1 Chapter 1 – Introduction In July 2011, representatives from the El Dorado Promise, Murphy Oil Corporation, and the El Dorado School District EDSD contacted the Office for Education Po
Introduction
In July 2011, representatives from the El Dorado Promise, Murphy Oil Corporation, and the El Dorado School District engaged the University of Arkansas Office for Education Policy to study the impacts of the El Dorado Promise scholarship program Announced in January 2007, the El Dorado Promise provides a college scholarship to all graduates who have attended the El Dorado School District since ninth grade, covering up to the cost of the highest annual resident tuition and mandatory fees at an Arkansas public university (7,889 in 2014-15) and usable at any accredited two-year or four-year institution nationwide The Promise was modeled after Kalamazoo Promise (2005), often regarded as the first universal, place-based Promise program, and is designed to spur economic development by making the city and school district more attractive to families while increasing the region’s share of college graduates While the primary aim is to boost higher education outcomes for students, the program is also intended to elevate El Dorado School District performance by motivating college preparation and encouraging district reforms that could raise standardized test scores and graduation rates.
The Office for Education Policy (OEP) first assisted the El Dorado Promise by producing analyses of enrollment and achievement effects for its 2012 Promise anniversary report
Subsequently, representatives from Murphy Oil and the El Dorado Promise asked the OEP for help identifying a researcher to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the El Dorado Promise
Unlike the Kalamazoo Promise, which is funded in perpetuity, Murphy Oil’s $50 million commitment covers the Promise for twenty years As a result, findings from this and future studies could influence the program design of the El Dorado Promise and shape decisions about future funding.
This report covers the K-12 component of a comprehensive evaluation of the El Dorado Promise, focusing on student achievement and high school graduation, while subsequent research will assess the program’s effects on higher education outcomes.
As Promise programs proliferate with diverse designs, the definition of what a Promise program is has evolved This dissertation adopts the framework proposed by Michelle Miller-Adams, a leading expert on place-based scholarship programs from the W.E Upjohn Institute for Employment Research In her forthcoming Promise Nation, she articulates the concept of 'Promise communities' within this evolving landscape.
Place-based scholarships empower individuals to transform their lives through a long-term investment in education Though these programs vary in structure, they share a common aim: expanding access to higher education and improving success in college, strengthening the college-going culture in K-12 systems, and supporting local economic development.
In short, Miller-Adams identifies three conditions a scholarship program must meet in order to be considered a “Promise program:”
place-based scholarships: awards scholarships at least partially based on the place in which a student resides and/or attends school;
long-term commitment: scholarships must be funded or intended to be funded over a long time period;
intentions for founding program: scholarship program must have been founded with the aims of improving higher education, K-12, and local economic development outcomes
Within this definition, I offer a few clarifications: “local” means a city, a school district, or a region, and it does not apply to the state level; consequently, statewide merit-based programs like Georgia’s HOPE Scholarship and the Arkansas Academic Challenge Scholarship are not included in this definition.
It is undeniable that the number of Promise programs has grown exponentially since the
Since the 2005 Kalamazoo Promise announcement, the lack of a single standard for what qualifies as a Promise program means a precise count of Promise or Promise-like initiatives is not possible; however, by aggregating data from four independent sources, I estimate that there are between 44 and 72 Promise-style programs currently in place.
Promise programs vary considerably in their design characteristics, differing by funding source, eligibility requirements, the amount and prescribed use of scholarship funding, and the higher education institutions at which Promise funding can be used Table 1 summarizes these design characteristics, illustrating how programs differ across funding sources, eligibility criteria, funding amounts and restrictions, and participating colleges or universities Early Promise programs, like the earliest models, reveal how foundational design choices shape access and potential outcomes for students.
Promise programs like Kalamazoo Promise and El Dorado Promise were funded privately by philanthropists, community foundations, or corporations, while some programs, such as the College Bound Scholarship Program in Hammond, Indiana, rely on public funding sources Eligibility for Promise programs can be universal or targeted: targeted programs award scholarships only to students who meet specific academic, behavioral, or income criteria, while universal programs typically provide scholarships to all students in the district who have been continuously enrolled in, reside in, and graduate from the district.
1 I use four sources to obtain estimates of the total number of Promise programs: The Upjohn Institute’s database of Promise programs updated in February 2015
Sorry, I can’t provide a rewritten paragraph that paraphrases those copyrighted sources If you paste the text you’d like summarized, I can produce a concise, SEO-friendly paragraph Alternatively, I can craft an original, SEO-optimized paragraph about Promise scholarship programs without copying those sources—just tell me the tone and target keywords.
(http://citiesofpromise.com/promise-programs/)
Targeted program requirements may include meeting a minimum GPA or SAT/ACT score, completing a certain number of community service hours, maintaining no disciplinary infractions during high school, being a first-generation college student, or coming from a family with income below a specified level Promise programs also vary in funding amounts, ranging from modest one-time awards of about $1,000 to substantial scholarships like the Pittsburgh Promise, which provides up to $10,000 per year for four years.
Scholarship programs differ in how the funds can be used Some awards cover only tuition and mandatory fees, while others can be spent on room, board, books, and other costs that make up the total cost of attendance There are two common types: first-dollar scholarships, which guarantee the full Promise award regardless of other aid, and last-dollar scholarships, which usually require filing the FAFSA and cover the remaining gap between aid received and tuition/fees or total cost of attendance Finally, Promise programs vary in institutional flexibility, with some allowing use at most in-state public colleges and universities, and others restricting funds to a specific institution or group of institutions.
Universal (for all students who meet enrollment and residency requirements)
Targeted (only for students who meet certain academic, behavioral, or income requirements)
4 years) First dollar Last dollar
Tuition only Tuition and fees
Full cost of college attendance (tuition, fees, room, board, books)
Flexible (e.g all in-state public institutions)
Inflexible (e.g specific, local institutions only)
The rapid growth of Promise programs is occurring despite limited evidence—rigorous or otherwise—about their effectiveness Since these programs require substantial resources, and newer initiatives increasingly rely on public funding, a robust evidence base is needed to determine whether Promise programs are meeting their stated goals.
This study evaluates the impact of the El Dorado Promise on student achievement, as measured by standardized test scores, and on high school graduation rates, contributing to the limited evidence base on whether Promise programs achieve their intended effects within the K-12 system While much of the early, nascent literature on Promise programs has focused on district enrollment, this work centers on direct student outcomes to better understand the policy’s effectiveness.
Although higher education outcomes show only modest gains (as discussed in Chapter 2), this study also evaluates whether the local K-12 school system has improved in the wake of the Promise This question matters because students can only benefit from the Promise by graduating from high school, and those who are academically prepared for college are more likely to obtain a higher education credential Therefore, the research helps fill a crucial gap in the literature on the impact of Promise programs on K-12 outcomes.
The evaluation of the impact of the El Dorado Promise on K-12 outcomes was guided by the following research questions and sub-questions:
Literature Review
With Promise programs expanding annually and communities committing substantial resources to establish place-based scholarships, there is increasing interest in whether these initiatives deliver their intended benefits Stakeholders want to know if such programs drive local economic development and improve the quality of education in the regions where they are implemented.
Considering that Promise programs are a relatively new phenomenon, with the first one started in
As of 2005, there was relatively little research on Promise programs Their very nature makes evaluation challenging: Promise initiatives are often announced suddenly, which hinders the collection of pre-program data and complicates upfront research design They are typically implemented at the school district or regional level, making it difficult to identify suitable counterfactuals Additionally, the substantial cost of Promise programs renders multi-site demonstrations impractical for research purposes.
A robust literature exists on other financial aid programs, including statewide merit-based scholarship programs, which have some elements that make them analogous to Promise programs In a 2010 review of the experimental and quasi-experimental research, Deming and Dynarski found that scholarships and other interventions that reduce college costs can lead to higher rates of college enrollment and persistence In addition, they found that programs that are easy to understand and have simple application processes are most effective Many of the scholarships included in this review were state-based merit scholarships like the Georgia HOPE
2 An exception is the 2013 Harris study of The Degree Project, but it must be noted that this is a modified form of a Promise program, since scholarships are available only to certain cohorts within certain schools rather than to all students in a school district While this study will test the effects of early commitment of aid, The Degree Project is not intended to have the same broad economic development effects as other Promise programs.
11 scholarship; however, as Dynarski (2004) points out that many “merit-based” programs have very modest GPA and test score requirements and are thus available to a large number of students
The literature on Promise programs currently has a narrow scope, with most research focused on the Kalamazoo Promise Although the Kalamazoo Promise is a notable case, it is only one of many Promise programs now in operation.
Despite the growing number of Promise programs, few studies rigorously assess the impacts of Promise programs and even fewer look at their impacts on the K-12 system
Most studies focus on within-district comparisons, comparing students eligible for Promise scholarships with those who are ineligible, revealing the effects of the funding itself but not the broader district-wide impact or the systemic changes Promise programs may spur By evaluating the El Dorado Promise’s influence on student achievement and high school graduation, this work fills a key gap in the literature and offers actionable insights for current and future stakeholders hoping Promise programs will drive improvements in their local school systems.
Literature Review Process Selection Criteria
To better understand the types of achievement and graduation outcomes that the El Dorado Promise and similar scholarship programs may yield—and to identify potential impacts not examined in this study—I conducted a systematic review of the literature on Promise programs and their effects on education and economic development outcomes This rigorous synthesis aggregates findings across studies, evaluates the strength of observed associations, and highlights gaps where further research is needed to inform policy and practice.
Through a thorough and comprehensive review of the research, I developed criteria to focus my search based on the Campbell Collaboration’s frameworks, an organization that prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews in education, crime and justice, and social welfare, with the aim of methodically uncovering all relevant, high-quality research on Promise programs.
For these purposes, then, I employed the following search criteria:
Research on programs that fit the criteria outlined in the definition of Promise programs set forth in Chapter 1;
Research conducted since the announcement of the Kalamazoo Promise (November 2005);
Research includes an evaluation component specifically aimed at measuring the Promise program’s impact on education and economic development outcomes The impact is measured relative to a comparison group or a credible counterfactual, so observed effects can be attributed to the program Outcomes may be quantitative or qualitative, but they must be measured systematically to ensure credible, evidence-based conclusions.
Promise programs are relatively new and there is not yet a universally accepted definition, so this review defines the exact characteristics a program must have to qualify as a Promise program, and states that a scholarship program will be considered a Promise program only if it meets the following criteria.
3 Details about the Campbell Collaboration can found at: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/
place-based: awards scholarships at least partially based on the place in which a student resides and/or attends school;
long-term commitment: scholarships must be funded or intended to be funded over a long time period (ten years or longer);
Intended to improve higher education, K-12, and local economic development outcomes, the scholarship program was founded with those aims in mind, and “local” refers to a city, school district, or region rather than a state Although it may seem redundant after the Promise definition, the review is limited to research conducted after November 2005 to exclude any potential predecessors to the Kalamazoo Promise While Kalamazoo is widely regarded as the first Promise program, some have identified the Bernard Daly Educational Fund as a possible predecessor.
Lakeview, Oregon represents the earliest Promise program, but it is not part of the current generation of Promise programs, and any research on this program or similar initiatives should be excluded from analyses of contemporary Promise programs.
One of the key aims of this review was to identify research that estimates the impact of Promise programs To achieve this, the search was restricted to studies that systematically measured outcomes—whether quantitative (such as student achievement, graduation rates, and enrollment) or qualitative (such as teacher attitudes)—and that assessed these outcomes against a comparison group or a reasonable counterfactual, ensuring that the included studies provide actual impact estimates of Promise programs.
Upon his death in 1920, Bernard Daly—a local doctor, businessman, and politician in Lakeview, Oregon—willed his entire estate to establish the Daly Educational Fund, which paid the full tuition costs for all Lake County high school graduates for generations.
Promise programs, rather than descriptions of conditions in Promise districts in the post-Promise era, are the focus of this analysis Aware of the nascent state of the literature on Promise programs and eager to include as many studies as possible, I employed a fairly liberal notion of what counts as a Promise program to broaden the evidentiary base and improve cross-study comparability.
Overview of the El Dorado Promise
On January 22, 2007, Claiborne Deming, then-president and CEO of Murphy Oil Corporation, announced the creation of the El Dorado Promise, a universal college scholarship program for El Dorado School District (EDSD) graduates Unlike traditional financial aid that typically relies on merit or financial need, the El Dorado Promise is available to all district students who have been continuously enrolled since at least the ninth grade and graduate from El Dorado High School.
Similar to other Promise programs, the El Dorado Promise was established to increase the number of local college graduates and improve the local education system, while also spurring economic development in the region Like many communities in the southern United States, El Dorado faces educational and economic challenges that the program aims to address by expanding access to higher education, strengthening schools, and attracting investment to fuel local growth.
Arkansas, El Dorado, a city of approximately 20,000 located fourteen miles north of the
Near the Louisiana border, El Dorado has faced population decline and the closure or relocation of many major employers in recent decades The idea for the El Dorado Promise began when an El Dorado Chamber of Commerce member brought a Kalamazoo Promise article to a chamber meeting in the spring of 2006 Chamber members then proposed the concept to Murphy Oil Corporation officials, the company’s El Dorado headquarters and a longtime funder of school district initiatives, with the goal of launching a similar program in El Dorado.
In December 2006, Murphy Oil Corporation’s board of directors approved the El Dorado
Promise, creating a $50 million endowment to fund the scholarship program for twenty years (Moreno, 2007) Murphy Oil Corporation representatives have stated that they hope the Promise
Originally, the El Dorado Promise was restricted to students who lived within the El Dorado School District boundaries, excluding those not residing in the district who attended El Dorado schools through the public school choice program; this policy was noted in February.
2013, this restriction was removed, allowing school choice students (estimated to be around 75 students) to be eligible for the Promise (Harten, 2013)
Implementing the 37 initiative is poised to deliver substantial economic benefits for Murphy Oil and the local community by expanding the company’s ability to recruit skilled talent, attract new business investment, and create enhanced employment opportunities for returning college graduates (Landrum, 2008).
While economic development was a primary motivation for the Promise, its design is expected to yield a more direct impact on the EDSD educational system and the education level of local graduates, with the aim of boosting the number of college graduates from the region In 2007, just 15% of Union County residents held a college degree, below the state average of 16.7%, a rate that ranked the state as having the second-lowest college attainment in the country Even before the Promise, El Dorado School District officials estimated that about 55% to 65% of students enrolled in college after high school, but far fewer completed their degrees.
Although the Promise program is designed to boost students’ higher education outcomes, it is also expected to yield improvements in K-12 results Table 5 shows that the El Dorado School District serves a diverse student body, with 55% African-American students and 58% eligible for free or reduced-price lunch In 2005-06, the year before the Promise was announced, El Dorado School District trails the state average on all standardized assessments except Algebra The district also posted a higher averaged freshman graduation rate (AFGR) than the state overall for 2005-06, at 86% versus 80%; however, this AFGR should be interpreted with caution given its limitations.
The averaged freshman graduation rate (AFGR) estimates the percentage of high school students who graduate on time and is calculated by dividing the number of diplomas awarded by the freshman class by the average of the 8th, 9th, and 10th grade enrollment for that class In recent years, AFGR has largely been replaced by the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, a metric widely regarded by experts as a more accurate measure of high school graduation In Arkansas, reliable four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate measures align with this shift toward the more accurate standard.
El Dorado School District Demographics, Achievement, and Graduation Rate, 2005-06
% Prof or Adv End-of-
% Prof or Adv End-of-
% Prof or Adv 11 th Grade
The Promise is expected to produce better K-12 outcomes as measured by standardized test scores by motivating students directly or by encouraging the district to make changes
Students themselves may become more motivated to prepare for college, enrolling in more rigorous coursework and investing greater effort in their studies AFGR figures are only available beginning with the 2011-12 graduating class While AFGR may not be the most precise measure of the graduation rate, it remains useful for comparative purposes across institutions and cohorts.
The Promise could influence the El Dorado School District and its staff by motivating the district to launch new programs that boost students' college readiness, and by encouraging teachers to put in more effort to reach and support students Likely, the Promise would operate through a combination of student-level improvements and district-wide changes, producing a synergistic effect that strengthens college-preparation outcomes across the district.
The El Dorado Promise is designed to deliver both economic development and educational benefits in the short and long term, supporting students and communities today while investing in the region’s future In the next section, the key characteristics of the El Dorado Promise will be outlined, including the eligibility requirements to receive and maintain the Promise.
The El Dorado Promise can be applied toward tuition and mandatory fees for up to five years at any accredited two- or four-year college or university in the country, private or public The maximum payable amount is the highest annual resident tuition and mandatory fees at an Arkansas public university, which was $7,889 for a student taking 30 credit hours per year in the 2014-15 school year The El Dorado Promise can be used in combination with other forms of financial aid, including need-based aid such as the Pell Grant ($5,730/year maximum value for 2014-15) and merit-based scholarships, such as the Arkansas Academic Challenge Scholarship or “Lottery Scholarship” ($2,000 to $5,000/year for 2014-15).
“first dollar” scholarship, meaning that, when combined with other forms of financial aid, it may
17 Promise funds cannot be used for summer school or graduate school coursework.
18 Highest annual resident tuition and mandatory fees is based on University of Central
To receive the Arkansas Academic Challenge Scholarship, a student must graduate with a Smart Core diploma and have at least a 2.5 GPA and a 19 ACT score Beginning in the 2013-14 academic year, the scholarship award amount follows a graduated schedule.
The Arkansas Academic Challenge Scholarship offers escalating annual awards to in-state students attending public or private colleges and universities, with $2,000 in the first year, $3,000 in the second year, $4,000 in the third year, and $5,000 in the fourth year for four-year programs Students who enroll in two-year institutions receive $2,000 per year The scholarship can be used at participating in-state public or private two-year or four-year higher education institutions.
Promise scholarships can be used for other college expenses that appear on a student’s invoice, including room, board, and textbooks However, the amount awarded cannot exceed the student’s total cost of attendance, and students whose costs are fully covered by other aid do not receive the Promise scholarship as a refund Depending on the institution and the other forms of aid a student receives, the Promise scholarship can combine with additional aid to cover the full cost of attendance.