I have waited to report on the new AAUW report "Where the Girls Are"-http://www.aauw.org- until I read more about it. The report has been very controversial in downplaying the male gap in college completion-58% female versus 42% male.The male gap is 2 to 1 in favor of females for black and hispanic students. AAUW is correct in stating this should not be framed as a win lose game, and lead to policies that favor males in some form of affirmative action. But AAUW tries to make the issue go away by emphazing older students are a large part of the gap, and that SAT scores are similar among genders. What about the male students who go to broad access postsecondary and do not take SAT! Half the first year enrollment is in community colleges.
In 1970 there were 1.5 million more men in higher education than women,and AAUW was saying this was a crisis. Now there are 2.7 million more women than men and AAUW says there is no crisis.
Each person needs to sift all the evidence in this provacative report.

Labels: academic preparation College Completion

The Sacramento bee on May 22 published an analysis of why students who take algebra in 8th grade instead of 9th are not lowering college remediation and improving college success. California state policy promoted 8th grade algebra to prepare students to take the full math college prep sequence in high school. Many more students are taking 8th grade algebra, but remediation rates of 56 % for Cal State U and nearly 80% for community colleges have not been lowered.
The article speculates on why. Many students get a C in 8th grade algebra, some do not take math in their senior year, and the 1Oth California high school exit test is way below college standards. Moreover, the community college placement tests are not aligned with the high school mathematics test standards for the higher level 11th grade California standards test.
So 8th grade algebra is no silver bullet and needs to be supplemented with many other policies. California ended its algebra professional development for middle school teachers years ago, and this may be a significant cause.

Labels: College Preparation, College Success Studies, College Testing

This was the title of a talk by Syracuse professor Vincent Tinto.He has been studying for many years the lack of college success at broad access colleges. He has completed a large scale study of community colleges and universities to find keys to sucess under the headings: expectations, support, feedback, and involvment. The study focusses on learning communities through student engagement from the classroom up.Study groups linked around first year courses are crucial. Students get together before and after class- eg social and intellectual connections help. Clasess must be linked and not just one at a time for learning communities to be most effective. So he recommendes courses links like develpmental english, a core content course like history and a general studies seminar for a cohort learning community.
Tinto"s papers are on his website -vtinto@syr.edu

Labels: College Success, support for college

The latest issue of the Gadfly by Fordham Foundation has an admission from both the Massachusetts State Superintendent and State Board Chair that the passing high school graduation cut score on MCAS is 8th grade level, and is nowhere near college ready. But Mass. is caught in the same vise as other states. If they raise the cut score to college ready level then huge numbers of students will fail to graduate, and many high schools will not make NCLB annual progress.Meanwhile students get an incorrect signal from MCAS that they are prepared for college. This is particularly true for community college students who know there are no entrance requirements.
We need to figure a way out of this bind by having colleges be clear on what is needed for college success and college completion. Colleges need to set cut scores on k-12 tests the way Texas and California State University has done. K-12 cannot solve this misleading testing situation on its own.

Labels: College Completion, College Success, Student Success

I visited an Early College high school in Los Angeles that is part of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation network of high schools. This school is in a low income area with very few parents who attended college. High school teachers with appropriate degrees teach college credit courses at the high school campus in introductory first year college classes ,that are crdit level for Cal State U - LA. But one of the most interesting things was how teachers convey a college culture through direct and indirect communication in all there classes.
The high school teachers view themselves "as an extension of college" and treat students as college bound. Teachers emphasize to students that what is being taught is because colleges will expect it-"you will need this concept in college". Content is presented along with skills that teachers know are needed in college. Students are encouraged and prodded to take 4 years of math and other senior classes aligned with college.Students are enrolled in extra curricular activities that 4 year colleges look for.
The dual credit arrangement is touted as a way to save college expenses while in high school. Students take PSAT or SAT each year from grades 7-12, and visit local colleges.
This just one dimension of creating a college going high school culture, but it is gratifying to hear how well some teachers grasp what they need to do for college readiness

Labels: College Readiness

A new report by ConnectEd in Berkeley, Ca. provides a blueprint for states and districts that want high quality secondary school technical education programs that provide access to both career preparation and 2 or 4 year degrees. This is not your fathers old vocational ed, but rather links to major industry sectors like Tourism, Marketing, Building Design and Engineering. Each pathway has a challenging academic component, a demanding technical component, a work based learning component, and supplemental services.
The concepts are good , but it will be hard for schools to implement this without state funding and leadership. Few states have the capacity to do this, but after reading the report perhaps more will get started. Go to www.ConnectEdCalifornia.org, and look for Expanding Pathways.

Labels: curriculum alignment

Looking Under the Hood of Public Higher Ed
By Patrick M. Callan


Last week, the College Board released its annual Trends in College
Pricing report, finding that tuition at the nation's public four-year
colleges and universities had risen 6.6 percent, which is roughly
equivalent to previous years but continues to far outstrip inflation and
increases in family income.


Media coverage of college affordability almost invariably takes its cues
from this report, focusing on the "sticker price" that colleges and
universities charge students. But tuition alone is a relatively
superficial measure that hides as much as it reveals, since it responds
to changes in state allocations, political factors and fund raising
success.


What has gone mostly undiscussed is escalating spending on college
campuses across the country. A public discussion focused on tuition -
the price of the education - gives institutions a free pass on how they
spend the money they raise. Furthermore, this discussion reinforces the
assumption that spending increases follow some sort of natural
progression. But this is not the case. Spending can and must be
contained if the price of college is to be brought under control.


This message is falling on deaf ears today in part because last year was
a good state appropriations year for colleges and universities. But even
in bad years, public institutions are raising spending. Today, higher
education is a "seller's market." Demand for college has never been
higher, and families are willing to take on dangerous amounts of debt to
get their children through.


However, the willingness of families to reach deeper into their pockets
is reaching a breaking point. Recent polling by my organization, the
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, and Public
Agenda shows that the public is concerned about how colleges and
universities spend their money. Most Americans (83 percent) believe that
today's colleges should be doing a much better job of keeping their
costs down. More than two out of three (68 percent) believe that
colleges and universities could reduce their costs without hurting the
quality of the institutions.


The American public is onto something. But many institutional leaders
have not been willing to look under the hood of higher education
expenditures. Typically, leaders have used a range of excuses to deflect
questions about spending. Some common excuses, and my responses to them,
follow:


Increases in tuition reflect the high demand for postsecondary education
and financial aid keeps the net cost to families under control. Public
college and university leaders think there is no crisis in higher
education so long as there are students and families willing to pay. But
tuitions at four-year public institutions have risen 22 percent in the
past five years, after adjusting for inflation, while family incomes
have increased only 8 percent. What's more, need-based financial aid is
not keeping up with increases in tuition, pricing many poor families out
of higher education. Continual price hikes may respond to market forces,
but do not honor the public mission of state colleges and universities.


Higher education is a labor-intensive industry and faculty salaries and
health care costs are behind most of the recent run-up in spending.
Because institutions use humans to pass on knowledge, historically a
greater proportion of their budgets have gone to salaries and benefits
than in other industries. But this is not where most of the spending
growth is occurring. Faculty salaries have barely kept up with inflation
for the past 10 years. Last year, faculty salaries rose on average 1.3
percent after adjusting for inflation - the first inflation-adjusted
increase since 2003-2004. In addition, the use of cheaper part-time
faculty is growing fast, now making up 48 percent of all faculty,
according to the American Association of University Professors. On the
other hand, universities are spending huge amounts of money on
construction - for new dorms, new athletic facilities, and new student
centers- as part of an "amenities arms race." And administrative
overhead at many universities has ballooned, due to an explosion in
niche student services and fund raising apparatuses. It is doubtful that
these developments have improved student learning.


There is great competition for applicants nowadays, and we have to spend
to compete for the best students. This is probably the most common
excuse offered by leaders at state flagship universities, but they are
not referring to competition with other state institutions. Rather,
leaders at public research universities are increasingly viewing
themselves as competitors with private research universities such as
Duke and Stanford, or even Ivy League institutions. These leaders feel
that they can only "compete" if they offer the same amenities and
practice the same aggressive recruitment tactics, including lavish merit
aid for high performing students, which takes resources away from
low-income students. Instead, they should refocus on their educational
mission, and the advantage that public institutions have always had: the
availability of need-based financial aid and the opportunity for a great
education. Prospective students seeking high quality education at low
cost will be smart enough to know the difference between style and
substance.


There's no political incentive to take on cost containment. Most
institutional leaders don't want to touch this issue because it almost
inevitably leads to faculty concerns that they will be expected to do
more for less. Faculty will revolt, if "cost containment" means
across-the-board budget cuts. In cases where institutional leaders have
contained spending and reinvested savings in teaching and learning,
faculty have been very supportive. The University System of Maryland is
a case in point. Chancellor William E. (Brit) Kirwan got faculty support
for the Effectiveness and Efficiency Initiative, which identified areas
for cost savings and redirected those savings toward priorities such as
increasing enrollment capacity, containing tuition increases, and
improving academic programs and services for students. Even though
faculty teaching loads increased 10 percent, faculty largely supported
the measure, because it was focused on improving student learning.


At the state level, lawmakers and system heads don't want to engage cost
because it requires a restructuring of higher education finance. States
base appropriations on students enrolled, which encourages spending on
amenities and recruitment - not students graduating.


Where there have been incentives, universities have proven capable of
cost management. In the 1990s, the Illinois Board of Higher Education
established the Priorities, Quality, and Productivity initiative, which
re-evaluated all academic programs with an eye to institutional
priorities. Elimination of duplicative programs, technology
enhancements, and administrative streamlining resulted in savings
averaging $36 million annually. As at Maryland, faculty came to support
PQP because the savings generated were reinvested in instruction. These
funds were most often used to reduce class size and reliance on graduate
teaching assistants; support minority student achievement; improve
technology; and expand need-based financial aid.


My hands are tied, because the biggest decisions are made at the state
level. Big decisions about allocations are made at the state level, but
institutional leaders have a lot of discretion about how that money is
spent. While there aren't many incentives for cost containment now,
there also isn't much oversight of spending requests. Institutional
leaders have lots of room to maneuver on this issue.


Cutting spending hits disadvantaged students hardest. Cutting spending
only hits disadvantaged students hardest if need-based financial aid is
the first target. In fact, cost containment, if it focuses (as it
should) on increasing instructional spending, boosting degree
completion, and streamlining administrative processes, can make public
higher education work much better for disadvantaged students. That is
because these are the students most likely to have trouble completing
degrees and to have the most interaction with administrative offices.


There is another major reason why colleges are not acting on this
agenda. There is too little data about how spending impacts learning. In
contrast to business or the military, how inputs affect outputs is
poorly understood in higher education. New research being conducted by
the Delta Project for Postsecondary Costs to be released next year will
set the basis for looking at the relationship between spending and
student success.


But the lack of data is no barrier for action. We don't need to wait for
longitudinal studies to know that more spending on full-time faculty and
need-based financial aid will impact student learning more than a glitzy
new dorm.


Taking a hard look at the evidence shows that it is time to focus on
college spending patterns and that there is a lot college leaders can do
right now to contain the spending that drives up college prices. Many of
the problems originate at the state level, but bold leaders will take
action regardless of incentive structures and political rewards. It is
time to expect more of college and university leaders than we do now.


Patrick M. Callan is president of the National Center for Public Policy
and Higher Education.

Labels: college costs, college sucess

Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) is a college preparation program for students in the middle achievement range who are low income. It was developed in 1980 and now includes 2,300 schools in 40 states and 15 countries. Some states like Ca. provide state funds to support it. AVID began as an add on program to middle and high schools but under it recent director has expanded to a whole school focus. It has several required components for particpating schools.
Like most college prep programs we have no randomized trials , but AVID has a well designed longitudinal study of positive college success and completion by former West Ed researcher Larry F. Guthrie. Seventy seven percent of Avid grads enroll in 4 year colleges. It is well worth checking out at www.avidcenter.org

Labels: College Completion, College Success Studies

According to NCES data bases community college students are distinctive. 43% have income below $30,000 compared to 34% in 4 year publics and 32% in not for profit 4 year private. 66% are part time compared to 30% and 27%. 33% have dependent children compared to 13% and 27%.
Yet community college students get the least financial aid of all sectors because there living expenses are not covered. There is too much focus on lower communtity college fees ,and not enough on how these students can meet room and board through living off campus. No wonder community college completion rates are low.

Labels: College Completion, college costs, student aid

Marty Nemko has been a long time critic of college preparation,and now provides a list of what prospective students should look for in choosing a college, or whether to go to college. See his article that also examines the consequences of college drop outs at http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=xmPSwYZj2z4sMThmHjfcbqgMm9hf5rps

Labels: academic preparation, college information

As someone who has a long history in k-12 school finance, I am amazed how little we know by contrast in postsecondary internal allocation of resources. It is a virtual blackbox compared to k-12 where we know what each school site does to a considerable extent. Some glimmers of light on postsecondary spending are coming from the Delta Cost Project sponsored by Lumina. But all they do is analyze how little is spent on direct instruction compared to "other education costs" and " non-ed costs". How much goes to student services for developmental ed students? How much is for counselors?
Within instruction, what are the true costs of remediation? How much is spent on college persistence and completion assistance? We have no idea!
So the Delta project needs to be a start on a much deeper analysis that is linked to educational outcomes as well as high priority services for disadvantages students in broad access postsecondary.

Labels: College Completion, college costs

The prior blog provides support from Massachusetts of an issue that is not widely discussed- if states set the proficiency standard for secondary schools at a college ready level they risk having many or most students not make AYP. Other states like Ky and AZ are struggling with this. Ca uses an exit test at the 8th grade math level for high school AYP.
One solution is to let states that use college ready proficiency standards to have longer than 2014 to have all students reach the standard for AYP. But I suspect even more time may not resolve this conflict, and a more fundemental rethinking is needed in the 2009 NCLB reauthorization.

This past week, a Boston Globe article revealed the development of an alarming educational trend within the State of Massachusetts. Hidden beneath the surface was yet another subtle demonstration as to why the No Child Left Behind Act may actually be acting as a deterrent to improved educational outcomes.

The issue? It seems that many Massachusetts high school graduates are unprepared for college. In fact, literally thousands of college students are forced to take remedial classes when they begin their college studies.

What makes the issue so worrisome for experts is that students who do take remedial classes are far more likely to drop out of college.

Statewide Study
A statewide study tracked more than 19,000 public high school graduates who attended a college within the state in 2005. According to the study, 37 percent of graduates enrolled in at least one remedial course during their first semester of college.

The issue was far worse for urban school graduates. Roughly 70 percent of students from at least three high schools in Boston and two in Worcester had to take remedial classes upon entering college.

One surprising aspect of the study conducted jointly by the state Departments of Elementary and Secondary Education and Higher Education was that the problem was independent of socioeconomic status. In an unusual development for education, many suburban school districts had similar numbers to those of less affluent schools.

When it came to the community college network, roughly two-thirds of the 8,500 students enrolling took a remedial course. According to college administrators, that factor is one of the reasons that the drop out rate at the state’s two-year schools is so high.

The data from Bunker Hill Community College was particularly striking. Roughly 90 percent of Bunker Hill students took a remedial math class and 63 percent took a remedial English class. According to sources reporting to the Globe, “Some graduates are writing at such a poor level that they must take the most introductory remedial class and only 20 percent of students complete their remedial work within two years, she said.

The MCAS Requirement
Because the State has instituted a high school completion exam, the MCAS, one would think that the number of students who needed remedial work would be decreasing. But that is not the case. Given the number of students forced to take remedial courses in Massachusetts, passing the MCAS, a requirement for graduation, obviously does not mean the student is ready for college level work.

In discussing that development with the Boston Globe, Robert Gaudet, an education researcher at the University of Massachusetts’ Donahue Institute, offered the following assessment. “The dirty little secret is that MCAS doesn’t test 10th grade skills, much less college skills. Passing is not that hard, it’s getting to proficient that’s tougher.”

It is at this point we come to the law known as NCLB and the subsequent definition of the term proficiency. Many would like to see proficiency under NCLB defined as college readiness - in fact the law appears to suggest just such a level.

If that were in fact the case, then theoretically the next step would be to raise the test standards so that passing the MCAS meant a student was in fact ready for college level work. But taking such a step would bring one of the major absurdities of the law into play, the demand for 100% proficiency.

Raising test standards would guarantee that every Massachusetts High School would fail to make the federal guidelines for Adequate Yearly Progress under the law. Because of that potential development, it is our guess that the test standards will not be raised to such a level.

In essence, NCLB, with its extreme punitive structure and absurd goals, will act as a deterrent to taking steps to raise educational standards.

Proficiency Versus Basic Skills
Raising the exam standards for proficiency to match that of college readiness would necessitate a rewrite of NCLB. As we noted in our article “No Child Act is Fundamentally Flawed”, researchers have indicated that proficiency for all is an oxymoron. No set of standards “can be both challenging and achievable by all students across the achievement distribution.”

Instead, those researchers suggest that two options exist - standards can either be minimal, thereby presenting little in the way of challenge to typical students or they can be rigorous and challenging, and ultimately unattainable by below average students.

Given that backdrop, it is easy to see the confusion developing. It is precisely the situation the Massachusetts study revealed. The MCAS is a basic skills test, not a college readiness exam, and therefore meaningless in regards to the Massachusetts issue. In fact, that is precisely what one would expect given NCLB’s insidious punitive nature and unrealistic expectations.

The Real Issue
What is truly appalling in our eyes is the combination of effects currently taking place in America. Students are dropping out of school in high numbers but those remaining in school are not necessarily getting the education they need to compete in today’s world.

In Massachusetts, folks are working hard to raise standards. State education officials unanimously approved a core high school curriculum in November, a recommended program that includes four years of English, four years of math, three years of science, and three years of history.

However, it must be noted that not all of our students will be able to handle college level rigor no matter how hard educators work. In spite of that fact, we continue to assume that college-ready is possible for every single student. It is time for America to realize it is not.

As we have noted previously, one necessary step in this educational dilemma is to promote a vocational option, a hands-on, less academic approach that focuses on career options. Such a program must be available well before the end of high school, perhaps as early as ninth grade.

Unfortunately, such training is thought of as second class in the US while college is thought of as first class. But if the goal is to create students who are ready to be positive contributors to society, then they first must be able to make a good living.

Social Scientist Charles Murray would argue that finding a lawyer or physician is relatively easy but finding a plumber, carpenter or other qualified tradesman tends to be far more difficult. The author of “The Bell Curve” insists more students should examine the option of vocational education/training.

We agree. It is a step that other countries have used very successfully.

Murray also indicates that far too many people place a premium on a college degree. Yes, many careers/jobs demand such a degree as its qualification. But many more careers are available with two years of specific training.

Here in Maine we continue along the opposite path. Our education promos feature slogans such as “College for ME” and “Everyone College Ready”.

The goal is noble, trying to ensure that kids have options after high school is a great premise. But such slogans further foster that negative viewpoint of vocational education/training.

If we continue to state that going to college is the best answer then there is no option for our kids but to see vocational education/training as second class.

Back to Massachusetts
Unfortunately, in Massachusetts as the discussion turns towards raising academic expectations, those discussions always appear to occur in a vacuum. If the state makes the mistake of raising standards to match college readiness it will have an unintended impact.

Because some additional students will be unable to meet those higher standards, those students will give up on the system. In our eyes, raising educational standards will exacerbate the current drop out problem.

Only when raising standards is discussed against a back drop of creating meaningful options for students who cannot handle the academic rigor associated with college level work will we be able to increase expectations without increasing our drop out rates.

Despite proponents spin on the law, NCLB fails to address this fundamental dilemma. In fact, it likely prevents school districts from taking the steps to increase standards because increasing standards will only bring about more penalties for schools.

And because the law governs the actions of our public schools, we have situations like that of Massachusetts, where 100% proficiency goals get confused with the goal of college readiness, and students are caught in the absurdity of it all.

Labels: academic preparation, Student Success

Ready, or not, for college


By KATHERYN HORTON


As a mother of a high school junior and freshman, and coordinator of a college preparation program through Sonoma State University, I have been closely tracking the journey of the five high school seniors profiled by The Press Democrat. I got choked up reading about their college admissions let-downs, as well as their triumphs, knowing that these emotions will be heightened next year as my son rides the college acceptance/rejection roller-coaster.

But I also noticed there was an issue not covered in these articles, and one that I think needs close attention: the lack of college knowledge among most high school students.

While reading the stories of these five highly motivated kids, I concluded that they have all probably been well-informed of what is required of them to go to college. They have selected the appropriate high school "path" early on to make sure they take the correct college-required classes; taken rigorous courses throughout high school; known how to study for the SATs; and been made aware of resources that are available to them when filling out college applications.

In addition, these students, who all had their sights set on highly competitive institutions, have been provided with feedback throughout their high school career that have told them what it takes to get into -- and be successful in college.

But for the majority of high school seniors who will be attending less competitive and open-access colleges (like many of the CSUs and all of the community colleges), clear feedback about preparation and standards for a postsecondary education is muddy at best. Since it is generally perceived to be easy to enter so many four-year and two-year schools, there are scant incentives to work hard in high school. Once students enroll in these colleges, they face challenging placement exams, faculty expectations and general education and graduation requirements that they often don't know about.

The consequence of these unknowns is represented in the number of incoming college freshmen who have to take remedial math or English courses, and of those who drop out all together. Remediation rates in college are staggering: 60 percent of students at the CSU and nearly 75 percent at community colleges must take what are essentially high-school level classes in either math or English.

Those who have to remediate in college take a far longer time to graduate and are much more inclined to give up on their education. And they must pay tuition fees for these remedial classes even though these classes do not provide units toward graduation.

Education policy must change as state policy steers more and more students toward college. Not only must high schools and college curriculum be better aligned but students must be well informed during the K-12 years of what it takes to be a successful college student (and that the community college is, in fact, a college and not a place to start thinking about applying oneself.)

In an effort to short-cut needed policy changes, the CSU, together with statewide education stakeholders, has created an 11th-grade college-readiness assessment in which students can get an idea about how prepared they are for college-level English and math.

The assessment is free, convenient and the first of its kind in the nation. It is part of the CSU's effort to reduce remediation at their institutions, but it's also a great tool for students planning to attend community college. This college-readiness assessment is part of the CSU's Early Assessment Program, which focuses also on curriculum issues and more personalized feedback efforts for high school students.

High school juniors can voluntarily take the assessment during the time they are taking their math and English California Standards Tests (STAR). (Schools arrange for the writing portion of the assessment at a separate time.) The assessment appears at the end of both these tests, and scores are delivered to parents and students on the same results letter they get from the STAR exam.

Students receiving a score of "Prepared for College" in either of these subject areas are awarded exemptions from taking college placement tests, if they are planning to go to a CSU, and can start right in with college-level courses. Students who score as "Not Yet Prepared" are encouraged to take appropriate classes and put forth the effort to become better prepared during senior year.

CSU administrators and educators realize this effort is in no way a panacea for the college remediation issue, but it's their way, right now at least, to contend with this remediation beast and at the same time help increase college knowledge among high school students, teachers and administrators.

Katheryn Horton is a Santa Rosa resident and the Early Assessment Program coordinator for Sonoma State University.