A White Paper from
Stand for Children Leadership Center
June 2012
IMPROVING COLLEGE ACCESS AND SUCCESS
Introduction
Improving student access to, and success in, higher education has become a high priority in education policy. President Obama has set as a goal that the United States will be first in the world in college completion by 2020. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Lumina Foundation have set similar goals for raising the college-graduation rate, and have launched initiatives to try to reach them. And policy makers at the federal, state, and district levels have put in place plans aimed at ensuring that more students enter and complete college.
These efforts stem from the recognition that a high-school diploma is no longer enough in a complex, global economy. Not everyone needs a bachelor’s degree, but in today’s economy, young people need education beyond high school, including two-year degrees or industry credentials, in order to compete for well-paying jobs. Yet the U.S. college-attendance rate has stalled, while other countries have increasingly sent more and more young people on to higher education.
This paper will examine efforts under way to improve college enrollment and completion. Specifically, it will consider programs to:
• align high school graduation and college entrance requirements;
• expand access to college-preparatory curricula and coursework that prepare students to succeed in college;
• develop and strengthen counseling and other supports to ensure that students are on track for graduation and college readiness; and
• improve access to college for low-income students
Many efforts are new or just getting started, and there is little data on whether they are effective in raising the college going and college completion rates. Moreover, they do not address the steps that higher-education institutions can take to improve graduation rates; a study by the Education Trust has shown that some institutions are much more successful than others in retaining low-income and minority students through graduation.1 But a rising number of
promising initiatives offer models for some steps that districts, states, and the federal government can take to address this increasingly prominent concern.
The Need for College
Over the past decade, a growing body of research has shown the increased need for
postsecondary education. Computers and other technologies are transforming the workplace by reducing the need for routine skills and placing a premium on the ability to solve problems and communicate effectively. As a result, schools need to do more to help students develop the knowledge and skills needed for postsecondary success.2
Workforce experts project that by 2018, 62 percent of U.S. jobs will require education beyond high school, up from just 28 percent in 1973.3 This shift has resulted in a shortage of college-educated workers, driving up the “wage premium” for postsecondary education. In 2010, workers with bachelor’s degrees earned 74 percent more than those with high school diplomas; in 1980, the differential was 40 percent. If current trends continue, college-educated workers will earn twice what high school graduates will earn in 2025.4
The proportion of U.S. students with college degrees is not rising fast enough to meet the demand. The proportion of students who graduated from a postsecondary institution in the U.S. increased from 42 percent in 2000 to 49 percent in 2009; however, the rate increased much faster in other countries over the same period. As a result, the United States in 2011 ranked 15th among the G-20 in the number of adults aged 25-to-34 with a bachelor’s degree. The U.S. is the only country in the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of
industrialized countries, in which the college-completion rate is lower among younger people than it is among older workers.5
Align High School and College Expectations
One of the most prominent efforts under way to improve college-going is to align high school completion expectations with college entrance requirements. Too many students do all they are expected to do to graduate from high school—taking the required courses, passing tests, getting accepted to college—and yet they arrive at college only to find that they must take remedial courses to qualify for first-year credit-bearing courses. Nationwide, one out of three students entering postsecondary education takes a remedial course,6 and students who take remedial courses are much less likely to graduate from college than those who do not—only 35 percent of students who took remedial courses earn a bachelor’s degree in six years, compared with 55 percent of those who take no remedial courses.7
The Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics, adopted by 46 states and the District of Columbia, are the most significant effort to date to align high school
and college expectations. The standards were explicitly designed to set expectations for college and career readiness, showing what students needed to know and be able to do in those subjects in order to enter a first-year college course in a two- or four-year university without the need for remediation. The writers of the end-of-high school standards were selected by ACT and the College Board, which have considerable expertise in the expectations of entry-level coursework in college, and by Achieve, which has done research on the skills needed for entry-level workers. A survey of college instructors found widespread agreement that the content and skills called for in the standards are similar to those required in entry-level classes.8
States are now putting in place plans to implement the standards. Two consortia of states are developing assessments intended to measure student performance against the standards and produce results that indicate whether students at each grade are on track toward college and career readiness.
As part of their efforts, the consortia are working with higher education institutions to determine the appropriate passing score on the assessments that will indicate college readiness and to secure commitments from the institutions to use the results of the assessments for placement purposes. Although institutions could maintain their existing criteria for admissions, the goal of these engagement efforts is to ensure that students who attain a passing score on the assessments can enroll in first-year courses at colleges and universities without the need for remediation. In addition to the multistate Common Core State Standards, some 230 schools in 28 states have partnered with higher-education institutions to create “early college high schools.” These schools combine high school and college coursework to enable students to earn a year or two of college credits and a high school diploma simultaneously. These are not accelerated programs for high-achieving students; they are aimed primarily at low-income and minority students, who are underrepresented in higher education. Seventy percent of early-college students are students of color, and 59 percent are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.9
Not all early college high schools are effective, but research is encouraging. A study of 22 schools found that 92 percent of participating students graduated high school in four years, compared with the national average of about 72 percent. A separate study of 64 early college high schools found that of those students who graduated, 44 percent had earned at least one year of college credit, and 25 percent had earned two years of credit or an associate’s degree.
Effective programs provide clear curriculum pathways aligned with college-level coursework; institutional measures to increase motivation, such as opportunities for independence (students can leave the high school campus on their own to take college classes); intensive counseling for academic and emotional needs; a carefully managed transition to higher education; and
Expand Access to College Preparatory Curricula
A growing body of evidence shows that taking higher-level high school courses substantially increases the likelihood that students will enroll and succeed in college. Higher-level courses not only build students’ knowledge and skills; they also give students opportunities to engage in research, writing, and discussions, which they will need to know how to do in college, and help them hone their study and organizational skills.
Clifford Adelman, a former researcher with the U.S. Department of Education, has identified the “academic intensity” of a student’s curriculum in high school as the single largest precollege factor in determining whether students will go on to complete college. Of students at the highest level of academic intensity—those who completed 3.75 years each of English and mathematics, 2.75 years of science, 2 years of foreign languages, 2 years of history and social studies, 1 year of computer science, and at least one Advanced Placement course (and no remedial courses)—95 percent went on to earn a bachelor’s degree, and 41 percent earned a master’s, professional, or doctoral degree.11
Similarly, students who take an academically intense high school curriculum are more likely to meet the ACT’s benchmarks for success in college—which predict whether a student is likely to earn a C or better in a first-year course— than those who do not. For example, 47 percent of students who took three or more years of mathematics attained the ACT benchmark score in that subject, compared with only 8 percent for those who took less than three years of math.12
In response to these and similar findings, states and districts have raised graduation requirements and encouraged more students to take college-preparatory courses. As of 2010, 20 states and the District of Columbia require students to take a college-prep curriculum to graduate from high school, up from three states in 2005.13 In addition, several large districts, such as Los Angeles Unified School District, have adopted policies that make the college-preparatory curriculum the default curriculum; students must opt out of the college-prep track in order to take courses that are not required for higher education.
These policies have resulted in increased enrollments in higher-level courses. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, high-school students earned, on average, 16
credits in core academic courses in 2009, compared with 15.6 credits in 2005 and 13.7 in 1990.14 However, these policies are costly and challenging to implement and have not yet resulted in the outcomes for which advocates might have hoped. Although cost estimates are difficult to come by, districts have found that they have had to hire new teachers qualified to teach the higher-level classes, particularly in shortage areas like mathematics, science, and foreign languages. District officials in San Jose, California, for example, recruited mid-career professionals from Silicon
Valley and language teachers from abroad. Districts have also found that they have had to add facilities, such as science laboratories.
The results of these policies have been mixed. In San Jose, grades and graduation rates remained steady after the required college-preparatory curriculum was put in place.15 But in Chicago, the policy resulted in a drop in the high-school graduation rate, because students were less likely to accumulate credits to earn their diploma, and there was no improvement in the
college-enrollment or the college-retention rates. Students with higher grades were actually less likely to attend college after the policy was put in place than before.16 These examples make clear that curriculum reform is insufficient; schools need to build teachers’ capacity to address the needs of diverse classes and to provide support for struggling students.
Efforts to increase enrollment in Advanced Placement courses have been more successful. Nationally, enrollment in AP classes has skyrocketed in recent years. In 2010–11, nearly 2 million students took nearly 3.5 million AP examinations—double the numbers from 2002–03. Average scores remained about the same, suggesting that the additional AP students, who presumably were less academically able than those in the program when it was more exclusive, were doing as well in the classes as the other students. Effective strategies to increase access to and success in AP classes include preparation for students and professional development for teachers, as well as incentives, such as fee waivers that cover the cost of AP exams for students.17
A study of more than 220,000 students in Texas found that students who took AP courses and exams in high school were more likely to earn higher grades in college and graduate from college than similar students who had not taken AP courses.18 A separate study showed that students who score a 3 or above (on a five-point scale) on AP exams are more likely than those who score lower and those who do not take AP tests to enroll and stay in college, and are more likely to attend more-selective colleges.19 However, students who score a 1 or a 2 are not more likely to attend or stay in college, and they may be worse off than if they had taken a regular course.20 Other research suggests that simply making more AP courses available does not necessarily result in increased AP enrollment; some students simply switch from one AP course to another.21
Strengthen Counseling and Support for Students
In addition to stronger academic preparation, many students, particularly those who would be first-generation college students, need additional support to enroll and succeed in college.
manage their way once they are in college—what David T. Conley of the Education Policy Improvement Center calls “College Knowledge.”22
In many schools, counselors can help students build these skills. But guidance counselors typically serve many students at once, limiting their ability to provide the kind of intensive skill-building support that students need to become first-generation college-goers. The national average counselor-to-student ratio in 2006—before the recent recession—was 1-to-284;
California’s average was 1-to-506.23 Many districts facing budget shortfalls have cut counselors. In response to these concerns, states, districts, and private organizations have developed and put in place initiatives to provide counseling and support to help increase access to and success in college. For example, the School District of Philadelphia, at the urging of a youth group, the Philadelphia Student Union, created Student Success Centers to provide college preparation, career exploration, and social support for high-school students. The centers, now in 10 high schools, are operated in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania and community
organizations such as Communities in Schools. They are funded through state and federal grants. There is little research so far on their effectiveness; Research for Action, a Philadelphia-based organization, is conducting a multiyear study of the centers. To date, the centers have served more than 14,000 students.
Nationally, College Summit, an organization based in Washington, D.C., works in partnership with school districts to provide tools and training to help students plan for and apply to college. The organization selects students to attend a workshop at a college campus and begin preparing their college applications; the students then provide support to their peers. The organization also trains teachers to conduct a college-preparation class. More than 700 teachers are trained each year. Overall, students who participate in the program enroll in college at a rate 22 percent higher than those who do not participate.
Universities have also formed partnerships with schools to help students begin to understand college expectations and prepare for them. In several states, these partnerships begin as early as middle school; universities invite students to campus to show them what college is like and to encourage them to begin thinking about what they must do to enroll.
Some universities have developed tools to help students in their preparation. The California State University system, for example, has developed the Early Assessment Program, which measures students’ readiness for first-year CSU courses. The assessment is administered to students in 11th grade, providing time for students to catch up academically before they enroll in college. A study found that the program reduced the probability of remediation by 6.2 percentage points in English and 4.3 percentage points in mathematics.24 The assessments now being developed to measure student performance against the Common Core State Standards are expected to provide similar information in many other states.
Although the research is clear on the need for counseling and other support for students, the evidence about specific interventions is limited. A closer examination of these and similar programs might identify which services have the greatest impact on student enrollment in college.
Improve Access for Low-Income Students
While academic support and counseling can improve readiness for college, finances remain a significant barrier to access for low- and middle-income students. The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, a federally mandated panel, determined that enrollment rates of academically qualified low- and moderate-income students declined between 1992 and 2004, and that the major culprit was the rising cost of higher education. The importance of finances
increased sharply in parents’ and students’ decisions about college during that period.25
To address those concerns, states, districts, and private organizations have developed programs to supplement federal and institutional aid and ensure that qualified students can enroll in college. These programs are threatened by budget shortfalls, however.
Some of the most popular efforts are so-called promise scholarships, which provide aid to all students who graduate from high school. The state of Illinois and the cities of Kalamazoo, Michigan, and New Haven, Connecticut, are among the jurisdictions that have adopted these plans. In general, they require recipients to attend a local college or university and to maintain a minimum grade-point average in college. A federally funded evaluation of the Kalamazoo Promise found that the program enabled many students who otherwise might not have gone to college to do so, and that it provoked systemic changes in the Kalamazoo schools, including a program to introduce middle school students to college and increased Advanced Placement offerings and enrollment. In recognition of the program, President Obama spoke at the Kalamazoo Central High School commencement in 2010.26
Similarly, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 1999 created the Gates Millennium
Scholarship to provide aid to low-income and minority students. Since its inception, the program has awarded aid to more than 15,000 students across the country, and the first four cohorts had a college-graduation rate of 79 percent, compared with a rate of 49 percent for a comparison group of high-achieving minority students, even accounting for demographic and socioeconomic factors. 27
Putting It All Together
Improving access to and success in higher education—particularly for low-income and first-generation college-going students—is a multifaceted task. The most-promising efforts combine academic preparation, counseling, and financial assistance to address all the aspects of college readiness: academic preparation, content knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, and contextual knowledge.28
High schools, by themselves, are unlikely to provide all these supports, so many of the most effective programs link high schools with external partners. But high schools have little incentive to form such partnerships, because they are accountable for improving students’ academic
performance and seeing that they graduate—not for ensuring that students enroll in college. That might be changing. A handful of states are creating new accountability systems that include measures of students’ post-secondary success as indicators of high schools’ effectiveness. For example, Georgia is creating a College and Career Readiness Performance Index for each school, which includes a number of indicators, such as the percentage of graduates who enroll in college without the need for remediation. These systems are too new to have demonstrated effects, but they seek to strengthen schools’ incentives to form partnerships to support youths and improve college access and success.
Conclusion
The need to increase access to college is clear. Success in a global economy depends on higher levels of knowledge and skills, and more students need more education so they can have a productive future. Increased levels of education will benefit the economy and the nation, as increasingly educated youths become taxpayers and citizens.
A number of efforts aim to improve access to and success in higher education, particularly for low-income and minority students. The evidence about the effectiveness of particular programs is still emerging, but the most-promising ones appear to combine some key elements: higher expectations for students, stronger academic preparation, counseling and other support, and financial assistance.
Building and sustaining effective programs will be challenging in a difficult economic climate. But partnerships among public and private institutions can help. The need is great.
1
M. Lynch and J. Engle, “Big Gaps, Small Gaps: Some Colleges and Universities Do a Better Job than Others in Graduating African-American Students” (Washington, DC: Education Trust. 2010),
http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/CRO%20Brief-AfricanAmerican.pdf.; M. Lynch and J. Engle, “Big Gaps, Small Gaps: Some Colleges and Universities Do a Better Job than Others in Graduating Hispanic Students” (Washington, DC: Education Trust, 2010),
http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/CRO%20Brief-Hispanic.pdf.
2 F. Levy and R. Murnane, The New Division of Labor: How Computers Are Creating the Next Job Market
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004).
3 A. Carnevale, N. Smith, and J. Strohl, “Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements Through
2018” (Washington, DC: Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University, 2010), http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/FullReport.pdf.
4
A. Carnevale, B. Cheah, and S. Rose. “The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings” (Washington, DC: Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University, 2011),
http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/collegepayoff-complete.pdf.
5
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Education at a Glance 2011 (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2011).
6 National Center for Education Statistics, computation by NCES PowerStats on February 14, 2011, using U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08).
7 Complete College America, “Time Is the Enemy” (Washington, DC: Complete College America, 2011). 8
D. Conley, K. Drummond, A. deGonzalez, J. Rooseboom, and O. Stout, “Reaching the Goal: The Applicability and Importance of the Common Core State Standards to College and Career Readiness” (Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center, 2011).
9
Jobs for the Future, “Early College High School: A Portrait in Numbers,” http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/a_portrait_in_numbers_110110_0.pdf
10 J. Rosenbaum and K. I. Becker, “The Early College Challenge: Navigating Disadvantaged Students’ Transition to
College,” American Educator 35, no. 3 (Fall 2011): 14–20, 39.
11 C. Adelman, “The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School through College”
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
12
ACT, “The Condition of College and Career Readiness, 2011” (Iowa City, IA: ACT, 2011), http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr11/index.html.
13 Achieve, “Closing the Expectations Gap, 2010” (Washington, DC: Achieve, 2010).
14 C. Nord et al., “America’s High School Graduates: Results From the 2009 NAEP High School Transcript Study”
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center on Education Statistics, 2011).
15
Linda Murray, “San Jose Unified School District Case Study: Preparing Students for College and Career” (Oakland, CA: Education Trust-West, 2010).
16 C. Mazzeo, “College Prep for All? What We’ve Learned from Chicago’s Efforts” (Chicago: University of
Chicago Consortium on School Research, 2010).
17
David Wakelyn, “Raising Rigor, Getting Results: Lessons Learned from AP Expansion” (Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices, 2009).
18 L. Hargrove, D. Godin, and B. Dodd, “College Outcomes Comparisons by AP and Non-AP High School
Experiences” (New York: College Board, 2008).
19 K. D. Mattern, E. J. Shaw, and X. Xiong, “The Relationship between AP Exam Performance and College
Outcomes” (New York: College Board, 2009).
20
L. Hood, “Putting AP to the Test,” Harvard Education Letter 26, no. 3 (May–June 2010).
21 B. J. Lang, “Does Offering More Advanced Placement Courses Increase Enrollment?,” Economics Bulletin 31,
no. 1 (2011), 893–904.
22 D. T. Conley, Redefining College Readiness, Volume 5 (Eugene, OR: Education Policy Improvement Center,
23
J. Oakes et al., “Removing the Roadblocks: Fair College Opportunities for All California Students” (Los Angeles: University of California All Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity and University of California: Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access, 2006).
24 J. Howell, M. Kurlaender, and E. Grodsky, “Postsecondary Preparation and Remediation: Examining the Effect of
the Early Assessment Program at California State University” (Davis, CA: University of California, Davis, 2009), http://www.airweb.org/images/Kurlaender%20Final%20Report.pdf.
25
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, “The Rising Price of Inequality: How Inadequate Grant Aid Limits College Access and Persistence” (Report to Congress and the Secretary of Education, Washington, DC: Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2010),
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/rpijunea.pdf.
26 Gary Miron, Jeffrey N. Jones, and Allison J. Kelaher-Young, “Can a Universal College Scholarship Reform
Urban Education?,” Kappan 92, no. 4 (December 2010–January 2011): 50–56.
27 Institute for Higher Education Policy, “Expanding Access and Equity: The Impact of the Gates Millennium
Scholars Program” (Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2006).
ABOUT RICHARD ROTHMAN
Robert Rothman is a senior fellow at the Alliance for Excellent Education.
ABOUT STAND FOR CHILDREN LEADERSHIP CENTER
Stand for Children Leadership Center is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides
leadership development and training to everyday citizens. Our mission is to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, graduate from high school
prepared for, and with access to, college and career training. To make that happen, we:
• Educate and empower parents, teachers, and community
members to demand excellent public schools.
• Advocate for effective local, state and national education policies
and investments.
• Ensure the policies and funding we advocate for reach classrooms
and help students.
