Lumina Roundtable 2006: Release of The College Ladder
October 4, 2006
The American Youth Policy Forum convened representatives from national education organizations that focus on college access and success, with a particular focus on programs that provide high school students access to college courses and curriculum. This event also served as the official release of the American Youth Policy Forum’s newest publication, The College Ladder: Linking Secondary and Postsecondary Education for Success for all Students.
Jennifer Brown Lerner, American Youth Policy Forum, gave a brief overview of The College Ladder. The compendium reviews a variety of schools, programs, and policies that link secondary education to two- and four-year institutions of higher education, focusing specifically on programs that serve first generation, low-income, and low-performing students and underrepresented minorities. As a way to summarize the variety of programs in this field, AYPF coined the term Secondary-Postsecondary Learning Options (SPLOs). AYPF identified 22 SPLOs that had undergone a third party evaluation or had participated in a rigorous data collection or evaluation effort. For each included SPLO, there was information on the type of student served, sources of funding, course rigor, extra supports, formal sanctioning, transferability of credit, and collaboration. In addition, The College Ladder summarized elements of productive programs and lessons learned.
A number of issues identified in The College Ladder sparked a healthy debate among participants. One hot-button issue related to the level of rigor of the college courses that high school students take. As course rigor is determined by curriculum, instruction, and assessment, it can vary significantly across programs. Because course rigor is not regulated, some participants questioned whether students were participating in college-level work or college-like work. This distinction in course rigor is particularly important as there was some evidence that some students were not able to secure transfer credit for courses taken through a SPLO. One potential explanation was that receiving institutions believed the courses offered to high school students through a SPLO were not as rigorous as the comparable courses offered to full-time college students.
The group also discussed the value of SPLOs and their benefits to student participants. SPLOs give students access to college, allowing them to experience campus life and expectations, and require students to take ownership for their own learning. SPLOs expose students to higher standards and often provide necessary supports for them to succeed, thus giving them more confidence in themselves. While these benefits might not resonate with policymakers, who are more concerned with cost and completion rates, their value cannot be ignored as a strategy to improve overall student achievement. Cliff Adelman, Institute for Higher Education Policy, adeptly reframed this issue: “the question shouldn’t be about whether these programs reduce time to degree or cost, it should be: Do they result in higher quality degrees?”
Melinda Mechur Karp, Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University, described two new projects: the National Center for Postsecondary Education Research and a study on the outcomes for career and technical education (CTE) students who participate in dual enrollment at the City University of New York (CUNY). The National Center for Postsecondary Education Research (NCPR) will use rigorous research methods to conduct evaluations of two widely-used programs: one that allows high school students to enroll in college courses (dual enrollment) and another that establishes remediation groups or learning communities for low-skilled students upon matriculation to higher education. In particular, the research on dual enrollment will focus on the fact that there is a lack of longitudinal data to accurately measure the success of these programs. NCPR will primarily focus on middle-achieving students who are able to participate in dual enrollment programs and initially focus on students in Florida as the state has created a system for data collection. Other states will be added during the five-year study. NCPR’s work will provide both short-term and long-term outcomes based upon random assignment.
The second project scheduled to be completed in early 2007 is a study of dual enrollment with technical programs offered by CUNY. Students from the 17 vocational high schools in New York City who take dual enrollment at CUNY will be compared to vocational education students in those schools who did not take dual enrollment to compare their outcomes, both short-term and long-term, once they matriculate to one of the campuses of CUNY.
Nancy Hoffman and Joel Vargas, Jobs for the Future, described their work regarding dual enrollment, both at the policy and programmatic level. Jobs for the Future (JFF) is focused on programs that can bridge the gap between high school and college, and they encourage the use of dual enrollment as a laboratory for alignment of secondary and postsecondary education. JFF is focusing on issues of quality, structure, outcomes, and ensuring funding is equitable and transparent. Hoffman and Vargas noted that JFF also does not consider early college high school as a cost-saving strategy, but rather a strategy to increase access for underserved populations.
Working with several states at the policy level, JFF has recommended that low-income students receive scholarships or assistance to allow them to participate in dual enrollment. In Rhode Island, JFF has been facilitating discussions at the state-level regarding what courses should be offered through dual enrollment agreements and how these courses should be funded. JFF has recommended that funding cover at least one semester of courses and that students must take courses that are transferable. In Ohio, the legislature has discussed whether funding for dual enrollment should be targeted to low-income students only or open to all students. JFF reported on other legislative developments regarding secondary-postsecondary alignment including recent legislation in Texas that provides high schools $275 per student to be used for college access and success activities. According to the regulations, these funds can be used to pay for college courses, but since Texas already has state funding to cover the cost of dual enrollment courses, these funds could be used for other kinds of supports such as books, counseling, and tutoring.
Demaree Michelau, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), presented on their recent publication, Moving the Needle on Access and Success. The purpose of this publication was to provide recommendations on how four major accelerated learning programs could be better utilized to increase access and success of low-income and underrepresented students in higher education. Moving the Needle was a 21-month project in which two- and four-year public higher education institutions were surveyed on institutional policies, practices, and programs. Focus groups of students, teachers, and counselors at two high schools and at two postsecondary institutions also provided feedback on the experience of participating in one of these accelerated learning options. Policy and legislation was reviewed, analyzed, and complied into the final publication and catalogued online (http://www.wiche.edu/policy/SPIDO/). Policies and practices were considered only at the state level, thus a significant number of activities were omitted because they are administered at the local level.
While there is a belief that these policies and practices were meant to help students get into college, there was no evidence from the WICHE study to back up this claim. However, WICHE believes that every student should be given the opportunity to take part in advanced classes in which they can receive college credit, even if through an online option. Ironically, this study revealed that many states are not sure of the amount of money that they are spending on these programs and are not sure who benefits from the programs.
Tina Gridiron Smith, Lumina Foundation for Education, gave an overview of the Foundation’s work. Lumina has focused its work on three areas: access, quality, and affordability. In addition, they are supportive of projects benefiting low-income students, Latinos, and African-American males.
Open discussion
Participants joined in an open discussion that was based on four topics: transferability of credit, funding, quality and accountability, and equity of access.
Transferability of credit
There are two areas where the transferability of credits is a problem: between high school and postsecondary education institutions and between community colleges (two-year institutions) and four-year colleges and universities. With limited policy and/or available information to let students know how the credits will transfer, the burden falls to the student to figure out how the credits earned through SPLOs can be used as transfer credit. On occasion, students are unaware the credit they earned through SPLOs is transferable. Some students also become frustrated trying to determine how to ensure that their credit does get transfered and give up. One step in ensuring the ease of credit transfer is alignment among systems: high school and higher education, both with and among two- and four-year institutions.
Participants cited as an example of how policy might influence credit transferability through the recently reauthorized Perkins Act with its focus on articulation and planning for Tech Prep and a requirement for improved transferability of credit. The new law focuses on the value of the credit and encourages students to take a sequence of courses, not just a single elective or course that is unrelated to their major. As the language in Perkins was a step in the right direction, many participants wondered if similar language could be added to the yet-to-be reauthorized Higher Education Act to promote articulation agreements to ease credit transferability. Other participants felt that credit transferability and articulation agreements were best left to individual institutions and states, rather than the federal government.
Funding
In addition to system alignment for credit transferability, participants agreed there needs to be aligned and equitable financial systems to ensure that the cost of educating students in two systems simultaneously is shared based upon services provided. While some programs and states allow both colleges and high schools to collect revenue on students in SPLOs, some policymakers oppose this “double-funding” structure, and therefore an equitable system of sharing resources should be considered to ensure the long-term viability of these programs.
Another issue noted in The College Ladder is that the costs for courses, books, fees, or exams can price out certain students, thereby creating an issue of access and equity, particularly if financial assistance is not available.
Participants acknowledged that more information is needed on funding as there is little to no information on the actual costs for different types of SPLOs or the costs of educating different groups of students in SPLOs. In addition, it was agreed that funding policies must take into account the extra supports to provide all students an opportunity to participate and succeed.
Quality and Accountability
Quality of programs is hard to measure when quantitative data on outcomes is scarce. One suggested solution would be to link funding to data collection efforts to ensure that quantitative data is collected. Another suggestion would be to measure the quality of the program by considering the quality of the ultimate degree earned. As indicated by the earlier debate regarding course rigor, quality assurance is becoming increasing more important as SPLOs continue to grow and serve more students. Participants agreed that quality would be an important issue to continue to consider and that both forthcoming and future research would need to address this issue.
As SPLOs are operating at the intersection of secondary and postsecondary education, it is often unclear under which system SPLOs are currently accountable and whether or not shared accountability is the best solution. SPLOs often operate at the local level and under the radar of many accountability mechanisms. Many participants questioned whether a push for accountability would be detrimental to existing programs.
Equity of Access
Due to lack of data, there are questions of whether or not these programs are truly helping needy students, or just the students and families savvy enough to take advantage of these programs and courses.
The courses students take through SPLOs are not remedial or developmental; they are meant to represent college-level learning and coursework. (Please note there are some SPLOs that do offer remedial coursework as a strategy to ensure students are prepared for college-level work upon high school graduation. See CUNY College Now). Therefore, there is a tension between offering every high school student the opportunity to take college-level courses and the needs of the colleges to ensure that the credits that they award are appropriately earned and that the students completed high-level work. In order for all students to have the opportunity to participate, it is necessary for all students to take a college preparatory curriculum and to begin this curriculum in the middle grades.
There was also an agreement among the participants that additional measures beside standardized tests need to be used to determine admissions for SPLOs. Participants also suggested that college placement tests be used in high school to measure whether or not a student is on track to graduate and perform college-level work. Ideally, SPLOs could use many secondary-level assessments such as state high school exit exams. However, these tests often do not measure the knowledge and skills needed to be successful in college-level courses, thus more alignment between state standards and postsecondary admissions criteria needs to occur. Some participants did note there are examples of states that have been able to use widely accepted college admissions test such as ACT and SAT as high school exit exams.
Role of Policymakers
Typically, policymakers are concerned with postsecondary completion rates and the cost of a program. On the other hand, program providers often measure the program differently, such as by looking at the increase in access to the programs by certain types of students. Thus, the group discussed a variety of ways to frame these programs and outcomes in order to present them to policymakers. For instance, participants said that at the state level, it would be important for policymakers to see SPLOs in terms of economic development and that students are better prepared for the jobs in their communities.
At the federal level, SPLOs have drawn interest not as an access issue, but as a way to improve postsecondary completion. Many believe these programs will help students earn a diploma, ideally from a four-year institution. Another potential role for federal policy could be related to credit transferability. One suggestion was for the federal government to make grants to a consortium of states to organize a system to deal with transferability of credit.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the participants were excited by the increased interest in these programs and the commitment at many levels to see good outcome data collected. As many of the participants are Lumina grantees, there were a number of connections made throughout the day.