many students, a resource-intensive
service that most students would not have had
access to without the program. This partnership
expanded GEAR UP’s range of academic support
activities and services, which benefited 73 percent
of Cohort 1 students and contributed to their
improved academic outcomes.
Educating and supporting parents and families is
an important, but challenging, aspect of serving
students, particularly when the focus is on
increasing postsecondary enrollment. GEAR UP
increased schools’ efforts and capacity to support
parents and families by providing personal
outreach, college and financial aid workshops, and
counseling services. Based on the GEAR UP parent
“It really helped me have peace of mind throughout the whole college application process.
[Without GEAR UP], I would have just been really confused and stressed out about it. [GEAR
UP] really helped me feel calm about it.”
—GEAR UP Student

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
survey6
, a majority of parents were “somewhat” or
“very” familiar with the admissions requirements,
application processes, and costs of California’s
public college systems, including:
 70 percent familiar with California Community
Colleges (CCC);
 61 percent familiar with California State
Universities (CSU); and
 58 percent familiar with Universities of
California (UC).
Despite universal challenges associated with
conducting outreach to parents and engaging
families in these activities, 48 percent of Cohort 1
students’ parents or family members participated
in GEAR UP events and workshops designed to
educate them about college and financial aid
requirements. Additionally, nearly 30 percent of
GEAR UP students’ parents and families received
direct, personal support from the program in the
form of counseling, advising, and even home visits.
6
Survey was administered to parents when Cohort 1 students were
in the 11th
grade.
Rating GEAR UP Services
Prior to graduation, Cohort 1 students were asked
in the annual GEAR UP survey to rate the extent to
which services helped them prepare for college.
Their responses are summarized in Exhibit 5 and
strongly align with the sentiments they expressed
during focus groups. Overall, with over 80 percent
of students rating these services as “very helpful”
or “helpful,” the top three GEAR UP services were:
1.Direct assistance with college applications,
personal statements, and financial aid
applications.
2.Individualized counseling and advising to
explore and support their educational and career
goals.
3.College workshops that provide critical
information about postsecondary options,
applications requirements, and financial aid.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Job site visit or a Career Day
Tutoring
SAT/ACT Prep
Mentoring
Educational field trip
College visit/College fair
College workshops
Academic/College/Career counseling
College/FAFSA/Dream apps, personal statements
Very Helpful Helpful
Exhibit 5: GEAR UP Services Helpfulness Rankings

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Cohort One Student Outcomes
In order to understand how the GEAR UP services
described in the previous section supported
students through high school and prepared them
for postsecondary education, this study compared
the outcomes of students in GEAR UP’s first
graduating class to 2,371 similar students from the
prior cohort (findings from Cohort 2 are described
in the addenudum). This section examines how the
academics, college readiness and knowledge, and
postsecondary enrollment of the first GEAR UP
cohort differed from those of the comparison
group. The analysis pays particular attention to
how these outcomes differed for traditionally
underserved populations of students between the
groups. In addition, important programmatic
features that directly supported these three key
outcome areas—GEAR UP’s “Keys to Success”—are
discussed briefly in each subsequent section.
Student Characteristics: the first GEAR UP
Cohort and the Comparison Group.
Overall, students in the class of 2012 had similar
demographic characteristics to students in the first
GEAR UP cohort making it a strong comparison
group. Students in both cohorts had similar gender
distributions, ethnic backgrounds, and received
special education services at similar rates. In
addition, students in both groups were similarly
distributed across the eight schools (see Exhibit 6)
suggesting that, overall, students in both groups
15%
18%
8%
8%
3%
3%
11%
12%
9%
10%
5%
6%
6%
9%
29%
25%
15%
9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Comparison
Group
GEARUP
Cohort1
Exhibit 6: Distribution of Students across Schools
Balboa
Burton
ISA
Mission
Marshall
O’Connell
Wallenberg
Washington
Other
Methods
This analysis relied on demographic,
academic, senior survey, and postsecondary
data provided by SFUSD for both the
comparison group and the first GEAR UP
cohort. Cohort 1 was defined as any student in
the class of 2013 who attended a GEAR UP
school for at least one year in high school—
regardless of whether they attended another
SFUSD school or left the district previously or
subsequently—and who received at least six
hours of GEAR UP services during this time.
Similarly, the comparison group was defined
as any student in the class of 2012 attending a
GEAR UP school at some point in high school.
GEAR UP service records were matched to
SFUSD data in order to measure service
utilization among the GEAR UP cohort.
Statistical analysis software was used to
examine student demographics and compare
outcomes of GEAR UP students and the
comparison group. The analysis employed
ANOVA, chi-square, and t-tests to measure
statistical significance of differences in mean
outcomes of the comparison group and GEAR
UP cohort as well as for disaggregated
populations of interest.

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
were exposed to comparable academic and
school settings. These similarities further
strengthen the class of 2012 as a strong
comparison group.
Exhibit 7 illustrates some of the key individual
and family characteristics of students in the first
GEAR UP cohort.
Still, there were some notable—and statistically
significant—differences between the first GEAR
UP cohort and the comparison group including
the following:
 A slightly higher percentage of the first
GEAR UP cohort qualified for free or
reduced price lunch (FRPL) (82 percent
compared to 79 percent) indicating that
there were more low-income students in the
first GEAR UP cohort.
 Parents of students in the first GEAR UP
cohort had higher educational attainment
than parents of students in the comparison
group. As a result, a smaller percentage of
GEAR UP students would be first
generation four-year college students (75
percent) than the prior year (89 percent).
 The GEAR UP cohort had a slightly smaller
percentage of English learners in their senior
year (12 percent compared to 17 percent in the
previous cohort).
 A higher percentage of GEAR UP students
attended Balboa (18 percent versus 15 percent
in the comparison group) and Wallenberg (9
percent versus 6 percent).
 A smaller percentage of GEAR UP students
attended Washington (25 percent versus 29
percent).
 Fewer students in the first GEAR UP cohort
finished their time at SFUSD in a non-GEAR
UP school than in the comparison group (9
percent compared to 15 percent).
To account for these demographic differences,
this analysis compares the outcomes of key
populations of students across the cohorts—
particularly populations likely to benefit most
from additional supports—in addition to
comparing the outcomes of both cohorts in
aggregate.
Gear Up
Cohort 1
53% Male/
47%
Female
12%
Special
Education
12%
English
Learner
53% Asian
13%
African
American
24%
Latino
82% Low-
Income
75%
First
Generation
College
Exhibit 7: GEAR UP Student Characteristics

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Academics and Graduation
A key component of SFUSD’s GEAR UP program
was providing academic support to students in
order to improve graduation rates and prepare
students for college. Approximately 70 percent of
GEAR UP students received academic support at
some point in high school. For some students,
these services helped them complete required
benchmarks to graduation. As one teacher
reported, “[GEAR UP coordinators] have a huge
impact on kids who graduate from high school
who might not have otherwise.” For other
students, academic support helped improve their
qualifications for admission to college and made
them “more ready for college.”
In order to explore GEAR UP’s influence on
student academics this analysis focused on three
key indicators: cumulative GPAs, California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) pass rates, and
graduation rates.
GEAR UP students had higher cumulative
GPAs than the comparison group
Students in the first GEAR UP cohort had higher
average cumulative GPAs in each year of high
school than the comparison group (see Exhibit 8).
By the end of their senior year, GEAR UP students
had an average cumulative GPA of 2.78 compared
to a 2.59 average GPA in the previous cohort.
These higher GPAs had important implications for
students. For some, better grades helped motivate
or provided direction to them. One parent said of
her daughter’s improved grades, “now she knows
what she wants and she’s been improving. The first
time she saw her report card with an excellent
grade, she was so excited.” Improved cumulative
GPAs also made more students four-year college
2.54 2.54 2.56 2.59
2.71 2.74 2.76 2.78
2
2.5
3
9th 10th 11th 12th
CumulativeGPA
Exhibit 8: Mean Cumulative GPA by Grade Level
Comparison Group GEAR UP Cohort
Keys to Success
GEAR UP collaborated with teachers to
conduct transcript checks and advise
students on their academic standing in
order to support students’ academic
progress.
“The coordinator trained all of our teachers to
do transcript checks and to know if their
[students] are on track for graduation or
college. I think people’s vision of themselves
as an advisor changed. We are better
equipped now to really advise our students.”
—High School Teacher
GEAR UP provided valuable support to
schools and teachers implementing the
new A-G subject requirements for
graduation.
“Going into the classrooms, the teachers are
picking up the lingo. The teachers know the
requirements because they hear me say it over
and over in the workshops and in every single
class. They start talking about it.”
—GEAR UP Coordinator

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
eligible by increasing the number of students with
GPAs above 2.0, as well as the number with GPAs
above 3.0, the minimum required for admissions
to University of California (UC) campuses.
GEAR UP students saw improved CAHSEE
pass rates, particularly among traditionally
underserved students
For many students, the first hurdle to graduation is
passing both the English Language Arts (ELA) and
math portions of the CAHSEE. The percent of
students passing the ELA section of the CAHSEE
increased six points from 87 percent in the
comparison group to 93 percent in the first GEAR
UP cohort. African American students (85 vs 79
percent), Latino students (90 vs 78 percent),
English learner (70 vs 66 percent) and students
with GPAs in the lowest range (69 vs 59 percent),
among others, all saw statistically significant
increases of four percentage points or more over
their counterparts in the comparison group.
Similarly, the pass rate for the math portion
increased from 89 percent in 2012 to 95 percent in
the first GEAR UP cohort with African American
(83 vs 74 percent), Latino (91 vs 82 percent),
English learner students (88 vs 79 percent), and
students with GPAs in the lowest range (64 percent
vs 58 percent) all experiencing increases compared
to their peers the prior year.
GEAR UP students, especially traditionally
underserved students, were more likely to
graduate from high school
With higher GPAs and more students passing the
CAHSEE it is not surprising that GEAR UP
+ 93 percent of Cohort 1 students
passed the ELA portion of the CAHSEE
compared to 87 percent of the prior
cohort.
+ 95 percent passed the math portion
of the CAHSEE compared to 89
percent of the previous cohort.
+ African American, Latino, English
learner, and low-GPA students all saw
CAHSEE pass rates five or more
percentage points higher than their
peers the prior year.
76%
58%
65%
76% 79%
53%
82%
67%
72%
81% 83%
55%
All Students African American Latino Low-Income First Generation
College
English Learner
Exhibit 9: Percent of Students Graduating
Comparison Group GEAR UP Cohort 1

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
students had significantly higher graduation rates7
(see Exhibit 9) than students in the comparison
group (82 percent versus 76 percent). The
following student populations were also more
likely to graduate:
 Sixty-seven percent of African Americans in
the first GEAR UP cohort graduated from high
school compared to 58 percent the prior year;
 Seventy-two percent of Latino Cohort1
students graduated versus 65 percent the year
prior;
 Eighty-one percent of low-income Cohort 1
students graduated versus 76 percent the
previous year;
 Eighty-three percent of first generation
college Cohort 1 students graduated compared
to 79 percent the previous year.
Academic support helped students with
lower cumulative GPAs graduate
7
Graduation rates were calculated by dividing the number of
graduates by the total number of students enrolled at any point in
high school. This rate may be lower than the official graduation
rates published by the district which takes into account nuances in
enrollment using the four year cohort graduation rate.
GEAR UP students with lower cumulative GPAs
received targeted GEAR UP academic support
services. As a result, students in Cohort 1 who
received GEAR UP academic support services had
lower GPAs, on average, than students who did not
receive these services. Despite these lower GPAs,
GEAR UP students receiving these services
graduated from high school at similar rates to
Cohort 1 students who did not receive these
services (81 percent compared to 85 percent,
though this was not statistically significant). This
finding suggests that GEAR UP academic services
provided important support to students who were
struggling academically and who might not have
graduated without these interventions.
“I was never an
excellent student in
high school...GEAR UP
reached out to me
and made me think
about how I want to
live my life…[The
GEAR UP coordinator]
motivated and
encouraged me not
to give up.”
– GEAR UP Student

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
College Readiness and
Knowledge
GEAR UP San Francisco supported students
toward postsecondary success by providing a
variety of services and programs designed to help
students navigate their options after graduation. In
particular, these services aimed to improve
students’ knowledge of college and ensure they
were prepared to enter and succeed in college.
College readiness and knowledge are difficult traits
to measure but several indicators suggest that
GEAR UP helped improve college preparedness
and provided important information to students
and their families about applying to, getting into,
and succeeding in college.
GEAR UP students were more likely to visit
a college campus while in high school
Field trips and other events were the third most
commonly received GEAR UP service. It is
unsurprising, then, that a statistically higher
percentage of GEAR UP Cohort 1 students
reported that they had gone on a college visit
during high school (82 percent of students in the
first GEAR UP cohort compared to 74 percent of
the previous cohort).8
In particular, the percent of
low-income and first generation college students
going on a college visit significantly increased
compared to their peers in the prior cohort (81
percent compared to 74 percent the prior year for
both groups of students). Having the opportunity
to visit a college campus and learn about college
life and expectations may play an important role in
the decision to attend college, particularly for
students whose parents did not attend college or
whose families do not otherwise have the means to
visit college campuses.
8
As measured by self-reported data collected in the 2012 and 2013
SFUSD Senior Survey.
+ 82 percent of GEAR UP Cohort 1
students went on a college visit
compared to 74 percent of the
previous cohort.
+ Low-income and first generation
college students went on college
visits at higher rates than their peers
the prior year.
Keys to Success
GEAR UP provided services and resources
that students would not have had access to
otherwise that supported academic
success and improved awareness of
postsecondary opportunities.
“I went on a college tour with [GEAR
UP]…that was my first actual encounter with a
college campus and college life and
experience. It’s really different from what I
thought it would be. It was a good first
glimpse.”
–GEAR UP Student
GEAR UP worked with teachers to integrate
college readiness into the classroom by
developing college-related curriculum
relevant to the course subject. For
example, English teachers assigned
personal statements and economics
courses addressed college financing.
“We went into three classes…getting them to
write a personal statement and then revising it
and giving the teachers complete support. To
be able to [use] three days of classroom time
from a teacher is exceptional. That doesn’t
generally happen often.”
–GEAR UP Coordinator

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
53%
28% 32%
52% 55%
22%
65%
38% 42%
63% 65%
35%
All Students African American Latino Low-income First Generation
College
English Learner
Exhibit 10: Percent of Students Taking the SAT
34%
 Comparison Group  GEAR UP Cohort 1
A higher percentage of GEAR UP students,
traditionally underserved students in
particular, took the SAT
Another important indicator that GEAR UP
supported college readiness is the increase in the
percentage of students taking the SAT (Exhibit 10).
Cohort 1 students were significantly more likely to
take the SAT than students in the comparison
group (65 percent compared to 53 percent). In
particular, SAT rates were statistically significant
among the following groups of students:
 Thirty-eight percent of African Americans in
the first GEAR UP cohort took the SAT
compared to 28 percent in the prior year;
 Forty-two percent of Latinos in Cohort 1
took the SAT compared to 32 percent of
Latinos the previous year;
 Sixty-three percent of low-income Cohort 1
students took the SAT compared to 52 percent
in the comparison group;
 Sixty-five percent of first generation college
Cohort 1 students took the SAT compared to
55 percent in the prior year.
 Thirty-four percent of English learner GEAR
UP students took the SAT versus 22 percent of
students the previous year.
In addition, students with GPAs between 1.5 and
2.99—students just below the minimum required
GPA for UC admission—increased their SAT rates
over seven percentage points between the two
years (Exhibit 11).
These findings suggest that GEAR UP helped
students who, in prior years might not have
completed an important college prerequisite,
accomplish one more important step to being four-
year college eligible.
2%
25%
64%
86%
86%
3%
33%
71%
90%
94%
Exhibit 11: Percent of Students Taking the
SAT by GPA
 Comparison Group  GEAR UP Cohort 1
3.5-5.0
3.0-3.49
2.5-2.99
1.5-2.49
0.0-1.49

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Postsecondary Enrollment
The improved academics and increased college
awareness and readiness discussed in the previous
sections helped lay a critical foundation for GEAR
UP’s goals of increasing the postsecondary
enrollment rate and, ultimately, the postsecondary
success of students. While it is too early to assess
the postsecondary success of GEAR UP students,
this analysis does compare postsecondary
enrollment trends of the cohorts. This study
examined the number of schools students applied
to as well as the overall postsecondary enrollment
and the enrollment type—two- and four-year
college enrollment—of the first GEAR UP cohort
and the comparison group.
GEAR UP helped increase the number of
students who applied to multiple colleges
One of the important ways that GEAR UP
supported students on their path to college was by
providing students with thorough college guidance
and application support. In fact, these types of
counseling and advising services were the second
most commonly used GEAR UP service. As
reported in the senior survey, Cohort 1 students
were statistically more likely to have applied to two
or more colleges (78 percent compared to 73
percent) than the comparison group. This suggests
that GEAR UP coordinators encouraged students
to apply to a greater variety of schools or to apply
to schools they might not otherwise have
considered to increase their admissions chances
and postsecondary options. These findings were
especially true for Latino (66 percent compared to
55 percent), low-income (79 percent compared to
71 percent), first generation college (79 percent
compared to 73 percent), and English learner
students (56 percent compared to 40 percent) who
all reported applying to multiple colleges at higher
rates than their peers in the comparison group.
Students with GPAs between 1.5 and 2.49—either
side of the 2.0 minimum usually required for
+ 78 percent of GEAR UP students applied to
two or more colleges compared to 73
percent of the prior cohort.
+ Low-income, first generation college and
English learners were more likely than
their peers in the comparison group to
apply to multiple colleges.
Keys to Success
GEAR UP encouraged students to
consider college as a feasible option for
their future by providing college-focused
services early in and throughout high
school providing pathways to
opportunities students would have
otherwise thought were impossible.
“I don’t think I would have even applied for
college because at the beginning, I wasn’t
aware of it. [The GEAR UP coordinator]
helped me with my test scores and grades,
and gave me that motivation, that push, and
he was there, he stuck by me.”
–GEAR UP Student
GEAR UP helped students through the
college application process during their
critical senior year by providing support
on personal statements, applications, and
financial aid.
“[Without GEAR UP] I don’t think I would have
gotten into UC Berkeley…[The GEAR UP
coordinator] told me what [admissions] is
looking for and helped me revise my
personal statement.”
–GEAR UP Student

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
college admission—also applied to multiple
colleges more frequently (53 vs 43 percent).
In addition, slight increases in the Free Application
for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) submission rate
at GEAR UP Schools (79 percent for the class of
2013 and 73 percent for the class of 2012) also
suggest that more GEAR UP students viewed
attending a four-year college as an attainable goal
than students the prior year.
GEAR UP students enrolled in
postsecondary education at higher rates
than students in the comparison group
GEAR UP Cohort 1 students were statistically
more likely to enroll in two- or four-year colleges
than the cohort before them (60 percent compared
to 56 percent). Latino students had statistically
higher postsecondary enrollment rates than their
peers the prior year (41 percent vs. 35 percent), as
illustrated in Exhibit 12. Low-income and first
generation college students also had slightly
higher, but not statistically significant,
postsecondary enrollment rates. This suggests that
guidance and encouragement from GEAR UP
coordinators contributed to improved
postsecondary enrollment rates.
56%
37% 35%
56%
60%
33%
60%
38% 41%
58%
63%
32%
College
English Learner
Exhibit 12: Percent of Students Enrolling in Postsecondary

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
GEAR UP helped increase the percentage
of students enrolling in four-year colleges
directly after high school, particularly for
traditionally underserved students
In addition to encouraging students to continue
their education after graduation, GEAR UP helped
students navigate the varied postsecondary
options, complete college applications, and apply
for scholarships and financial aid to make four-
year college in particular more accessible. These
efforts helped direct some students who might
otherwise have attended two-year colleges
immediately after high school to four-year
programs by demonstrating these schools were
within reach. Among students who enrolled in a
postsecondary institution, students in the first
GEAR UP cohort were significantly more likely to
enroll in a four-year college (rather than a two-year
college) directly after high school than students the
prior year (61 percent compared to 56 percent)9
.
As Exhibit 13 illustrates, the following students
also experienced statistically higher four-year
college enrollment rates:
9
Four-Year College attendance is calculated only from students
who enrolled in a postsecondary institution.
 Sixty-one percent of low-income students in
the first GEAR UP cohort enrolled in a four-
year college compared to 55 percent the prior
year;
 Sixty percent of first generation college
students in the first GEAR UP cohort enrolled
in a four-year college compared to 55 percent
of the comparison group.
 Forty-one percent of English learners in the
first GEAR UP cohort enrolled in a four-year
college compared to 25 percent of the
comparison group.
Latinos also had higher, but not statistically
significant, four-year college enrollment rates.
56%
36%
40%
55% 55%
25%
61%
36%
45%
61% 60%
41%
College
English Learner
Exhibit 13: Percent of Students Enrolling in a Four-Year College

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
School Outcomes
In addition to improving academic, college
knowledge, and postsecondary enrollment
outcomes for students, GEAR UP contributed to
lasting structural and cultural changes in the
schools it served. Students, teachers,
administrators, and coordinators who participated
in interviews and focus groups discussed the
changes that schools underwent while a part of the
GEAR UP program.
GEAR UP supported and strengthened the
college-going culture at schools
For schools with a well-established college-going
culture, GEAR UP brought additional resources to
strengthen and enhance student services. For
schools where a college-going culture was less
present, GEAR UP raised awareness among
students and staff, delivered college-focused
services, and elevated dialogue about college
access. A counselor at one school explained,
“[GEAR UP] supports the college-going
atmosphere here. They are the backbone of
promoting higher education.” Highlighting the
central role GEAR UP activities and resources
played in creating a college-going culture, a
counselor at another school commented,
“The College and Career Center, GEAR UP,
Upward Bound…we are the hub of college-
going culture. We spearhead a lot of the college
access events that are happening on campus.
We maintain bulletin boards, we go to the
classrooms. I feel GEAR UP has been a huge
part of changing, shifting the culture.”
At another site, supporting a college-going culture
also meant assessing how courses offered at the
high school support students on a pathway to
postsecondary success. As a principal explained,
GEAR UP “helped [the school] focus on what it
means to be college-ready and college-prepared.”
GEAR UP supported schools in promoting
higher education through school-wide
events and activities
In some schools, a college-going culture was
cultivated through the institutionalization of
GEAR UP activities and school-wide events to
promote higher education and help students and
families navigate the college application process.
Events such as College Nights, which provided
families with information on college and financing
options, or FAFSA workshops, where students
were guided through financial aid applications,
were widely successful. One counselor commented,
“I think that is what GEAR UP has instilled here –
making everyone in the community work together
to put on these events, to promote higher
education and get students to think about what to
do after high school.” Another counselor noted
that GEAR UP had helped to increase the
community’s expectations about the types and
frequency of college-related events the school
organized. These changing expectations reinforced
their critical importance and helped
institutionalize these college-related events at the
school.
“I think [GEAR UP] has helped us to
focus very deeply on what it means to
be college ready…and have access. I
think it has helped us think about what
courses we are offering [to our
students].”
—High School Principal

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Programmatic Highlights
GEAR UP offered a range of services to students
including college tours and field trips, academic
tutoring, SAT and ACT preparation courses, and
workshops focused on financial aid and writing
personal statements. As discussed in the preceding
sections, GEAR UP’s mix of services provided
well-rounded and thorough supports to improve
academic and postsecondary outcomes for
students and strengthen college-going culture at
schools. These outcomes were possible due largely
to GEAR UP coordinators and leadership
successfully implementing the program at all
schools. This section highlights a number of the
most important coordinator and programmatic
elements that enabled successful implementation
of services and ultimately supported the
effectiveness of the GEAR UP program.
Coordinators’ personalities and experience
working with similar populations helped
them connect with students
School staff and students all described GEAR UP
coordinators as committed, knowledgeable,
professional, respectful, and non-judgmental. They
were also “very open” and “good collaborators”
with a calm demeanor–characteristics that were
important for building relationships with teachers
and students. Several students described GEAR UP
coordinators as “role models” and many
highlighted their dedication to helping students.
In addition to these personal characteristics, GEAR
UP coordinators had skills and backgrounds that
enabled them to do their jobs better. One college
and career counselor described the value of
coordinators prior experiences:
“[The coordinator’s] experience working with
similar student populations as far as being low-
income, first generation has benefited [the
coordinator] a lot as far as building
relationships…understanding the underlying or
foundational issues that are affecting student
performance and access to college.”
GEAR UP coordinators are credentialed and
employed by the school district, giving
them greater access and validity
As credentialed staff, GEAR UP coordinators had
important teaching and/or counseling skills and
experience working with youth. As SFUSD
employees, GEAR UP coordinators had access to
academic records necessary to monitor students’
progress and identify student needs. Most
importantly, being credentialed and employed by
SFUSD “provides validity” that GEAR UP
coordinators needed to gain school-wide support.
One coordinator explained,
“It is really important because that has a lot
of validity in a lot of things we do on campus.
It makes you part of the school team because
you are from SFUSD. You’re not an outsider
coming in. You are part of the inside. That
has been extremely helpful.”
Additionally, as credentialed staff, coordinators
could fill a variety of roles and needs on campus,
such as collaborating with teachers to lead classes
and advisories. Opportunities like these allowed
“[The GEAR UP] coordinator is awesome. [The coordinator] is able to connect with youth and
establish those relationships with them…has a nice understanding with youth, is patient, and
has a sense of humor. All of these things which I feel are really important for this type of work.”
—High School Counselor

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
direct access to students and a forum to promote
college readiness and postsecondary success,
furthering GEAR UP goals.
Dedicating a staff member to helping
students graduate and attend college was
essential to meeting GEAR UP goals
Having a point person who works with students,
teachers, and administration to instill a college-
going culture at the school was a critical aspect of
GEAR UP. As coordinators described, this person
is “held accountable for the college-going culture at
the school” and is the “source of knowledge for
students” for anything related to postsecondary
opportunities. GEAR UP coordinators noted that
this was “too much to ask a classroom teacher” and
that counselors often had too much to do.
Coordinators filled the role of the champion on
campus—sustaining the college-going culture at
schools and helping students to access resources
and explore viable postsecondary options.
GEAR UP was located on campus and
accessible to students every day which
improved visibility and integration
Unlike other organizations working with students
toward similar college readiness and access goals,
GEAR UP is situated on campus making for easier
student access and broader outreach. Being on
campus every day enabled coordinators to build
relationships with students, as one GEAR UP
coordinator commented, “It is the personal
relationships that you build with them; they come
here often during homeroom, lunch, and
afterschool, and they know [us].”
Targeting individuals enabled GEAR UP to
support the highest-need students
The one-on-one or small-group assistance that
GEAR UP provided to some students was essential
to moving the needle for them. GEAR UP
coordinators worked closely with these students,
providing higher levels of personalized assistance
and following them along their path to high school
graduation. They provided academic counseling,
assisted with personal statements, helped develop
resumes, and worked on college and financial aid
applications. Many students cited this
individualized support as the key element that
helped them become college ready and navigate
the college application processes.
One coordinator, for example, worked intensely
with a small group of seniors, meeting with them
weekly and recording progress reports for each
student. The coordinator explained:
“There are a handful of seniors this year who
have been on and off with me for the last
three years…They have made gains and they
are graduating, but [our contact] has been
every year…[They] are my target group,
[they] are on progress reports, and we have
lunch [together]…There has been a lot of
success that way.”
“There are a lot of college assistance programs out there to help kids…but the difference between
[other programs] and GEAR UP is they are all off campus…GEAR UP on the other hand is on a high
school site. I think their reach is much greater because they are on campus. Everybody can access it
because it is during the school day. [Students] can stop by at lunch, after school, before school…
that’s a critical piece of what sets GEAR UP apart from the other college assistance organizations.”
—Assistant Principal

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Lessons Learned
An important component to GEAR UP’s success
was its ability to adapt to the schools it served, the
shifting needs of students as they aged, and natural
changes in staffing, among others. This section
explores some of the important ways GEAR UP
San Francisco made programmatic adjustments
along the way to improve practice and better serve
students.
GEAR UP leadership continually
strengthened the program’s structure and
aligned services with program objectives
As with many newly implemented programs, it
took some time for GEAR UP San Francisco to fine
tune the roles of coordinators and schools in
achieving GEAR UP goals. Several coordinators
commented that in the early years “it was not really
clear about what you need to do [when you got to
the school]…you needed to figure it out.”
Similarly, in the beginning, school administrators
sometimes asked coordinators to provide services
that were outside the scope of the program.
In response to these challenges, the program
developed a central leadership team that developed
core activities aligned with GEAR UP objectives
and they collaborated with coordinators to develop
and formalize grade-level work plans to help meet
program goals. Leadership provided “important
benchmarks” for coordinators to ensure that
progress was being made toward goals in each year.
These efforts helped clarify GEAR UP’s role and
purpose while also allowing the program to be
flexible as students aged and programmatic needs
changed.
GEAR UP encouraged coordinators to take
advantage of professional development
opportunities and supported their
ongoing learning
Professional development opportunities, such as
GEAR UP national conferences and district-wide
trainings, played an important role in building the
capacity of GEAR UP staff to successfully
implement the program. These opportunities
helped coordinators stay on top of changing
policies and integrate new strategies into their
practice. In addition, GEAR UP leadership helped
coordinators navigate unique circumstances at
their schools. The experience described by one
coordinator was common: “[GEAR UP leadership]
are really supportive. If I have a question or if I
need something, I just email or send them a text
and they respond.” Combined with more formal
professional development, this individualized
support helped ensure coordinators were equipped
to support students and reach GEAR UP goals.
GEAR UP coordinators used existing school
structures to collaborate with teachers and
administrators
Integration into the school structure looked
different across schools. For example, as a member
of the 11th and 12th grade faculty teams, one
GEAR UP coordinator met regularly with teachers
to review student progress and needs. The
coordinator reported that this was “a good way for
me to get the pulse of what is going on with those
grade levels.” At another school, the coordinator
participated in Common Planning Time where
“They are a huge part of our faculty. They
are like family. They are part of the
landscape. I have to say I interact with the
GEAR UP coordinator several times a week
at least.”
—Assistant Principal

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
teachers discuss students and resources available.
During this time, teachers also learned about
GEAR UP resources and activities and referred
students directly to the GEAR UP coordinator for
individual assistance.
Though it looked different at each site, integration
into school structure helped schools recognize
GEAR UP’s importance, enabling coordinators to
better collaborate with teachers and
administrators, be part of student planning, and
garner support for activities and resources.
Aligning services with the college center or
counseling department helped GEAR UP
better integrate into schools
Being part of the counseling department facilitated
integration into the school culture and
collaboration between GEAR UP and school staff.
In some schools, GEAR UP was housed in the
school’s college center with other community-
based organizations allowing for better
communication and sharing of resources.
Collaboration with other college and career staff
enabled the counseling center to increase its
capacity to provide more individualized counseling
and academic advising for students. Similarly, at
some sites, the GEAR UP coordinators’
involvement in the college and career center
ensured it remained open serving students every
school day.
Strong relationships with a school’s counseling
department similarly benefited program roll out
and, ultimately, program effectiveness. Having “an
extra person to reach out to students and families,”
as one school counselor described, improved the
outreach and efforts of school counseling
departments.
“Because we’re in [the College Center] with other programs, we’re always communicating.
We are always bouncing ideas off each other and it seems our knowledge base is really
broad because if one person goes to a training, they are immediately there the next day to
share everything they learned.”
—GEAR UP Coordinator

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Challenges
Like any program, GEAR UP faced hurdles and
barriers along the way. This section outlines some
of the contextual challenges that hindered
implementation or influenced outcomes.
Large student populations made it difficult
for GEAR UP coordinators to provide all
students with the individualized support
and guidance they needed
Though school-wide efforts and resources touched
students nearly universally, several coordinators
expressed concern about their ability to deeply
impact all students. One coordinator shared, “it is
a challenge to adequately cover the number of
students with the resources we have. It’s hard for
two people to take care of 445 [senior] students.” A
GEAR UP coordinator expected to work with 300
students throughout the school year, articulated, “I
couldn’t possibly address their success
individually. That seems unrealistic.” Additionally,
some GEAR UP coordinators expressed concern
that with a large student target population, they
were likely to reach students who were already
“self-motivated” and less likely to reach students
who “really needed the help.” One coordinator
explained,
“My door is always open and when kids take it
upon themselves to see me, then it has been
more successful. But then I feel I’m only serving
kids that will put their foot through the door. It
has been a challenge to get kids to show up and
make sure the GEAR UP message is getting
across to kids that need it the most.”
The pre-existing culture of some schools,
at times, posed a challenge to GEAR UP
implementation
School culture at GEAR UP schools varied from
those focused on getting students to high school
graduation to schools that place a heavy emphasis
on college attendance. Coordinators reported that
the existing culture of their school played a large
role in supporting or hindering GEAR UP
implementation. Where there was a strong college-
going culture, there was often strong school-wide
support for GEAR UP from the beginning. At
these schools, administrators, teachers, and staff
eagerly supported activities and resources that
further promoted higher education. As a result,
GEAR UP coordinators were “building upon”
existing programs and structures.
Conversely, at schools where the college-going
culture was not as strong, coordinators were
“building from the ground up.” In some cases,
leadership did not promote college to students
universally. This posed problems for GEAR UP
coordinators. One high school counselor described
the time and effort the GEAR UP coordinator and
other staff spent getting the principal to
understand the value of investing time and
resources in creating a college-going culture. While
this was important work, it meant reduced time
and energy providing services to students directly.
Lack of coordination between GEAR UP
and community-based organizations led to
duplication of services at some sites
In some schools, GEAR UP found it challenging to
coordinate and communicate with others on
campus engaged in similar work. This lack of
collaboration with other school groups,
departments, and community based organizations
(CBOs) sometimes led to a “frustrating”
duplication of services when resources were
limited. Coordinators recognized the need for
better coordination between CBOs on campus, but

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
it was unclear what role GEAR UP should take in
addressing this issue. Often, coordinators felt that
it was not within GEAR UP’s purview to manage
the CBOs on campus, and service duplication
remained a concern.
Even with GEAR UP support, many
students faced barriers that made
academic success and college access
difficult to attain
GEAR UP coordinators sometimes struggled to
support students whose socioeconomic
backgrounds or academic histories posed
significant barriers to GEAR UP goals of increased
graduation and college attendance rates. One
coordinator reported that “there are a lot more
working [students at this school] who need a lot
more help” while at another site, there were “a lot
of students that are struggling” academically.
Determining the best way to support students with
higher needs was often a challenge. One
coordinator described the effort it took to support
these students:
“We are doing a lot of credit recovery. It’s
sitting down with each [student], analyzing
their transcripts, figuring out a time that will
work for them and where they can make up a
class that doesn’t interfere with their jobs and
their family responsibilities.”
GEAR UP’s tiered approach to service delivery,
discussed previously, certainly helped alleviate
this issue to some degree but it remained
difficult to serve all high-need students as
intensely as they deserved.
GEAR UP coordinators encountered
barriers reaching out to parents and
engaging them in GEAR UP events and
activities
In general, GEAR UP coordinators expressed
difficulty engaging parents. One coordinator
reported, “It’s really hard to do outreach to the
parents. Although the parents that do come to
campus know me and have come to me to ask
questions…That’s good but it could be much
better.” Lack of parent involvement in GEAR UP
activities was due to a number of factors including
language barriers, cultural differences, and the
transient nature of some families. Most critically,
GEAR UP lacked capacity to reach out to parents.
Coordinators used, with varying degrees of
success, emails to parents, autodial phone calls,
and student incentives (e.g., offering extra credit)
as strategies to increase family participation in
GEAR UP events and workshops. These efforts
were time consuming and often yielded little result.
One coordinator recalled, “We did everything
short of calling every single parent to personally
invite them—maybe that’s what it takes.”

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Conclusion
In its seven years, GEAR UP San Francisco
supported two cohorts of students from middle
school through high school, helping them navigate
academic hurdles and prepare for success in higher
education. Through a mix of services aimed at
students and families, large groups and individuals,
the highly motivated and the academically
struggling, GEAR UP provided critical supports
and guidance to over 3,600 students and their
families annually and reinforced the college-going
cultures of the schools it served.
GEAR UP services helped ensure that students
were well-prepared for postsecondary success.
Academically, they had higher GPAs, CAHSEE
pass rates, and graduation rates than students the
prior year. In addition, they went on more college
visits, submitted more college and financial aid
applications, and took the SAT in higher rates than
the previous cohort. It is not surprising therefore
that a larger percentage of both GEAR UP cohorts
are now pursuing higher education—and attending
four-year colleges, specifically—than students for
whom these extra academic and college-readiness
supports were not available.
With two cohorts completing high school and
moving on to postsecondary institutions, it is
important to reflect on the programmatic elements
that made these outcomes possible. Schools,
districts, and CBOs thinking of offering services to
replace those that ended with GEAR UP should
consider several key factors to ensure a positive
link between services and student outcomes.
 Early Intervention and Continuity: GEAR
UP began serving many students as early as
middle school and programs followed students
year-after-year, providing sustained, ongoing
support rather than a single point of
intervention. Instilling high expectations early,
bolstering the college-going culture of schools,
and tracking students over time helped the
program establish a strong foundation on
which to build future work.
 Tiered Service Delivery: Offering a
thorough range of services to address a variety
of student needs, GEAR UP struck an
important balance between providing core
services designed to improve short- and long-
term outcomes for students and being flexible
in response to its settings and the needs of those
it served.
 Collaboration and Independence:
Embedded in schools and led by credentialed
teachers and counselors, GEAR UP successfully
operated within school settings but benefited
from being afforded discretion in running its
programs. This balance enabled coordinators to
seek out opportunities to infuse their practices
and goals in classrooms and to instill school
philosophies in their own work while remaining
exclusively focused on the goals of college-
readiness and success.
 Continued Improvement: Leadership took
ongoing program improvement seriously by
encouraging professional development
opportunities and providing yearly goals and
benchmarks. Student feedback loops ensured
that services provided matched services needed
and quantitative data provided insight into
service utilization—including gaps and
duplication—and allowed coordinators to seek
out students in need.
These programmatic features helped support
GEAR UP’s service delivery and were instrumental
in ensuring successful implementation and
ultimately led to improved outcomes for students
and schools.

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Addendum: GEAR UP’s
Second Cohort
At the time of writing the preceding report, GEAR
UP San Francisco’s second cohort of students (the
class of 2014) had not completed their final year of
high school. Because many of the key outcome
variables were not yet available for this group of
students, the GEAR UP San Francisco Final
Evaluation Report (May 2014) focused only on the
characteristics and outcomes of GEAR UP’s first
graduating class (“Cohort 1,” the class of 2013).
This addendum is a follow-up to last year’s report,
presenting findings from an analysis of the
characteristics and outcomes of GEAR UP San
Francisco’s second cohort of students, now that
most have graduated from high school and many
have transitioned to postsecondary institutions. As
with the original study, this analysis focuses on the
top 90 percent of GEAR UP Cohort 2 service
utilizers and compares the characteristics and
outcomes of these 1,693 students to the original
comparison group and to Cohort 1.10
10
While this study compares outcomes across all three cohorts, it
primarily examines whether differences in outcomes were
GEAR UP Services
The GEAR UP program—the types of services it
offered and the way it delivered them—evolved
over time and it is probable that GEAR UP’s
second cohort benefited from receiving services
statistically different between Cohort 2 and the comparison or
Cohort 1 and the comparison group. The analysis did not test
whether differences between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 were
statistically significant for any outcomes except service utilization.
Statistically significant findings (p<.05) are presented in bold in
exhibits.
that had been piloted with Cohort 1 and tweaked
or improved in the second year of delivery. For
example, in the later years GEAR UP implemented
a targeting tool to help ensure students with more
need received more services. This section
compares how Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 accessed
GEAR UP services throughout high school.
Service Utilization
Service utilization was fairly consistent across the
two GEAR UP Cohorts. Students continued to
receive workshop services at near-universal rates,
99% 95% 91%
73%
48%
29%
100% 98%
92%
67%
54%
28%
Workshops Counseling/
Advising
Field Trip/ Event Academic
Support
Family Event/
Workshop
Family
Counseling/
Advising
Exhibit 14: Percent of Cohort 1 and 2 Receiving Each GEAR UP Service Type
COHORT 1 COHORT 2

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
followed most commonly by counseling and
advising services, and field trips and other events
(Exhibit 14). Notable differences included a
decrease in the percentage of students in Cohort 2
who received academic support (67 percent versus
73 percent in Cohort 1), and an increase in the
percentage of students whose families attended a
workshop (54 percent compared to 48 percent in
Cohort 1). Both of these differences were
statistically significant. Family events or
workshops, aimed at parents as well as students,
helped families navigate college and financial aid
applications. While parents remained fairly
difficult to engage, over time, and particularly in
the last years of implementation, GEAR UP
increased its outreach efforts to parents which may
be reflected in these slightly increased family
participation rates for Cohort 2.
Overall, students in both cohorts also received
similar amounts of services. Cohort 2 averaged
about 29 hours of GEAR UP services throughout
high school while Cohort 1 averaged 28 hours11
As
illustrated in Exhibit 15, students in both cohorts
received similar hours of counseling and advising
11
Includes academic support, workshops, and counseling; family
events and field trips are reported as counts.
services (about five hours) and family counselling
and advising (.4 hours for both cohorts). Both
cohorts also attended an average of one family
event or workshop. The two groups differed in
their service dosage in the following statistically
significant ways:
 Cohort 1 received more academic support (5
hours compared to 3 hours in Cohort 2);
 Cohort 2 received more workshops and
presentations (20 hours compared to 17 hours
in Cohort 1);
 Cohort 2 attended more field trips and other
events (3.7 events compared to 3.3 events in
Cohort 1).
The two cohorts experienced slight variations in
service receipt that likely reflect the changes and
improvements GEAR UP staff made over time in
how they targeted students and delivered services.
Overall, however, the service patterns of Cohorts 1
and 2 highlight the program’s approach to serving
students by providing information to large
numbers of students through workshops and
presentations and providing more targeted
academic and counseling services to higher need
students.
Student Demographics
Overall, students in both GEAR UP cohorts had
similar demographic characteristics to students in
the comparison group. Students in all three
cohorts had similar gender distributions, similarly
high free and reduced price lunch rates, and
received special education services at similar rates.
Still, there were some notable—and statistically
5
3
5
5
17
20
0.4
0.4
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Exhibit 15: Mean Hours of GEAR UP Service by
Service Type
Academic Support Counseling/
Advising
Workshops/
Presentations
Family Counseling/
Advising

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
significant—differences between the two GEAR
UP cohorts and the comparison group including
the following:
 In each subsequent cohort, the percentage of
Asian students was larger than the last (from
51 percent in the comparison group to 53 and
55 percent in Cohorts 1 and 2 respectively);
 The percentage of students who were African
American was lower in Cohort 2 (10 percent)
than in the comparison group and Cohort 1
(13 percent in both);
 Cohort 2 had the smallest percentage of
students who would be first generation
college-going (73 percent compared to 89
percent in the comparison group and 75
percent in Cohort 1);
 The percentage of each cohort classified as
English learner was smaller in each
subsequent cohort (from 18 percent in the
comparison group to 12 percent in Cohort 1
and 11 percent in Cohort 2);
Students in all three cohorts groups were also
similarly distributed across the eight GEAR UP
schools which again suggests that all students in
the study were exposed to comparable academic
and school settings. Exhibit 16 illustrates some of
the key individual and family characteristics of
students in the second GEAR UP cohort.
Student Outcomes
The first year of this study found that Cohort 1
experienced better academic, college readiness and
knowledge, and postsecondary enrollment
outcomes than students who graduated a year
earlier. The following section discusses how the
outcomes of Cohort 2 compare to those of the
comparison group as well as Cohort 1 in these
three areas, paying particular attention to the
outcomes of traditionally underserved populations
of students.
81%
Low-Income
73%
First Generation
College
51%
Male
55%
Asian
23%
Latino
11%
English
Learner
Exhibit 16: Demographic Characteristics Cohort 2

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Academics and Graduation
High school academic success lays the foundation
for postsecondary enrollment, persistence, and
degree or certificate attainment. As in the first
year, this study relied on three indicators to assess
student academics: cumulative GPAs, CAHSEE
pass rates, and graduation rates.
Cumulative GPA. Cohort 2 students had the
highest average cumulative GPAs in each year of
high school of any of the three cohorts (Exhibit
17). By the time they graduated, these students had
a 2.80 GPA compared to a 2.78 among Cohort 1
students and a 2.59 among comparison group
students. These higher GPAs translated to 48
percent of students in this cohort being UC eligible
(having a GPA above a 3.0), compared to 46
percent of students in Cohort 1 and 39 percent of
students in the comparison group.
CAHSEE Pass Rates. The second GEAR UP cohort
had ELA and math CAHSEE pass rates similar to
those of Cohort 1. Ninety-four percent of Cohort 2
passed the ELA portion of this exam, similar to the
93 percent of Cohort 1 and significantly higher
than the 87 percent of the comparison group who
passed. Likewise, Cohort 2’s 94 percent pass rate
for the math portion of the exam was similar to
that of Cohort 1 (95 percent) and significantly
higher than the comparison group (89 percent).
On both portions of the exam, Latino students,
low-income, and first generation college-going
students all saw significantly higher pass rates than
their peers in the comparison group and similar
rates to those in Cohort 1.
Graduation Rates.12
At 85 percent, Cohort 2 had
the highest graduation rate of the three cohorts
and a rate that was nine percentage points higher
12
Graduation rates were calculated by dividing the number of
graduates by the total number of students enrolled at any point in
high school. This rate may be lower than the official graduation
rates published by the district which takes into account nuances in
enrollment using the four year cohort graduation rate.
2.54 2.54 2.56 2.59
2.71 2.74 2.76 2.78
2.75
2.81 2.80 2.80
2
2.5
3
9th 10th 11th 12th
Exhibit 17: Yearly Mean Cumulative GPA
+ 94 percent of Cohort 2 students
passed the ELA and Math portions of
the CAHSEE.
+ In the comparison group, 87 percent
passed the ELA portion and 89 percent
passed the math portion of the
CAHSEE.

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
than that of the comparison group (76 percent). As
illustrated in Exhibit 18, graduation rates were
significantly higher in Cohort 1 than the
comparison group among the following groups of
students:
 76 percent of Latino students in Cohort 2
graduated compared to 72 percent of Cohort 1
and 65 percent of the comparison group;
 83 percent of low-income students in Cohort
2 graduated compared to 81 percent in Cohort
1 and 76 percent in the comparison group;
 84 percent of first generation college-going
students graduated compared to 83 percent of
Cohort 1 and 79 percent of the comparison
group.
These improvements in graduation rates and
academic standing suggest that more students in
the GEAR UP Cohorts, especially students in the
second cohort and students who belong to
traditionally underserved populations, were well-
positioned to continue their studies and succeed
academically upon leaving SFUSD.
College Readiness and Knowledge
The first year of this study examined two
indicators suggestive of students’ college readiness
and knowledge: the percentage of students who
reported having visited a college campus and the
percentage of students who had taken the SAT. For
Cohort 2, due to concerns about the reliability of
the SAT data, we are only able to examine college
visit rates in this addendum.
College Visits. The percentage of students who
reported that they had gone on a college visit
remained steady between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2
with 82 percent of students visiting a college
campus while in high school. In the comparison
group, 74 percent of students reported having gone
on a college visit. In both GEAR UP cohorts, the
most significant differences were reported among
Latinos (88 percent compared to 81 percent in the
+ 82 percent of GEAR UP Cohort 1 and
Cohort 2 students reported having
gone on a college visit while in high
school compared to 74 percent of
students in the comparison group.
76%
58%
65%
76% 79%
53%
82%
67%
72%
81% 83%
55%
85%
65%
76%
83% 84%
58%
College
English Learner
Exhibit 18:Percent of Students Graduating

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
comparison group and 83 percent in Cohort 1),
low-income students (81 percent in the GEAR UP
cohorts compared to 74 percent in the comparison
group), and first generation college-going students
(81 and 82 percent of Cohort 1 and 2 respectively,
compared to 73 percent of the comparison group).
African Americans in Cohort 2 also had higher
reported college visit rates than their peers in the
comparison group, though these were not
statistically significant (88 percent compared to 80
percent). These findings suggest that GEAR UP
likely provided essential college visits to students
whose families otherwise may not have had the
resources to visit colleges on their own.
Postsecondary Enrollment
Ultimately, GEAR UP services were designed to
prepare students for postsecondary success. With
the older GEAR UP cohort only in their second
postsecondary year, it remains too early to measure
the college success of GEAR UP participants.
However, using student surveys and National
Student Clearinghouse data, this study can
examine early postsecondary trends for the
cohorts. In particular, it examines the number of
postsecondary institutions students applied to, the
overall postsecondary institution enrollment rates,
and the four-year institution enrollment rate for
each of the three cohorts.
Applying to Multiple Colleges. Students in the
second GEAR UP cohort were significantly more
likely to report that they had applied to multiple
colleges than students in the comparison group
(Exhibit 19). Eighty-two percent of Cohort 2
reported on the SFUSD senior survey that they had
applied to two or more colleges compared to 73
percent of the comparison group and 78 percent of
Cohort 1. The biggest gains in applying to multiple
colleges were among traditionally underserved
students:
 70 percent of Latino Cohort 2 students
compared to 66 percent in Cohort 1 and 55
percent in the comparison group;
 82 percent of low-income Cohort 2 students
versus 79 percent in Cohort 1 and 71 percent
in the comparison group;
 84 percent of first generation college-going
students in Cohort 2 compared to 79 percent
73% 72%
55%
71% 73%
40%
78%
70% 66%
79% 79%
56%
82%
73% 70%
82% 84%
63%
College
English Learner
Exhibit 19: Students Applying to Two or More Colleges

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
of Cohort 1 and 73 percent of the comparison
group;
 63 percent of English learner students in
Cohort 2 compared to 56 percent of Cohort 1
and just 40 percent of the comparison group.
These increases suggest that GEAR UP’s targeted
approach to service delivery helped increase
awareness of the college application process and
helped to provide application support to those
students most in need.
Postsecondary Enrollment. As illustrated in
Exhibit 20, GEAR UP’s second cohort had the
highest postsecondary enrollment rate of any of
the cohorts. The 64 percent of students enrolling in
a postsecondary institution in the fall following
graduation represents an eight percentage point
increase over that of the comparison group in
which just 56 percent enrolled in a postsecondary
institution upon graduation. This is also higher
than the 60 percent of Cohort 1 students who
enrolled in a postsecondary institution. Among
traditionally underserved populations, the biggest
differences were among Latino students. Forty-
seven percent of Latinos in Cohort 2 enrolled in
postsecondary compared to 35 percent in the
comparison group and 41 percent in Cohort 1.
Low-income students also saw significantly higher
postsecondary enrollment rates compared to the
previous cohorts (62 percent compared to 56 and
58 percent in the comparison group and Cohort 1,
respectively).
Four-Year College Enrollment. In addition to
overall postsecondary enrollment rates increasing,
the percentage of students who enrolled directly in
a four-year institution also increased in each year
of the study (Exhibit 21). While only slightly more
than half of those students in the comparison
group who enrolled in a postsecondary institution
enrolled directly in a four-year program (56
percent), 63 percent of GEAR UP’s second cohort
and 61 percent of its first cohort did.
The following traditionally underserved
populations of students in Cohort 2 had especially
large, statistically significant gains in four-year
college enrollment rates over their comparison
group counterparts:
56%
37% 35%
56%
60%
33%
60%
38% 41%
58%
63%
32%
64%
38%
47%
62% 63%
37%
College
English Learner
Exhibit 20:Percent of Students Enrolling in Postsecondary

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
 Low-income students in Cohort 2 were 10
percentage points more likely to enroll in
postsecondary institutions than their
comparison group peers (65 percent vs 55
percent) and slightly more likely than low
income students in Cohort 1 (61 percent);
 First generation college going students in the
second GEAR UP cohort were more likely
than either the first cohort or the comparison
group to attend a four-year college (63 percent
compared to 60 and 55 percent, respectively);
 The percentage of English learners attending
four-year colleges more than doubled from 25
percent in the comparison group to 61 percent
in Cohort 2. This was also a significant
increase from the 41 percent in Cohort 1 who
attended four-year colleges (though these
results should be interpreted with caution
because of the small number of English
learners in this group).
African American students in Cohort 2 also saw
higher (but not statistically significant) four-year
college enrollment rates (45 percent) than their
comparison group and Cohort 1 counterparts (36
percent of African Americans in each of those
cohorts attended a four year college).
56%
36%
40%
55% 55%
25%
61%
36%
45%
61% 60%
41%
63%
45% 45%
65% 63% 61%
College
English Learner
Exhibit 21: Percent of Students Enrolling in Four-Year Colleges

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Conclusion
The analysis of GEAR UP’s second cohort of
students provides valuable support for the findings
reported in 2014. While still demographically
similar to the previous cohorts, Cohort 2 students
continued the upward trajectory of positive
academic and college readiness outcomes first
displayed by Cohort 1. In fact, in many instances,
students in Cohort 2 not only out performed
students in the comparison group on these
outcomes but also their peers in Cohort 1. Key
findings for Cohort 2 include:
 Its graduation rate was nine points higher
than that of the comparison group and 3
points higher than Cohort 1 (among Latino
students, it was 11 points higher in Cohort 2
than in the comparison group);
 Its postsecondary enrollment rate was eight
points higher than the comparison group and
four points higher than Cohort 1 (among
Latino students it was 12 points higher in
Cohort 2 than in the comparison group);
 Its four-year college enrollment rate was
seven points higher than the comparison
group and two points higher than Cohort 1 (it
was also nine points higher among African-
Americans; 10 points higher among low-
income students, and 36 points higher among
English learners in Cohort 2 than in the
comparison group).
This analysis supports findings from the first
cohort that GEAR UP helped influence the
academic and postsecondary trajectories of
students who received services. The additional
gains experienced by the second cohort also
suggest that as the program became more
established it was more effective in supporting
students through high school and as they prepared
and transitioned into life after high school. The
findings also suggest that GEAR UP may have
contributed to broader college-going school
cultures that were also better-able to prepare
Cohort 2 students for postsecondary success.

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
Exhibit 22: Years of Administrative Data by Cohort
Comparison Group:
Class of 2012
GU Cohort 1:
Class of 2013
GU Cohort 2:
Class of 2014
9th
Grade 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
10th
Grade 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
11th
Grade 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
12th
Grade 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Total
Students
2,371 1,714 1,693
Appendix: Quantitative
Methods
Defining the Comparison Group and GEAR
UP Cohorts
This analysis looked at three cohorts of students
who attended one of the eight GEAR UP high
schools for at least one year, including students
who attended another SFUSD school or an out-of-
district school before or after attending a GEAR
UP school. Students who were retained or who
repeated a grade were considered part of the older
cohort (for example, a student who appeared in the
data as a sophomore in both 2009-10 and 2010-11
was presumed to have been retained and included
in the comparison group cohort). In some cases a
student’s likely cohort could not be determined
and these students were omitted from the
analysis. Based on these criteria alone, the
comparison group—the class of 2012—consisted
of 2,371 students. The first GEAR UP cohort was
comprised of 1,926 students and the second
cohort was comprised of 1,889 students.
Initial analysis of outcomes using this definition of
the first GEAR UP cohort highlighted similar—
but not always statistically significant—findings to
those presented in this report: students in the first
GEAR UP cohort, particularly traditionally
underserved students, tended to have better
academic, college-knowledge, and postsecondary
outcomes than their peers in the previous cohort.
Further analysis revealed that these trends continued
when the defined GEAR UP cohort was restricted
slightly to students receiving a minimum threshold
of services. In fact, because GEAR UP achieved near
universal reach, only 10 percent of the class of 2013
received fewer than six service hours throughout
high school. In order to ensure, therefore, that this
analysis truly compared students who received
GEAR UP services to those who did not, the first
GEAR UP cohort is defined as the 1,714 students
above the minimum six GEAR UP service hour
threshold for inclusion. 13
Data Sources
This analysis relied on identifiable student-level
data from several key sources: SFUSD
administrative data, GEAR UP service data,
National Student Clearinghouse data (provided by
SFUSD), district senior surveys, and GEAR UP
student and parent surveys. In addition, aggregate
school-level data was obtained through the
California Department of Education (CDE) and the
California Student Aid Commission (CSAC).
SFUSD provided Harder+Company with six years
of individually identifiable school administrative
data for students attending GEAR UP high schools
in the years and grade levels illustrated in Exhibit
22. In addition to data on student grade level,
school, and class, this analysis primarily relied on
the following SFUSD data:
Demographics: gender, ethnicity, parent
education, and free or reduced price lunch status;
Academics: GPA, CAHSEE, English proficiency,
special education, graduation, SAT scores.
13
In Cohort 2, the threshold was more than 7 service hours.

 GEAR UP Final Report May 2014 (Updated April 2015)
In addition, SFUSD supplied matched student
records from the National Student Clearinghouse
(NSC) verifying postsecondary enrollment of
comparison group and GEAR UP cohort students.
These data included the type of institution (two-
year, four-year, etc.) along with its name and
location. This analysis used students’ first recorded
postsecondary enrollment information from NSC
data from the year following graduation. For
example, postsecondary data for the comparison
group reflects 2012 NSC data and data for the
comparison group reflects 2013 NSC data.
GEAR UP leadership also provided
Harder+Company with school-level financial aid
application data for Cohort 1. Financial aid
application rates were calculated using school
enrollment data available from the CDE14
and
application data provided by CSAC.
Finally, this report also relied on data collected
through the SFUSD Senior Survey and a GEAR UP
student survey. The SFUSD Senior Survey was
developed by the district and is administered to all
district seniors, though it is not required. The
survey addresses college-preparatory activities
students engaged in during high school and their
14
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
postsecondary plans. The response rate for these
self-reported data among students in this study
was 67 percent for the comparison group and 65
percent for the first GEAR UP cohort. The GEAR
UP survey was administered to all GEAR UP
students and asked additional questions about high
school experiences and postsecondary plans as well
as for feedback on GEAR UP services and
coordinators. This survey was not administered to
the comparison group.
Data Analysis
Harder+Company used the statistical analysis
software SPSS to clean, match, merge, and analyze
data. After matching data from these various
sources to individual students, the data were
extensively cleaned and checked for errors and a
set of derived variables were constructed for use in
the subsequent analysis. All demographic and
outcome data were then analyzed descriptively,
producing frequencies and means. Following the
descriptive analyses, a series of statistical tests were
conducted to test the correlation between GEAR
UP services (i.e., treatment and control group) and
demographics and outcomes. Similar analysis was
conducted to determine the relationship between
certain disaggregated populations of interest and
outcomes across the cohorts. Analysis of the
correlations between demographic characteristics
and particular GEAR UP service receipt was also
conducted. Depending on the level of
measurement, these analyses employed either
contingency table analyses using the chi-square
statistic, or a comparison of group means using
either t-tests or Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
Limitations
Most evaluation designs have inherent limitations
in the extent to which the results can be
interpreted to indicate program effectiveness. The
design of this study has several key strengths
including the comparison of a similar cohort of
students at the same schools who did not receive
GEAR UP services, the tracking of a group of
students across time, and the multiple years of
individually identifiable data across a variety of
data sources. However, there are also a number of
limitations of the study design, described below.
These limitations should be taken into account
when considering the findings and their
implications.
 Complicated school enrollment or grade
progression patterns for some students
resulted in extensive missing data or

GEAR UP Final Report UPDATE 4 13 15

GEAR UP Final Report UPDATE 4 13 15

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (12)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie GEAR UP Final Report UPDATE 4 13 15

Ähnlich wie GEAR UP Final Report UPDATE 4 13 15 (20)

GEAR UP Final Report UPDATE 4 13 15