Forum Brief

Understanding the Impact and Outcomes of Secondary-Postsecondary Learning Options with support from the Lumina Foundation for Education

A Round Table Discussion — June 24, 2004

The American Youth Policy Forum’s work in the last decade has led us to believe that despite excellent programs and intervention in specific fields, a comprehensive and complete youth policy approach is missing. The areas that provide the least support for teens and young adults tend to be in the “handing off” from one system to another, including the transition from high school to college.

This transition point is tricky from a policy perspective because the laws, regulations, programs, and practices that touch this point rarely span it. Exceptions at the federal level are the Tech Prep program and some of the TRIO/GEAR-UP program strategies. However, most policy initiatives are clearly located in one stage or the other. The fact that so many of our youth are “lost to the system” or at risk of failing during these transitional periods demands that we take a fresh approach to our past policies and practices. Therefore, developing a “complete system for youth” that considers connections between stages of development and schooling makes sense, and that is why AYPF is studying programs and policies that help make this transition more seamless.

In order to facilitate this process, AYPF, with support from the Lumina Foundation for Education, hosted a roundtable discussion on programs and strategies that help connect high school and postsecondary education to improve college and career outcomes for young people. Specifically, AYPF is examining efforts that allow high school students the opportunity to earn college credit while they are still in high school. For the purposes of this project, AYPF describes the various programs working to achieve this goal as secondary-postsecondary learning options (SPLOs). With the help of researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, AYPF explored answers to a set of questions that are fundamental to understanding the impacts and outcomes of secondary-postsecondary learning options. A summary of the roundtable follows.

Part I: To Get the Discussion Started

Three individuals were asked to provide background on secondary-postsecondary learning options and to develop some common understanding among participants.

1. What are the most common models of secondary-postsecondary learning options (SPLOs) for underserved or disadvantaged youth?

Lucy Jones, Truman Scholar and AYPF Intern, defined secondary-postsecondary learning options and gave a brief description of some of the most common programs across the United States. SPLOs were defined as “programs that link secondary schools with two and four-year institutions of higher education that allow students to earn credit for college-level classes while they are in high school." [1] These programs are designed for a number of reasons including: 1) facilitating the transition between secondary and postsecondary education; 2) improving student access to and success in postsecondary education; 3) providing students with opportunities to participate in more rigorous and academically challenging coursework; 4) aligning secondary and postsecondary curricula and 5) motivating students to acquire specific skills necessary for high performance in work and postsecondary education.

Using categories of programs outlined by Thomas Bailey and Melinda Karp in their review of dual-credit programs that was published in November 2003 [2], and adding a fourth category, federal programs, to those already identified, Jones described several programs:

Singleton Programs: Dual-credit and Advanced Placement

A popular singleton program embraced by many secondary and postsecondary schools is the dual enrollment program, through which students take college courses before they graduate from high school. Students take these courses for credit that may be applied towards high school, college, or both. Each program is different, so classes may be taught by high school or college faculty and may be taught at the high school or on the college campus.

One of the most recognized singleton programs is the Advanced Placement Program. Started in 1965 and administered by the College Board, the AP Program allows students to pursue and potentially receive credit for college level course work while they are still in high school. Currently, AP consists of 34 college-level courses in 19 subject areas. Students participating in the program take college level coursework, typically taught by a high school teacher certified to teach AP courses. At the end of the year, students take AP exams and their scores determine whether or not participating colleges and universities grant them credit, advanced placement, or both.
Comprehensive Programs: International Baccalaureate

The International Baccalaureate Program (IB) is an example of a comprehensive program because it replaces traditional high school curriculum for two years with a rigorous, International Baccalaureate Diploma Program. Started in 1968, IBDP is a pre-university program that develops an international perspective and a greater understanding of different cultures by requiring students to complete study in six content areas, and, for many programs, produce a major research paper and perform 150 hours of community service. Throughout the sequence, students take criterion-referenced examinations to ensure that they are meeting the requirements of the IB coursework. Students take final examinations in specific fields and can earn credit at the discretion of the college that they attend. At the end of the program graduate with an International Baccalaureate Diploma, which is accepted by universities in over 100 countries.
Enhanced Comprehensive Programs: Middle College High Schools

Middle College High Schools are an example of enhanced comprehensive program because they offer nonacademic services in addition to college-level coursework. Middle College High Schools offer dual-credit for college level work through completion of a full-time program on a college campus. These programs have diploma granting authority and provide supportive, academically challenging, flexible environments for high ability, underachieving at-risk youth. Enrollment in Middle College High Schools is typically kept to a minimum in order to provide more opportunities for students to interact with staff.
Federal Programs (examples of SPLOs or those with the potential of supporting SPLOs): Tech Prep, TRIO, and GEAR UP

One of the best known federal programs that connect secondary and postsecondary education is the Tech Prep program, authorized by the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act. Tech Prep is an educational strategy that combines academic and vocational courses beginning in the 11th grade, typically ending with the student acquiring an associate’s degree. The program is designed to provide students with opportunities to develop skills in technical fields.

The Federal TRIO Programs, included in the Higher Education Act, are educational opportunity outreach programs designed to motivate and support students from disadvantaged backgrounds. TRIO includes six outreach and support programs targeted to serve and assist low-income, first-generation college students, and students with disabilities to progress through the academic pipeline from middle school to post-baccalaureate programs. The most relevant programs include Upward Bound, designed to increase the rates at which low-income and first-generation college students attend college and Talent Search, designed to provide academic, career, and financial counseling to youth from disadvantaged backgrounds. [3]

The GEAR UP program is a discretionary grant program designed to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. The program was authorized in the 1998 Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965. GEAR UP provides five-year grants to states and partnerships to provide services at high-poverty middle and high schools. GEAR UP grantees serve an entire cohort of students beginning no later than the seventh grade and follow the cohort through high school. GEAR UP funds are also used to provide college scholarships to low-income students. GEAR UP partnerships offer services that promote academic preparation and the understanding of necessary costs to attend college, provide professional development, and continuously build capacity so that projects can be sustained beyond the term of the grant. [4]

2. What program elements of SPLOs are most essential in helping lower performing and underserved high school students prepare for and access postsecondary education?

Rachelle Goldsmith, director of the College Now Program, Kingsborough Community College, Brooklyn, New York, described what she believed to be the most important elements of a successful SPLO, based on her twenty years of experience with College Now. College Now is a program that establishes collaborative relationships with New York public high schools and all seventeen CUNY colleges. The purpose of these relationships is to give high school students an opportunity to engage in college-preparatory work. The College Now curriculum is taught both by teachers in the high schools as well as CUNY faculty. College Now offers some courses for high school credit, others as non-credit prerequisites for college, and still others for college credit. There are 8,000 students enrolled in 10,500 course sections at Kingsborough Community College (40,000 throughout the City University of New York (CUNY) system which includes 200 participating high schools).

Keep programs simple and do not overwhelm students with too many options.

Students can easily become intimidated or frustrated if they are given too many options to choose from. In order to keep students interested and engaged when they are considering joining a program, it is important to give them clear, concise descriptions of courses they can take, whether or not they will be granted credit for these courses, and how to enroll.
Maintain a high-quality curriculum and do not allow it to be “watered down.”

Because students are being granted college credit for the courses they are taking in high school, it is critical that the curriculum fully prepare them to enter and succeed in upper-level college courses. If the curriculum is “watered down” or made easier for high school students, they will not have adequate preparation for the classes they are placed into. It is important that the coursework be on the college level, and it must be transferable for credit.
Hire qualified and motivated teachers who understand the curriculum and who continue to improve themselves over time.

Teachers hired for these programs must be able to become a college teacher in a high school setting. Hire people who are credentialed and consider developing specific hiring standards for your program.
Ensure that the college program is accessible—both physically and financially.

Consider holding most of the classes on the high school campus. If a student has to go to a college campus and transportation is an issue, he or she is not likely to persist in the program. Programs often have to fight for space on high school campuses, so consider holding classes before and after regular school hours. In addition, the program should ideally be free or it will not be accessible to many of the students it is designed to serve.
Hire a loyal and motivated staff.

It is critical that the program staff truly understands and believes in the mission of the program. The program will not be a success without individuals from both the high school and partnering college committed to equity and excellence.
Personalize the program by going to directly to the students.

Program leaders should personalize the program by going directly to the students and telling them what services the program provides. Many students will not search for information about the program, but will wait until it is brought to them. Support services including counseling are also critical.

Goldsmith responded to a number of questions from participants relating to:

Funding: Initially the president of Kingsborough Community College (KCC) requested funds from the New York state legislature to be directed to KCC through CUNY. Now funds come from the legislature to CUNY and are distributed to the various local College Now programs with a small amount of NYC Department of Education funds. The cost per student is an additional $180 - $200 for instruction, books, and administration.
Credit-bearing vs. non-credit bearing courses: Sixty-five to 70% of students in College Now take credit-bearing courses; the remainder takes developmental (non-credit) courses. Typically, credit-bearing courses are open to students with a GPA of 80 and above and students with GPAs below that take developmental courses. Some non-credit courses are offered as a way to fill gaps in the high school curriculum. For example, a non-credit math course helps high school students who have fallen behind catch up in order to pass the Regents B-level math exam. A statistics course was added because many high schools could not afford to offer this type of upper level elective.
High school credit vs. college credit: College Now strives to ensure that courses are not listed as miscellaneous credit on a student’s transcript and prefers that students receive college credit instead of high school credit partly so that the program does not appear to bump high school teachers from their jobs.
Reading skills for college success: Originally students in College Now took the Freshman Skills Assessment Exam used for all CUNY freshmen. When the program was expanded in 1998, it became too expensive to offer this exam for all students involved in College Now. High school transcripts and counselor recommendations are now used, but they provide no direct evidence that students are reading at the required postsecondary level.
Teachers: High school teachers participating in College Now courses tend to enjoy the work because they feel they can be more creative and don’t have to teach to the Regents test.
Alignment of college entrance and high school graduation requirements: CUNY has aligned these requirements by using the NY high school curriculum which is already aligned with the Regents Exam. Students that pass the English Language Arts and the Sequential Math II or III or the Math A Regents exams with scores of 75 or above (or that have SAT scores of 480 or above on the English and Math tests) can enter CUNY with no remediation. If their scores are lower, students must take a competency-based test of skills or go to a two-year college.

3. What research-based evidence of the value of some of these secondary-postsecondary learning options exists?

Melinda Karp, a Research Associate at the Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University, NYC, explained the current trends in research-based evidence of SPLOs and described why there is a lack of research in this particular area. She said there a lack of rigorous, scientifically-based research about secondary-postsecondary learning options for several reasons:

The goals of the programs (e.g., motivating students to pursue postsecondary education, smoothing their transition, improving access, closing the achievement gap, etc.) as well as outcome measures of success are multiple and unclear. Outcomes of current research show success in different areas—college retention, college access, closing the achievement gap, persistence to a two-year degree, persistence to a four-year degree, or any combination thereof. In addition, there are no clear definitions of “success” and “failure” related to these programs in any of the research that has been done thus far.
It is very difficult to define and categorize secondary-postsecondary learning options. Because of the varied nature of many of the SPLOs, researchers find it difficult to describe specific components and to place them neatly into well-defined categories. Many programs include specific components and lack others, so it is nearly impossible to isolate specific components that make the programs successful.
There are too many confounding factors. There is a seemingly limitless number of variables that can influence the impacts and outcomes of various secondary-postsecondary learning options, and it is very difficult to separate them from other factors influencing the success of the programs.

Karp indicated that in her review of credit-based SPLOs, 45 studies were identified, but only 21 were used; of these, only four or five had control groups with few meeting high standards of rigor. The strongest body of research is on Tech Prep, but is comprised mostly of tracking studies that do not look at impacts. Karp encouraged requiring impact studies of federally supported programs.

Despite the lack of rigorous, scientifically-based evidence of the success of SPLOs, the bottom line is that students and parents have very positive feelings about these programs. In addition, students in transition-based programs do as well or better than students who do not participate, so we can assume that no harm is being done by enrolling students in these programs, Karp said. However, there are two issues that warrant further consideration, she continued:

Credit-transfer—it is imperative that high schools and colleges develop better and clearer guidelines for transferring credit from programs locally, within the state, and across state lines. Unfortunately, according to Karp, many credits are never accepted for transfer.
Access—it is not uncommon for programs to start out with very open access, but some of them eventually suffer prerequisite “creep.” When pressured for outcomes, many programs begin demanding higher entrance requirements to improve their results.

Other trends have been noted, but are not confirmed by any rigorous research, said Karp. These include:

Programs on a college campus seem to matter more to students.
But paradoxically, the use of high school teachers as opposed to college faculty seems to result in better grades for students. However, questions of whether or not these students are getting better support or if they are being adequately prepared for the type of teaching they will experience in postsecondary institutions remain unanswered.
Access to the program is a serious issue, especially in rural areas. It is not yet known whether on-line courses might compensate for this disparity.

Part II: Discussion of Specific Questions

Several questions were posed to the group for discussion.

1. What kind of accountability system would best support an aligned secondary-postsecondary system?

It was suggested that the group begin with the question of accountability based on SPLO goals (which need to be determined more clearly; see discussion below), benchmarks, outcomes and population served.

A number of goals of SPLOs were mentioned by participants, including the following:

To help underserved students find a means of accelerating their progress through the postsecondary education experience and to improve their changes for success. (Note: Karp cautioned against lumping all underserved or low-performing students into one group, as they have various needs and desires. Program goals need to be disaggregated for students according to first generation college-students, socio-economic status, cultural background, region, etc.)
To help offset the limitations of poorly resourced schools and curricula and pull the curriculum upward toward more rigor.

One way to measure the success of SPLOs would be to apply a set of benchmarks based on student participation. For instance, outcomes could be measured as follows:

Students have access to the course/program (this includes information about the program, financial support, counseling, and academic remediation if needed).
Students who participated earned credit that contributed to a high school diploma.
Students who participated earned credit that contributed to postsecondary access and advancement.
Students who participated earned a certificate or degree. (Note: In this case, it is not fair to expect a singleton program will have an impact on an outcome like college graduation that happens four years in the future.)

The group also discussed the need to justify the use of public funds for SPLOs by looking at outcomes and benefits. There should be a public benefit relating to:

Savings through accelerated time to degree. It was noted that time to degree may not necessarily decrease. The saving may be noted in reduced costs to the student. (Because this is a combination funding issue, in some states, the accountability piece is hinged on the requirement that the student must finish high school to be able to profit from SPLOs.)
Contributing to group advancement (e.g., underserved students) and narrowing the gap between traditional and underserved groups in postsecondary graduation
Helping to creating a fairer, more equitable society.
Increasing college-going rates.
Raising the number of postsecondary graduates.
Supporting broader state goals for workforce and economic development.
Providing more citizens who can add to the tax base, not take from it.

Equity and fairness need to be considered as well. Goldsmith stressed that funds available often affect which students and which schools participate in College Now. For example, Goldsmith does not have a large pot of money to work with and finds that it goes farther when she works with the schools that are easiest to work with. But that may not be reaching the most challenging schools and needy students. Policies need to give incentives to working with hard to serve schools or students. Other participants suggested that funding for programs like dual enrollment be provided only to low-income or needy schools and students.

The group also discussed other criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of SPLOs. They should:

Ensure financial access for students and equitable.
Use taxpayer dollars responsibly.
Inform students about programs and provide support services.
Provide a postsecondary institutional environment that is welcoming to underserved students. [5]
Evaluate the effectiveness of the program with the target population. For example, there is, as yet, no body of evidence that supports the assumptions of the early college high school that students can successfully complete two years of college while in high school. It is also assumed that the benefits of these programs are more about exposure to and motivation for postsecondary education experience rather than acceleration. However, there is little data that supports these suppositions.

2. Can federal student aid programs and other federal programs like TRIO, GEAR UP, and Tech Prep be more supportive of secondary-postsecondary learning options? If so, how?

The conversation centered on TRIO and GEAR UP and focused on how to improve the transition to postsecondary education.

Upward Bound offers credit courses in some cases. Upward Bound and Talent Search projects could be given incentives to support other SPLOs.
Campus-based Talent Search and TRIO programs have funds for access to early college courses. TRIO advisors help students by providing ancillary services to make it possible for students to participate in these courses.
GEAR UP, in particular, has been innovative by hiring highly qualified instructors to teach courses required for college preparation, such as Algebra, Calculus, and high-level literacy courses. This practice could also be expanded to include Advanced Placement courses.

Several participants felt that we should not consider TRIO and GEAR UP because they do not have a strong focus on credit attainment.

3. What strategies for funding are most equitable and cost effective?

Dual enrollment programs are paid for in a variety of ways and participating institutions have a great deal of freedom to decide the financing structure. Most school districts continue to receive the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) fee for high school students who are taking college level classes, but sometimes the ADA is transferred to the postsecondary education institution to help cover costs. Some states mandate that high schools allow dual-enrollment but simultaneously take away their ADA funding for the time that students spend on college campuses. This may create a disincentive for high schools to support their students’ participation in SPLOs. Some programs require students to pay tuition and fees to take college level courses, and in some instances, these fees can be reimbursed if the student earns a high enough grade.

The group discussed a number of new approaches to funding dual enrollment programs:

Consider differentiated funding support to students based on family income. In states such as Washington with no means tests, but where students pay fees for books and provide their own transportation, the dual enrollment program has become a middle class program by default.
Every state should guarantee that between 6th and 12th grade, each student gets an allotment of funds to spend on accelerated learning (similar to the supplemental learning funds under NCLB).
Careful study would be required, but consider eligibility for federal student aid to high school students taking college level courses. High school students would have to be carefully advised to ensure that they don’t use need-based aid on courses that will not transfer.

4. What is the role of policymakers in aligning systems to support SPLOs?

First and foremost, policymakers need to be clear about the objectives and goals of SPLOs and then define appropriate accountability measures. Actions that policymakers should consider include:

Developing statewide systems that track the transition of students within and across state lines. Developing integrated systems, combining/aligning PreK-20 systems (note: see Idaho, Florida, Nevada, Maine, also Georgia and initial work in Wyoming).
Developing standards for institutions to accept course credits and facilitating a seamless credit-transfer system that applies nationally.
Ensuring that SPLOs support broader state goals of workforce and economic development.
Allowing college and high school faculty to work interchangeably with dual-credit students. (Note: Texas has recently deemed community college faculty as “highly qualified” for purposes of compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act.)
Ensuring the development of academic and support services leading to the successful entry in and completion of SPLOs, including the need to reach down into the middle school and early high school years so that students have the necessary academic and motivational foundation.
Providing incentives and value-added benefits for districts to work with the most challenging schools and greatest need students, including supporting schools in improving not only the numbers of students enrolled in SPLOs, but increasing the rigor of these courses as well as student success.
Providing incentives and a role for businesses and private postsecondary institutions to participate in SPLOs.
Providing equitable and fiscally responsible expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
Extending policies that support the successful education of disabled youth into the postsecondary education arena.

A number of other issues and ideas were raised for AYPF to explore during this project:

What is the impact of College Level Exam Programs (CLEP) that allow students to be exempted from college requirements or courses? This is a different type of acceleration option and can shorten the time to degree for students.
Look at the Tennessee Tech Prep study referenced by Dan Hull, CORD. The study identified concerns related to lack of trust/confidence among postsecondary education faculty regarding the instructional rigor at the high school. Also, there was not much evidence of sharing between levels of faculties, advisory committees, data, etc.
Don’t forget alternative programs such as Diploma Plus, Portland Community College’s Prep program, PATHNet, etc.
Encourage the Lumina Foundation for Education to support efforts to increase program evaluation. This is a resource issue as well as having programs understand the need for evaluation and how to conduct valid evaluations.

Next Steps

AYPF is in the process of identifying SPLOs that have been evaluated or posses some type of outcome data so they can be reviewed for possible inclusion in a publication that will provide policymakers a better understanding of these programs. Information on evaluations may be sent to AYPF. By the end of 2004, AYPF hopes to have a draft of a publication, with the final copy prepared by mid-2005. AYPF will also try to convene this group again when the draft publication is available to receive comments and discuss policy options.

[1] Note: AYPF indicated it may alter the definition of SPLOs to be inclusive of programs that help students progress from secondary to postsecondary education without earning college credit, but at this early stage of the project will use this definition

[2] Bailey, Thomas, and Melinda Mechur Karp (2003). Promoting College Access and Success: A Review of Credit-Based Transition Programs. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Adult and Vocational Education: Washington, D.C.

[3] U.S. Department of Education, description of TRIO programs and TRIO history, located at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html. Accessed 22 June 2004.

[4] U.S. Department of Education, description of GEAR UP programs and history, located at http://www.ed.gov/programs/gearup/index.html. Accessed 22 June 2004.

[5] Note: see the Howard London study on transfer rates and three types of community colleges: (1) those who consider it their responsibility to support student transfer; (2) those that are neutral; and (3) and those that consider it the student’s responsibility.