Student Success - archive.sheeo.orgarchive.sheeo.org/k16/p16.pdf · Preface v The SHEEO P-16...

S tuden t Success :Sta tewide P-16 Sys tems


© 2003 State Higher Education Executive Officers

State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) is a nonprofit, nationwide association of the chief executiveofficers serving statewide coordinating and governing boards for postsecondary education. The mission of SHEEOis to assist its members and the states in developing and sustaining excellent systems of higher education. SHEEOpursues its mission by: organizing regular professional development meetings for its members and their seniorstaff; maintaining regular systems of communication among the professional staffs of member agencies; servingas a liaison between the states and the federal government; studying higher education policy issues and stateactivities and publishing reports to inform the field; and implementing projects to enhance the capacity of the statesand SHEEO agencies to improve higher education.

Copies of this report are available from SHEEO. Visit our website at http://www.sheeo.org/publicat.htm for moreinformation.

iii

Tab le of Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Authors ’ B iograph ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v i i

Execut i ve Summar y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Ea r l y Out reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Cur r icu lum and Assessment Sys tems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

High Qua l i t y Teach ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Student F inanc ia l Ass i s tance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Data and Accountab i l i t y Sys tems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Case S tudy Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

Pre face

v

The SHEEO P-16 Initiative, which has produced these essays, was conceived in the summer of2000 in discussions of SHEEO staff, the SHEEO K-16 Committee, and staff of the U.S. Departmentof Education. As we proceeded we found ourselves naturally attracting and being attracted to col-leagues in other associations working on the same agenda – improving access to and success inhigher education. Most prominently, these include our partners in the policy component of thePathways to College Project – The Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE),the Education Commission of the States (ECS), and the College Board.

The project has received support from four U.S. Department of Education programs – GEAR-UP,Higher Education Act Title II – Teacher Quality Enhancement, PT3-Preparing Tomorrow's Teachersto Use Technology, and the Office of Vocational and Adult Education. The project also received sup-port from the Pathways to College project; Pathways to College is a consortium of 19 organizationsand associations focused on improving the participation and success of under-represented groupsin higher education. Pathways, described in more detail in the appendix, has been supported by agrowing group of private foundations and the U.S. Department of Education.

The initiative has included "case studies" of P-16 activities in five states – California, Louisiana,Maryland, North Carolina, and Rhode Island – organized primarily by the staff of each state's high-er education agency. It also has included full-day discussions of P-16 issues involving educatorsand policymakers in Washington, Tennessee, Montana, and Indiana. The project also is sponsor-ing four two-day regional seminars (now in progress), each of which will help policymakers from adozen or so states develop strategies for improving student participation and success. All of theseactivities have informed these policy essays.

The biographical sketches that follow introduce the authors of the essays, who collectively haveaccumulated many years of wide-ranging policy experience. While we have different perspectives,we share a passionate belief that only comprehensive, well-integrated state systems can meet theeducational needs of the next generation. We have influenced each other, and we have many intel-lectual debts, especially to those who participated in the project. (A list of participants in the statecase studies and of others who have contributed in various ways is contained in the appendix.)Despite the many contributions from our colleagues and friends, the authors of each of the essaysbear sole responsibility for the views therein.

Paul E. LingenfelterExecutive DirectorState Higher Education Executive Officers

Authors ’ B iograph ies

vii

Cheryl Blanco is Senior Program Director for Policy Analysis and Research at the WesternInterstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) where she monitors historical and emergingsocio, economic, and political trends that impact higher education; directs the work of several poli-cy projects; and produces a variety of publications to improve policymaking in higher education.Major initiatives that Blanco oversees are the Commission's national report on projections of highschool graduates, production of a regional fact book, preparation of a short report series, PolicyInsights, and WICHE's regional policy forums and state roundtables. Prior to joining the WICHEstaff, Blanco was educational policy director at the Florida Postsecondary Education PlanningCommission. She received her Ph.D. in higher education from Florida State University.

Ed Crowe is a consultant on teacher quality and K-16 policy issues for several organizations. Hiscurrent work includes projects with the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO); theCarnegie Corporation of New York's Teachers for a New Era Program; the National Commission onTeaching and America's Future (NCTAF); and the Southeast Center for Teaching Quality (SECTQ)at the University of North Carolina He also has had consulting roles with the U.S. Department ofEducation and the Education Commission of the States. Crowe was the first director of the Title IITeacher Quality Enhancement Program for the U.S. Department of Education. He has extensiveexperience in state higher education policy, and as senior manager of a statewide math and sci-ence education reform project funded by the National Science Foundation. Crowe is a graduate ofBoston College. He received master's and doctoral degrees in political science from the Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Paul E. Lingenfelter is Executive Director of the association of State Higher Education ExecutiveOfficers. From 1985 to 2000 he worked at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation andestablished and led its Program on Human and Community Development. From 1980 to 1985Lingenfelter served as Deputy Director for Fiscal Affairs for the Illinois Board of Higher Education.Lingenfelter's educational background includes an A.B. from Wheaton College in literature, an M.A.from Michigan State University, and a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in higher education.

David A. Longanecker is the executive director of the Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation (WICHE) in Boulder, Colorado. Previously, Longanecker served for six years as theassistant secretary for postsecondary education at the U.S. Dept. of Education. Prior to that he wasthe state higher education executive officer (SHEEO) in Colorado and Minnesota. Longanecker wasalso the principal analyst for higher education for the Congressional Budget Office. He has servedon numerous boards and commissions and has written extensively on a range of higher educationissues. Longanecker holds an Ed.D. from Stanford University, an M.A. in student personnel workfrom the George Washington University, and a B.A. in sociology from Washington State University.

viii

Student Success: Statewide P-16 Systems

Authors’ Biographies

Hans P. L'Orange is Director of Data and Information Management for the State Higher EducationExecutive Officers and Director of the SHEEO/NCES Network. The Network is a collaborative proj-ect administered by SHEEO and sponsored and funded by the National Center for EducationStatistics (NCES) at the U.S. Department of Education. Director of the Network since 1998,L'Orange serves as a liaison to foster communication and collaboration between the federal gov-ernment, state higher education agencies, and national associations on issues related to data man-agement and using data and information to develop public postsecondary education policy.Previously, L'Orange was the Associate Director for Institutional Analysis at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He received his M.S. degree in business information systems with a minorin organizational development from the University of Colorado and a B.A. degree from ColoradoState University.

Terese Rainwater is the project manager for The National Collaborative for PostsecondaryEducation Policy and policy analyst at the Education Commission of the States. The NationalCollaborative is a joint project with the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems,and the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education funded by the Pew CharitableTrusts. The National Collaborative works with selected states to improve performance in identifiedareas of each state's postsecondary education system. Prior to working at ECS, Rainwater was themanaging editor for Child Development Abstracts & Bibliography and a research fellow at theKansas State Legislature. She received Masters' and Ph.D. in Postsecondary EducationAdministration and the Foundations of Education from the University of Kansas and a Bachelor's inGovernment from the College of Saint Benedict.

Janis Somerville currently serves as the director of the NASH/Education Trust state K-16 initiative.Prior to joining NASH, Somerville developed Maryland's statewide Partnership for Teaching andLearning K-16. Before coming to Maryland in 1994, she founded the Philadelphia SchoolsCollaborative to bring resources of K-12, college and community together in a comprehensive highschool restructuring and college preparation effort. Somerville also worked for several years in high-er education, including appointments as the senior academic officer for undergraduate education atTemple University and at the University of Pennsylvania. She holds an an M.B.A. from HarvardUniversity and B.A. from Pennsylvania State University.

Andrea Venezia directs K-16 Projects in the Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research. Herwork focuses on education policy research and analysis, particularly as related to student transi-tions from K-12 to postsecondary education. Previously, Venezia worked in research and policypositions at the state and federal levels, including the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Boardand the National Education Goals Panel. She earned a Ph.D. in public policy from the LBJ Schoolof Public Affairs at UT Austin, a Master's in administration and policy analysis in higher educationfrom Stanford University, and a Bachelor's in english from Pomona College.

ix


Authors’ Biographies

Richard A. Voorhees is currently the principal of the Voorhees Group, an independent, perform-ance-based consulting firm located in Littleton, Colorado. Voorhees has worked in varied capacitieswith the U.S. Department of Education, Educational Testing Service, the Association of CommunityCollege Trustees, the Higher Learning Commission, the American Indian College Fund, theNational Governors Association, and the State Higher Education Executive Officers. He was thePresident of the Association for Institutional Research for 2002-03. Voorhees holds a Ph.D fromArizona State University in Higher and Adult Education. His master's degree in counseling and guid-ance and bachelor's degree in Elementary Education were both earned at the University of NorthDakota.

Yun Yi currently works as a policy associate with the NASH/EdTrust State K-16 Initiative. Her pri-mary responsibilities include state policy research and analysis. Prior to joining the EdTrust in Juneof 2000, Yi worked as a project manager at the Chicago Panel on School Policy for two years,where she conducted qualitative research on Chicago public school programs and policies. Yireceived a B.A. in psychology from Mount Holyoke College and a M.A. in social service adminis-tration from the University of Chicago.

Acknowledgements:Editorial assistance: Gregory R. WegnerDesign: Susan B. Winter

Execut ive Summar y

1

by Paul E. Lingenfelter

he educational aspirations of American youngpeople have never been higher, and they con-tinue to grow.

In 1960 more than 27 percent of young people aged16-24 were high school drop-outs. About 45 percent ofthose who graduated from high school in 1960 head-ed immediately for postsecondary education. By 2000,only 11 percent of young people aged 16-24 were highschool drop-outs, and more than 63 percent of thehigh school graduating class of 2000 entered collegeimmediately.

According to a 1998 survey published by the NationalCenter for Educational Statistics, 78 percent of highschool seniors say they definitely or probably will earna four-year degree, 39 percent say they will definitelyor probably earn a two-year degree, and 22 percentsay they will definitely or probably attend a technical/vocational school (some clearly plan to participate intwo or more postsecondary options).

Such aspirations did not emerge spontaneously – theywere produced by changes in the world economy andoverwhelming evidence that in the next generation onlythose with postsecondary education will be able toobtain and hold a good job. And it is not just workerswho have a stake in advanced education; in the globaleconomy no business and no society can compete witha workforce that lacks advanced knowledge and skill.

In effect, the educational system of the twenty-firstcentury is being asked to double the production of theeducational system of the mid-twentieth century – withno compromise on quality. This is an enormous chal-

T lenge, and its difficulty should not be underestimated.Without dramatic changes in policy and practice, itcannot be achieved.

While policymakers and educators across the countrywho understand the challenge have been hard at work,the work is not finished. This series of essaysdescribes how state and institutional leaders havedeveloped and implemented strategies to help manymore students become successful. But these essaysare more than a collection of "best practices"; theyhave a point of view.

Along with many other educators, we contend thatachieving the educational goals of the next generationwill require policymakers and educators to view educationas an integrated system, from birth through adulthood.Each of the individual elements of the educational sys-tem must be excellent in its own right, and importantly,each of them must work effectively with the otherstoward the system's goal – the highest possible levelsof student learning through postsecondary education,and the capacity to continue learning successfullythroughout life.

Despite many promising innovations among the states,no state has a fully developed, well-integrated educa-tional system extending from birth through postsec-ondary education. We maintain that a common visionof such a system, a common commitment to imple-ment the vision, and a venue for collaborative effort allare essential. While governance and structure matter,a common vision and commitment are far more impor-tant than the mechanics and structure of governance ina state. States with many different structures have

2


Executive Summary

made progress toward an integrated, well-functioningsystem. In these states, leadership and relationshipsamong leaders have been most important in generat-ing real progress, not changing the formal structure.

These essays focus attention on the experience of stu-dents during the traditional years of schooling, K-16. The term P-16 is used, however, to acknowledgethat pre-school, early childhood experience, notaddressed in depth here, is also quite important to stu-dent achievement.

The key components of an integrated educational sys-tem can be described and elaborated in many differentways. In our work we have focused on the followingessential components:

1. Early outreach – which motivates parents andstudents to have high educational aspirationsand shows them what is required for postsec-ondary educational achievement;

2. Curriculum and assessment systems – whichspecify the knowledge and skills that studentsneed and help teachers and their studentsassess progress;

3. High quality teaching – which is essential forenabling students to achieve at higher levels;

4. Student financial assistance – which isincreasingly essential as a means to enable andencourage participation in postsecondary educa-tion; and

5. Data and accountability systems – whichallow educators and policymakers to monitorprogress and guide their efforts to promote andenable greater achievement.

During the past year, the State Higher EducationExecutive Officers (SHEEO), in collaboration with theCollege Board, the Educational Commission of theStates, the Western Interstate Commission on HigherEducation, and educators from many states, examinedP-16 systems in five states. Each of them – California,Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, and Rhode Island– has done exemplary work on one or more of thesedimensions. The essays which follow draw on thesecase studies, other published work, and the broaderexperience of the authors in examining educationalsystems across the United States.

The purpose of the essays is to suggest answers to astraightforward question: What should states do toensure that most of their youth participate and succeedin postsecondary education? We expect that the jobsavailable in the future will require many, perhaps morethan half, of today's youth to have training equivalent tothe four-year baccalaureate degree. Most other youthwill need a solid high school education and additionalpostsecondary work, possibly an associate degree, toobtain a job with adequate earnings to support a fami-ly. While all youth may not reach these goals, fairaccess to economic opportunity – and ultimately thenation's prosperity – require state educational systemsto work in favor of their success.

The essays explain the role and importance of each ofthe above components of a P-16 system to student suc-cess. They also explain the interrelationships amongthese components and how educators at every level,from pre-school to postsecondary education, need towork at common purposes to assure the success of theentire system. Highlights and recommendations fromeach of the essays are summarized below.

Early Outreach

Social scientists have long observed that the strongestpredictor of participation in higher education is the edu-cation of one's parents. Children whose parents haveparticipated in postsecondary education are automati-cally enrolled in a "program" that, early in life, exposesthem to the advantages and possibilities of higher education. Children whose parents have not had suc-cessful experience in postsecondary education needanother way to get this information.

A variety of successful early outreach programs havebeen designed and implemented to achieve this objec-tive. The most successful:

• Focus on each individual student and on whatmotivates and sustains learning achievement;

• Engage young people in the context of their ownculture and the community of their peers;

• Make clear to young people the importance ofpostsecondary education to their future, andconvince them that it is possible to succeed ifthey do the right things, take the right courses,and work at their studies (this is critically impor-tant for students who come from families andcommunities where postsecondary participation

3


Executive Summary

and success has been rare, and perhaps unex-pected by their teachers and parents);

• Make very clear the academic standardsrequired at each step of the way, beginningespecially in the middle grades when the coursesthey take and their academic performance cre-ate or reduce future opportunities;

• Give students regular feedback on their aca-demic strengths and the areas needing improve-ment in order for them to succeed;

• Provide high-quality teaching and coaching tohelp students improve where needed; and

• Provide convincing assurance (in several statesa guarantee) that the cost of higher education willbe within their reach if the student takes the rightcourses and succeeds well enough in highschool (not necessarily at the highest levels) to demonstrate that he or she can succeed in college.

Early outreach programs clearly need to be wellinformed about the curriculum required for postsec-ondary success; they need to work with student financial assistance programs to provide early informa-tion and assurance about affordability; they need theactive involvement of excellent teachers; and theyneed to obtain supportive diagnostic information fromdata and accountability systems.

Our most important observation about early outreachprograms, however, is that the special, "add-on" pro-grams which have helped many students are not sufficient. Vast numbers of students require early infor-mation and on-going coaching and assistance aboutpostsecondary education. The above components ofearly outreach programs need to be embedded in theentire educational system. Every teacher in everyclassroom needs to be equipped to provide guidanceand support to every student. Every teacher needs tohave high expectations for student achievement. Andevery teacher and counselor needs to have the infor-mation and diagnostic resources necessary to helpstudents become successful.

Curriculum and Assessment Systems

For more than twenty years numerous studies of suc-cess in postsecondary education have made it clear –the courses students take in high school are veryimportant to their success in college. In fact, a rigorous

college preparatory curriculum in high school is a bet-ter predictor of college success than test scores or highschool grades.

Despite this evidence, many states have not requiredor encouraged students who aspire to college to takerigorous courses in high school. Also, many collegeshave been lax in making clear to high schools andprospective students that the high school curriculum iscrucial to college preparation and success. Evenworse, some students have been "steered away" fromrigorous courses, either due to stereotypes about theirability to succeed, or because they have had some dif-ficulty in the past. All too often, the educational systemhas taken the expedient route of lowering students'own expectations rather than helping them rise to thechallenge of greater achievement. And in too manycases a shortage of qualified teachers for collegepreparatory courses has contributed to this problem.

In many settings little consensus can be found between K-12 and higher education either about thenature or the rigor of learning experiences studentsshould have to prepare for college. The lack of con-sensus derives not so much from sharp differencesbetween the secondary and postsecondary domainsas from the fact that higher education and K-12 systems simply have not made it a priority to worktogether for the purpose of defining what studentsshould know. Higher education is too often the missingpartner in discussions of K-12 curriculum, and bothparties need to break out of the entrenched workinghabits that keep them apart.

A number of states are making significant progress onthis issue. The most promising state efforts have:

• Made the college preparatory curriculum the"default" curriculum rather than the "honors" cur-riculum for high school graduation;

• Made the college preparatory curriculum a condition of eligibility for basic scholarship assis-tance or for merit scholarships;

• Forged agreements between K-12 and postsec-ondary institutions about the requirements forcollege-level study;

• Clearly aligned high school assessments of stu-dent ability with the qualifying examinations usedby colleges and universities – particularly in thecritical areas of mathematics and English lan-guage skills; and

4


Executive Summary

• Incorporated end-of-course assessments to helpassure consistent rigor and essential contentacross classrooms.

The most common objections to such policies are that:(1) More students will drop out of high school if all areforced to take difficult courses or pass high-stakes,end-of-course tests; (2) Students who are interested intechnical or vocational postsecondary education maynot need the college-preparatory curriculum; (3) It isnot possible to recruit enough qualified teachers forwidespread enrollment in college-preparatory courses;and (4) High-stakes exams are discriminatory andpunitive, especially when many students have hadinadequate opportunity to learn.

While many question the validity of some of these worries, such concerns clearly must be addressed.The bottom line is even more clear, however: stronger curriculum and assessment policies must be implemented – and implemented widely in order toachieve the desired level of educational opportunityand achievement.

High Quality Teaching

Widely accepted research now indicates that the qual-ity and practice of the teacher in the classroom are perhaps the most important factors in increasing stu-dent learning. Most states are concerned with thisissue, both because they want to increase the capaci-ties of their teachers and because many face a seriousshortage of teachers in the near future.

All of the usual reasons for being concerned aboutteaching capacity are compounded by the higher edu-cational aspirations we have for the next generation.We have no reason to expect that the next generationof students will have a higher academic aptitude thanearlier generations – they will almost surely resembletheir parents. But we want and need them to be bettereducated. This cannot happen without more effective,more engaging teaching.

Teacher quality is a particularly salient P-16 issuebecause it is a joint product of the elementary-second-ary and postsecondary systems. Postsecondary institutions are responsible for assuring that teachers:know the content they are responsible for teaching;know the research about effective teaching approach-es; understand the connection between curriculum andassessment; can use assessment to improve learning;and have acquired the basic skills required for effective

teaching. Postsecondary and K-12 systems should bejointly responsible for giving prospective teachers anextensive period of well-supervised practice to helpthem hone their skills in real classroom settings and forthe continuing improvement and development of pro-fessional teachers.

No state has done all it needs to do in this area, but themost effective state policies and practices:

• Bring arts and sciences faculty, education facul-ty, and practicing teachers together to definemore clearly curricular standards for studentlearning and for teacher preparation;

• Ensure that K-12 teachers have solid prepara-tion in the subject matter they will teach as wellas in basic principles of pedagogy – including anunderstanding of how children's cognitive devel-opment affects learning style and determinesappropriate teaching methodologies in succes-sive years;

• Ensure that baccalaureate degree candidatespreparing for K-12 teaching careers have sub-stantial apprenticeship teaching and mentoringopportunities that prepare them for challengesthey will encounter in their own primary or sec-ondary school classrooms;

• Provide adequate funding to ensure that suchapprenticeship experience – like the clinicaltraining experience of medical practitioners – isa core component of the training program ratherthan a weakly funded afterthought;

• Make effective use of student assessment data togauge student learning progress and use feed-back to help improve teaching and curriculum;

• Incorporate technology into curriculum andinstructional practices on university campuses,helping ensure that future K-12 teachers experi-ence directly the capacity of such tools toenhance teaching and learning at every level;

• Often make effective use of "soft money" forstart-up initiatives that yield sustaining progressin building a culture of quality teaching in a state;

• Align key policies and practices with prevailingstandards that have been developed for stu-dents and teachers.

5


Executive Summary

The success of early outreach, the definition andimplementation of curricular standards, and the suc-cess of students in meeting those standards dependfundamentally on the quality, capacities, and practicesof teachers in the classroom.

Student Financial Assistance

Unlike K-12 education in the United States, postsec-ondary education is not free, and the price has beenrising. We will not be able to increase successful par-ticipation substantially in postsecondary education iflow-income students cannot afford to attend. Nor canwe succeed if students with limited financial resourcesdo not believe they can afford to attend early in theirschool career. Students need to know well in advancethat adequate aid is available; without such confi-dence it is unreasonable to expect low-income students to exert the effort required to prepare forpostsecondary education.

The federal government provides grants and loans forstudents, but the foundation of federal student aid isnot sufficient to assure affordability without a statecommitment. Some states have attempted to assureaffordability by keeping tuition and fees low, but thisstrategy is becoming less and less viable – enrollmentsand costs are increasing faster than state revenues.

States are experimenting with student assistance pro-grams, many of them quite creatively. In addition toremoving economic barriers facing poor students, theyhave used student assistance to motivate and rewardacademic achievement, to encourage able students toenroll in state institutions, and to encourage strongeracademic preparation for college. All of these are legit-imate goals, and targeted student assistance mayhelp advance them. But student financial assistanceprograms are expensive – states need to be certainthat they are effectively and efficiently advancing thegoals of greater participation and success in highereducation.

The best examples of student assistance programs:

• Motivate students in grades K-12 to set highachievement goals and choose challengingcourses to prepare them most effectively for college-level study;

• Are well-funded and highly visible – particularlyto low-income students and their parents, who

are most likely to be discouraged by the percep-tion that attending college is beyond theirmeans;

• Are closely integrated with federal and privateaid programs;

• Reliably receive additional appropriations tocover increases in student costs;

• Fit the financial circumstances and educationalgoals of a wide range of students, including themost needy;

• Describe clearly the kinds of support that theyprovide students as well as the information thatstudents and their parents will need to supply inthe application process;

• Allow students reasonable freedom of choice,and enable them to transfer from one institutionto another without major impediments;

• Are accountable and appropriate to the goalsthey serve, capable of being evaluated by policygoals that are clearly defined and well under-stood among state policymakers.

Some states have approached student assistance bycreating many small programs with complex rules.These usually are inadequate to meet the need,expensive to administer, and confusing to parents andstudents. Such approaches are likely to hinder ratherthan help achieve the goals of greater participation andsuccess in postsecondary education.

Recently a number of states have created or enlargedfinancial aid programs that consider high school academic achievement and/or taking the collegepreparatory curriculum as a criterion for receivingassistance. Such efforts to stress the importance ofacademic effort and achievement can play a very use-ful role in building the foundation for a successful P-16system. It is vitally important to recognize, however,that both affordability and adequate preparation for college must be widespread in order to meet the edu-cational aspirations of the American people. States willneed to strike a balance among their investments indifferent types of student assistance, their investmentsin the quality of educational programs, and their finan-cial capacity in order to meet their goals for postsec-ondary education.

6


Executive Summary

Data and Accountability Systems

In most states the data and accountability systems forboth K-12 and postsecondary education are poorlydesigned for the challenges of the twenty-first century.For most of the twentieth century student achievementwas optional from the state perspective – those whoachieved moved to higher education and those whodid not found reasonably well-paying, lower-skilledjobs. Consequently, states rarely collected informationabout students and student achievement; that was leftto the individual efforts of schools and colleges.

As educational aspirations grew late in the twentiethcentury, the K-12 standards movement and postsec-ondary education performance reporting substantiallyincreased state-level data collection. Most statesbegan by collecting aggregated information about thestudents in particular schools. This has been useful inidentifying issues and problems, but it has not beenentirely successful in generating improved perform-ance. The strongest state systems for data andaccountability are now working to give teachers andschool leaders the tools they need to monitor andimprove performance.

Exemplary state data and accountability systems:

• Establish standards for K-12 achievement thatlead naturally and seamlessly toward the stan-dards required for admission and success inpostsecondary education;

• Track the performance of individual studentsthroughout their educational career in ways that:

– Permit teachers to diagnose and addresslearning gaps;

– Enable school leaders to assess the per-formance of their school in terms of thelater success of its students;

– Enable school leaders to identify especial-ly successful teaching techniques in orderto expand their utilization;

– Enable postsecondary leaders to assesstheir effectiveness in preparing teachersand school leaders; and

– Enable policy makers to assess system-wide performance in order to find paths forimprovement.

• Increase the commitment among stakeholders tocollect, analyze, and use information on studentperformance.

At best, successful accountability systems becomemore than reporting mechanisms. Good systems canbe used to assess and improve K-12 achievement andlead to more students meeting the standards requiredfor both admission and success in postsecondary edu-cation. And they can help build partnerships betweenK-12 and postsecondary education for aligning learn-ing goals and educational strategies at each stage ofthe educational system.

Conclusion

These essays articulate what state educational sys-tems can do, and perhaps what they must do, toenable the next generation of American youth to reachtheir educational goals. Collectively, they argue what isperhaps obvious: success in postsecondary educationcan become widespread only if the entire educationalsystem – from early childhood through elementaryschool, high school, and college – is geared towardpreparing and enabling students to become successfullearners and workers at a high level of achievement.

Although these essays encourage systemic thinkingand integration, they do not suggest a single "model"for each state situation. Enormous variation in struc-ture and detail can exist within effective state systems– top-down mandates and bureaucratic uniformityhave rarely produced educational excellence. If P-16educators and policy makers agree on fundamental,substantive issues, states will be able to make realprogress within their own traditions and structures.

Finally, these essays challenge states to make signifi-cant changes in policy and practice, but they do notsuggest the impossible. Every state has the capacity toprovide high-quality educational opportunities to everychild and young person. We owe them no less.

7


Executive Summary

Ear l y Out reach

9

by Terese Rainwater and Andrea Venezia

re-college outreach programs were developed essentially to ensure that students who are traditionallyunderrepresented in postsecondary education have the same opportunities to attend and succeed in col-lege as do students who are traditionally considered "college-bound." Young people whose parents possess

relatively more wealth and education are far more likely to attend and succeed in college than are students whosefamilies are not advantaged in those ways.1 Pre-college outreach programs try to ensure that students enrolled inthose programs have the opportunities and support necessary to prepare for, and succeed in, college.

While almost all high school students plan to attend college, students with more financial resources tend to haveadditional sources of information about the range of opportunities, academic preparation requirements, and theavailability of student financial assistance. Students with those advantages are more likely to have:

• Parents who can help with studies or hire a private tutor if students have difficulty in school;

• Opportunities to visit a college campus;

• Teachers and counselors who view them as college bound;

• Schools with more resources; and

• The ability to pay for college in whole or in part, more information about financial aid, and more support withfilling out the required financial aid paperwork.

Young people whose parents have not attended college and who are poor must often overcome the absence of allthese supports in order to enroll and succeed in postsecondary education. Pre-college outreach programs work to

P

The authors gratefully acknowledge the expert review and comments of the other policy brief authors, and ofGordon Davies, Jan Kettlewell, and Stephen Portch.

10


Early Outreach

compensate for these inequalities by providing academ-ic tutoring, college visitation opportunities, a cohort ofpeers, high expectations, financial aid advice and coun-seling, and other related programmatic components.

The United States has a history of providing high-qual-ity public education to a privileged elite. Early on in thenation's history, African American slaves were exclud-ed from schools. Even as a broad system of publiceducation emerged in the nineteenth century, in retro-spect it is "clear that the system of public educationthat emerged in the United States was inherently unfairto Germans and the Irish, to Catholics and Jews, and,of course, to African Americans and Native Americanswho were at first excluded from the common schools”(Hiner 1998). In the 1950s and 1960s, pre-college out-reach programs were formally established to addressthese issues. Such programs were first supported byreligious entities and foundations, and then, throughthe authorization of the Higher Education Act in 1965,also by the federal government. Literally hundreds ofpre-college outreach programs are now financed byfederal, state, and local governments, as well as bybusiness, non-profits, and individuals. A few of theseprograms are described briefly in this paper, and morecomprehensive descriptions of the field are available inother sources (i.e., The College Board 2001;Cunningham, Redmond, and Merisotis 2003).

college simply by working hard to complete their K-12schooling. Because the nation has not yet attained thisideal, there is a continuing need to support programsthat are providing high-quality, essential services tostudents, while at the same time increasing the capac-ity of K-12 schools to provide all students the opportu-nity to prepare well for college.

The Purpose of this Paper

Throughout the country, pre-college outreach pro-grams have tended to be ancillary units – efforts thatare not an integral part of either postsecondary educa-tion institutions or state education policy structures. AsJohn Tafel, Vice Chancellor for the Ohio Board ofRegents, observed about the state's education sys-tems, "Ohio was program rich and system poor” (Tafeland Eberhart 1999). This brief statement captures theessential problem still facing pre-college outreach inthe United States. Special programs exist because theunderlying educational system does not meet theneeds of all students. This fundamental problem maybe ameliorated with "add-on" efforts, but it cannot ulti-mately be solved without systemic change.

We believe that systemic reform – a comprehensiveapproach to embedding the best principles of excel-lent outreach programs in routine practice – isrequired because the scope of the need dwarfs thecapacity of existing programs and any imaginableexpansion of them. Our paper analyzes current pre-college outreach programs in a P-16 framework, asking the question: What could pre-college outreachlook like in a P-16 education system? P-16 is definedhere as an integrated system of education stretchingfrom early childhood (the "P" stands for pre-kinder-garten or pre-school) through a four-year collegedegree ("grade sixteen").

A central goal of P-16 is to raise student achievementby getting students ready for school, raising standards,"conducting appropriate assessments, improvingteacher quality, and generally smoothing student tran-sitions from one level of learning to the next"(Rainwater and Van de Water 2001). A theory behindP-16 reform is that aligned, coherent policies – fromstudent transition-focused policies to teacher educa-tion and professional development programs – will create a more seamless education system that willallow all students to meet higher standards and moveeasily from one level to the next. A systemic approachto P-16 education offers the hope that all students willknow what is expected of them as they transition from

Ideally, all students would receive the curricular

opportunities, support, expectations,and information they need to prepare well for college

simply by working hard to complete

their K-12 schooling.

Since there are severe inequalities and capacity prob-lems in our nation's schools, pre-college outreach programs will continue to play an important role in pro-viding educational opportunity for the foreseeablefuture. It is clear, however, that these programs inthemselves are not enough. Ideally, all students wouldreceive the curricular opportunities, support, expecta-tions, and information they need to prepare well for

11


Early Outreach

grade to grade – and that there will not be as big a divi-sion between secondary and postsecondary educationas there is now.

The purpose of this brief is to consider how the princi-ples and practices of good early outreach programsmight be embedded in state educational systems. Thepaper will describe what we have learned from thecharacteristics of several programs, describe the com-ponents of typical outreach programs, describe andanalyze a few examples of statewide efforts, and pro-pose a means of working toward a more systemicapproach to early college outreach.

What Research Says About Pre-collegeOutreach Programs

One of the unique problems facing pre-college out-reach programs is the number of programs that exist,the significant length of time programs have been inoperation, and the relatively small amounts of informa-tion researchers have about those programs. In fact,until The College Board released of the results of TheNational Survey for Outreach Programs (NSOP) in2001, researchers were not sure how many programsexisted nationally. Approximately 1,110 programs participated in the study, 465 of which were federal pro-grams, including Upward Bound, Talent Search andGEAR-UP (Swail and Perna 2001). On average, pro-grams have been operating for eleven years, with amultitude of goals and objectives regarding studentand program success, and numerous strategies toachieve those ends. Included among program goalsare that students should persist in high school, gradu-ate from high school, improve high school grades,apply to college, attend community college, attend afour-year institution of higher education, and graduatefrom college.

In order to reach those goals, programs employ a vari-ety of strategies. Programs recognize that gaining

access and achieving success in postsecondary educa-tion require more than money. Research shows thatreliance on financial aid for college access and completion does not provide students all they need forpostsecondary success. Money is important but it is onlypart of the answer. As Perna and Swail (2002) write:

[A] review of relevant research – plus the fact thatgaps in access and completion have not beenclosed despite the resources the federal govern-ment has dedicated to closing them – suggestthat merely making financial aid available for stu-dents to attend college is not enough to ensurethat all students have equal access to the bene-fits associated with earning a college degree.

Perna and Swail also report that of those programsthat participated in NSOP, 90 percent listed encourag-ing college attendance, college awareness and collegeexposure; 84 percent listed building students' self-esteem; 81 percent listed providing role models; and73 percent listed college completion as important pro-gram goals.

What else is needed for pre-college outreach success?Recent research by Patricia Gandara (2001) shedslight on the components shared by the best pre-collegeoutreach programs. Successful pre-college outreachprograms have:

• A primary person who monitors and guides thestudent over time. This could be a teacher, men-tor, counselor, or program director.

• Good instruction coupled with a challenging cur-riculum that is carefully tailored to students'learning needs.

• Long-term versus short-term interventions. Thelonger students participate in a program, themore benefits they report from having been inthe program.

• Cultural awareness of students' background.Many programs find that they have more suc-cess with some groups of students over others.Establishing cultural connections with studentsmay be due, in part, to staff background andexperience.

• Positive peer support. Students are more likely tosucceed when they have a peer group that pro-vides academic, social, and emotional support.

We believe that systemic reform is required because the scope of

the need dwarfs the capacity of existing programs and

any imaginable expansion of them.

12


Early Outreach

• Financial assistance and incentives. For manylow-income students who identify postsecondaryeducation as a goal, scholarships and grants canmake the difference between realizing that goalor not (Gandara 2001).

Components of Existing OutreachPrograms

Table 1 lists a variety of types of programs. It is not anexhaustive list, nor is it a perfectly representative snap-shot of the types of programs currently in existence.Rather, it provides basic information about some of the largest programs, and programs from the casestudy states.

Our survey of the Pathways case study data includeda broad range of programs, including GEAR-UP, I Have a Dream, the Oklahoma Higher LearningAccess Program, and the Children's Crusade of RhodeIsland. The students served in every case are educa-tionally and economically disadvantaged, beginning insome cases as early as third grade, though most tar-get students in the middle and high school years. Insome cases the lead agency is federal; in otherinstances a state or regional government providesfunding and oversight; and some are operated andsupported by non-profit organizations.

The components of the programs are as varied as thegoals they seek to achieve: they include tutoring, men-toring, counseling, parental involvement activities, curriculum and staff development, and financial aid.Some of the most comprehensive programs, such asthe El Paso Collaborative, incorporate many attributesof systemic perspective, including whole-schoolreform, teacher professional development, accounta-bility, technical assistance, and parent support.

There is a great deal of variability of services, in termsof content and duration, provided by pre-college out-reach programs. Most programs identify a cohort ofstudents and provide supplemental tutoring and activi-ties geared toward college preparation. Some, such asTRIO, offer relatively intensive opportunities, start laterin a student's life and do not connect to schools asmuch as the Children's Crusade or the El PasoCollaborative, for example. Others, such as GEAR-UP,are not as intensive, but can start earlier in a child's life.

One key element is evaluation. Of the programs listed inTable 1, two had enlisted the help of an external evalu-ator, and three others had been evaluated by an exter-nal group. While external evaluations might not alwayslead to program improvement, they are a good indicatorof whether or not programs are getting the informationthey need to understand how well they are serving stu-dents' needs. One example of an external evaluation isthat conducted for Rhode Island's Children's Crusade.

Research shows that reliance on financial aid for college access and

completion does not provide students all they need for

postsecondary success.

The components listed above provide policymakersand educators with an idea of the attributes shared bysuccessful programs, but there are several gaps in theresearch. Gandara lists one: research is unclearwhether one kind of professional – a teacher, guidancecounselor, or mentor – has more success with studentsthan another. Researchers also do not know empiricallythe impact of each component on students either indi-vidually or in combination (Swail and Perna 2001).Does having a mentor, financial aid, and longevity in aprogram produce better results than having qualityinstruction, challenging curriculum and peer support onstudent success? Or is the presence of long-term pro-grams the most important component? Researchersalso seek to discover the number of students who qual-ify for outreach programs versus the number of students who are able to participate. Perna and Swail(2002) report that "although 11 million American are eli-gible for services through TRIO programs, only 5 per-cent of those eligible are being served due to limitedfederal funding for these programs." How many students qualify for but cannot participate in pre-col-lege outreach programs? Finally, research is unclearabout when students should begin participation in aprogram. Are students who begin pre-college outreachprograms in seventh grade more successful than stu-dents who begin in the ninth grade?

Given the magnitude of needs that pre-college out-reach seeks to address, we believe that more researchneeds to be done so that K-12 education systems canlearn from successful outreach programs and embedeffective practices into schools systemically. The nextsection outlines attributes of some major programs.

13


Early Outreach

Inventory of Some Major Pre-college Outreach Programs 2

Table 1

ProgramName and lead fundingagency

GEAR-UPFederal and state funding

TRIOFederal funding

Project GradNon-profit

I Have a DreamNon-profit

El Paso CollaborativeState and regional funding

Students Served/Scale

Middle school students fromtraditionally underrepresentedfamilies. Serves whole gradelevels of students beginningno later than grade 7 andcontinues through grade 12.In 1998-1999, there were 102programs, with an average of2,585 students served perprogram.

Economically disadvantaged,first-generation college, anddisabled students. In 1998-1999, there were 2038 TRIOprograms, with an average of349 students served perprogram.

Affects 57 urban schools andapproximately 34,000students in Houston; 25,000students in 15 schools in LosAngeles; Atlanta program willeventually reach out to16,000 students; numbersnot available for sites inColumbus, Nashville, andNewark.

Economically disadvantagedelementary schools (continuesthrough college). In 1998-1999, there were 26 programswith an average of 121students served per program.

Students in El Paso's threelarge local school districts(approximately 86 percent ofthose districts' schools). Over160,000 students in threeurban and nine rural districtsare served by professionaldevelopment, leadership,policy, parental engagementand other systemwideinitiatives (PK-16) supportedby the El Paso Collaborativefor Academic Excellence.

Systemic/ProgrammaticAffecting an entire school orsystem across grades andsubjects / Focused only onselected students

Combination – a programthat focuses on systemicchange for a limited group ofstudents. Does not affectchange in an entire school ordistrict.

Programmatic

Programmatic

Programmatic

Systemic

Components of Program

K-16 partnerships. Programsinclude: comprehensiveservices (tutoring, mentoring,counseling), parentalinvolvement activities,curriculum and staffdevelopment, financial aid,postsecondary educationinformation, collegepreparation, counseling, andcollege visits.

Includes EducationalOpportunity Center, McNairPost-baccalaureateAchievement, studentsupport services, talentsearch, partnership program,staff training, Upward Bound(including math and science).

Scholarships, MOVE IT Math,Communities in Schools,Success for All, consistencymanagement andcooperative discipline.Focuses on creating a solidfoundation in reading andmath, self-esteemdevelopment, providingresources, and offeringscholarship support.

Mentoring, tutoring,enrichment.

Standards-based, alignedassessment and standards,whole school reform, teacherprofessional development,teacher preparation, alignedpolicies K-16, clearaccountability, technicalassistance, administratorprofessional development,district support, parentsupport and education, andoutreach to business andcivic leaders.

14


Early Outreach



Early Academic OutreachProgram (CA)State funding

Mathematics, Engineering,and Science Achievement(MESA -- CA, AZ, CO, MD,NM, OR, UT, and WA)State funding

PUENTE (CA)State funding

College Reach-Out Program(FL)State funding

Oklahoma Higher LearningAccess ProgramState funding


Educationally disadvantagedstudents in California.Approximately 85,000students served.

Educationally disadvantagedstudents and students fromgroups with low eligibilityrates for four-year colleges.Serves elementary gradesthrough college. In 2001-2002, MESA served thefollowing numbers ofstudents: 24,854 pre-collegestudents in California, 3,030in Colorado, 4,500 in NewMexico, and 4,935 inWashington. Oregon hasserved over 5,000 studentstotal. Utah is currentlyserving over 3,000 students.No numbers were availablefor Arizona and Maryland.

Educationally underservedstudents (54 communitycolleges and 36 highschools). Cumulatively,Puente has servedapproximately 20,000students directly and 280,000indirectly.

Educationallydisadvantaged,low-income students ingrades six through twelve. In 1998-1999, 7,869students were served.

Economically disadvantagedeighth, ninth, and tenthgraders (families must earnunder $50,000). Calculatingthe cumulative numberserved (for the classes of1996-2006), 28,620 studentshave been/are being served.


Programmatic


Programmatic

Programmatic

Programmatic, combined withsome systemic GEAR-UPactivities.


High-level curriculum,academic advising, testpreparation, residential programs, SaturdayAcademies.

MESA classes, summerprograms internships, careerand academic advising,student conferences,Saturday Academies,mathematics and sciencecompetitions, tutoring andmentoring, teacherprofessional development,parent workshops andconferences, studentworkshops and conferences,and student leadershipdevelopment.

Teaching, counseling andmentoring.

Motivate students to pursuecollege, develop basic skills,strengthen student andparent understandings of thebenefits of college, andsupplemental instruction.

Helps students pay forcollege and requires them totake 17 units of college pre-paration curriculum, maintaina 2.5 GPA or better, completehomework, not do drugs, usealcohol, or commit crimes,attend advising sessions,apply for other financial aid,and attend program activities.

Table 1 (continued)

15


Early Outreach

Very few of these programs can be called systemic inthe sense of being fully embedded in schools or col-leges. Only one could be classified as truly systemic innature – the El Paso Collaborative. Three showed evi-dence of combining programmatic and systemicapproaches – GEAR-UP, MESA, and the Children'sCrusade. The others offer more programmatic servicesto students.

Some of the state-level efforts are described in moredetail in the next section.

State-Level Pre-college Outreach Efforts

State programs in Florida, Oklahoma, and RhodeIsland provide different models for pre-college out-reach that can be helpful in considering the compo-nents of a more systemic approach. For each stateprogram identified below we discuss the programgoals, target populations, means of funding, eligibilitycriteria, and other factors that warrant consideration.

Florida

In 1983, the Florida Legislature established theCollege Reach-Out Program (CROP).

The program's purpose is to motivate and prepare edu-cationally and economically disadvantaged students in

grades six through twelve to pursue and successfullycomplete postsecondary education.

CROP participants are students who otherwise wouldbe unlikely to seek admission to a community college,state university, or independent postsecondary institu-tion without special support and recruitment efforts.Factors used to determine student eligibility include:the family's taxable income; family receipt of temporaryassistance under the Work and Gain Economic Self-Sufficiency (WAGES) Program in the preceding year;family receipt of public assistance in the precedingyear; the student's cumulative grade point average; thestudent's promotion and attendance patterns; the stu-dent's performance on state standardized tests; thestudent's enrollment in mathematics and sciencecourses; and the student's participation in a dropoutprevention program.

CROP serves approximately 9,300 students throughten state universities, twenty-six community colleges,and seven independent postsecondary institutions.Funds are appropriated by the Legislature to theDepartment of Education and allocated competitivelyto postsecondary institutions around the state.

Community colleges, universities, and independentpostsecondary institutions that participate in the pro-gram must provide procedures for continuous contact



Children's Crusade (RI)Non-profit with state andfederal funding


Economically disadvantagedstudents in grades 3 through12. Approximately 17,000students have been reachedby the Crusade.Approximately 500students/year currently gothrough the program.




The Crusade offers differentcomponents for each gradelevel. These include: beforeand after school literacyactivities, tutoring, communityservice, diagnostic testing andexam practice, college visits,identification of colleges,college application support,advising, college planning,attendance and grademonitoring, and weekend andsummer sessions.

Table 1 (continued)

16


Early Outreach

with students from the point at which they are selectedfor participation until they enroll in a postsecondaryeducation institution. Program activities must supportthe following goals: (1) Motivate students to pursue apostsecondary education; (2) Develop students' basiclearning skills; (3) Strengthen students' and parents'understanding of the benefits of postsecondary educa-tion; and (4) Foster academic, personal, and careerdevelopment through supplemental instruction. Inaddition, each program must have an evaluation com-ponent that provides for the collection, maintenance,retrieval, and analysis of data required by the state.

While Florida's CROP program is of limited size, itappears to have many of the crucial components ofpre-college outreach programs and policies in place,including: well-defined goals and objectives forstatewide pre-college outreach; and systematic waysto identify and target students, collect student dataacross segments, allocate funds, evaluate programs,and report data.3

Oklahoma

In 1992 Oklahoma established the Oklahoma HigherLearning Access Program (OHLAP), which is a center-piece of its outreach efforts. OHLAP is a systemic program that seeks to increase student preparation forand participation in postsecondary education through acollege scholarship incentive. In the following yearOklahoma also began implementing a systematic effortto use the Educational Planning and AssessmentSystem (EPAS) series developed by ACT to providewidespread, voluntary, diagnostic testing in English,math, reading, and science reasoning to students ingrades eight and ten. In addition to OHLAP and EPAS,Oklahoma, with GEAR-UP support, recently launcheda broad program of public outreach, using mass mar-keting techniques to increase awareness of college.

EPAS is designed to help schools align curriculum,evaluate instructional programs, use student achieve-ment data to improve college success, and prepare allstudents for postsecondary opportunity. In 1993, fourschool districts participated in the EPAS program. In2001, 244 school districts and thirty-seven privateschools participated in the program. The use of EPAShas helped students improve their preparation for col-lege, increased their enrollment in college preparationcourses, and improved their performance on collegeadmissions exams. In addition, more students of colorwho participate in the EPAS program are planning togo to college. EPAS and the public outreach programsbenefit all students in the state and are especially help-

ful in reaching students with limited access to informa-tion and help in preparing for college.

OHLAP's original design was to reach primarily eco-nomically disadvantaged students in urban centers. Asthe program came to enjoy to a broader state commit-ment, its target expanded to include students whosefamily income is $50,000 or less. Recent changes toOHLAP eligibility have produced large gains in studentparticipation. In the 2000-2001 school year – and thefirst year available to students whose family incomesare $50,000 or less – almost 9,500 students enrolled.The OHLAP Year-End 2000-01 report noted, "nearly asmany students enrolled in OHLAP in one year as thefirst eight years of the program combined (9,500 for2000-01 compared to 10, 800 total for 1992-93 through1999-00)." (Year-end report 2000-01) This report alsonoted nearly 50 percent of the first cohort of OHLAPstudents (1996 high school graduates) completed college in comparison to 33 percent of all first-time, full-time first-year college students (Mize and Fair 2002).

Supported largely by state funds but partially by feder-al GEAR-UP dollars, the program offers full tuition at apublic two- or four-year institutions or a partial scholar-ship at an accredited private college or university. Theprogram pays only for the hours in which students areactually enrolled and is available to students for a max-imum of five years.

In order to ensure that OHLAP students are prepared forcollege-level work, participating students must completea 17-unit core curriculum which includes the following classes: four years of English, two years of laboratory sciences, three years of math, two years ofhistory, one year of citizenship skills, two years of foreignlanguage or computer technology, two additional unitsfrom any of the subjects previously mentioned, and oneyear of fine arts or speech. To qualify for the scholarshipstudents must enroll in the eighth, ninth, or tenth gradeand meet several program requirements, including:

• Complete the seventeen-unit core curriculumbased on college admissions requirements;

• Graduate from high school;

• Maintain 2.5 GPA or better in the required core inhigh school;

• Maintain 2.5 GPA or better overall in high school;

• Complete required homework;

• Attend school regularly;

17


Early Outreach

• No drug or alcohol use;

• No criminal acts;

• Family income must not exceed $50,000;income is not reevaluated after initial eligibility isdetermined (Mize and Fair 2002).

The Oklahoma early outreach program does not pro-vide intensive services to substantial groups of students, but more than many state efforts, it has a"systemic" feel. Its EPAS and public outreach effortsreach virtually all students, and OHLAP is available toall students with financial need who work to meet theprogram requirements. These statewide initiatives aresupplemented by local programs, which provide moredirect services to individual students.

Rhode Island

In 1990 the Rhode Island Commission for HigherEducation promoted the creation of the Children'sCrusade, arguing that a substantial public commitmentis necessary to increase access to higher education forpoor children (Brandeis University 2002). The goal ofthe Crusade is to increase the number of poor studentssuccessfully enrolling in and completing a postsec-ondary program by providing a long-term interventionbeginning in the third grade with programmatic supports(mentoring, tutoring, etc.), coupled with a strong statecommitment in the form of tuition incentives. TheCrusade is a nonprofit organization supported by multi-ple funding sources including state and federal dollars.

From the first year of the program until the 1995-96school year (when all qualifying third graders couldparticipate), enrollment grew from 2,800 studentsannually to over 3,300. In response to an audit thatstated the Crusade was "impossibly large" and wouldnot be able to meet its scholarship commitments, theChildren's Crusade was redesigned to meet the needsof 500 students annually in the most economically dis-tressed school districts. In addition, the Crusademoved from primarily a "mentoring" model with a fewother support services, to an intervention model based on developmentally-oriented, highly individualized stu-dent programs supported by a wide array of options,including summer enrichment camps, scholarshipcounseling, and tutoring (Brandeis University 2002).

The Children's Crusade is unique among pre-collegeoutreach programs for several reasons. First, since itsinception the program has had a strong postsecondaryeducation component. In addition, the Crusade has

emphasized the importance of starting college prepa-ration early in a student's academic career by beginning in the third grade. The Crusade has alsoundertaken an independent external evaluation, madethe findings of that evaluation public, and responded tothe evaluation by creating a publicly available strategicplan. Finally, The Crusade is responsible for creatingthe College Access Alliance of Rhode Island (CAARI),a network of Rhode Island programs that seeks toincrease postsecondary opportunity and access for allof the state's students.4

The Crusade is an interesting model because itevolved from an initial broad statewide commitment toyoung students to a more intense but less systemiccommitment to 500 students. Since the Crusade wasdownsized over time, its evolution suggests an impor-tant question: Can we discover ways to incorporate thetechniques developed in the Crusade in all schools sothat the education system is more successful for allthird-grade students in Rhode Island?

Some of the states we examined have a number ofpre-college outreach programs, or widespread education reforms that attempt to link K-12 and post-secondary education; in the two instances that followwe describe general characteristics of programs inCalifornia and reforms in Oregon. This information maybe useful for states embarking on wide-scale reform.

California

California has a very diverse population of students,and a relatively tumultuous policy environment inwhich K-12 assessments and other reforms changefrequently, depending on the governor or political partyin power. The status of pre-college outreach programsreflects the overall nature of education policymaking inCalifornia. There are dozens of programs, with a variety of funding streams, goals, objectives, and pop-ulations of students being served. For example, theUniversity of California (UC) System runs approxi-mately fifteen pre-college outreach programs and partnerships, not including individual campus-basedefforts. These include:

1. Student-centered programs that provide tutoring,mentoring, academic preparation, collegecounseling and other services directly to K-12students;

18


Early Outreach

2. School partnerships that offer curriculum development, direct instruction, communityengagement and other assistance to many ofCalifornia's lowest-performing schools;

3. Professional development programs to increasethe skills and effectiveness of teachers andadministrators;

4. Programs that help community college studentsplan for transfer and advise students about grad-uate and professional school study.5

In 2001, more than 97,000 students participated in UC-led student-centered programs, nearly 100,000teachers were served by the professional developmentprograms, and UC-school partnerships extended to256 California schools. More than one-half of UC'spartner schools are elementary schools, and morethan one-fourth of all students participating in UC outreach programs are below the ninth grade. Theseprograms have played a role in preparing students forcollege enrollment: participants in UC outreach pro-grams now account for 30 percent of African AmericanUC freshmen and 33 percent of Latino UC freshmen.Both the California State University and theCommunity College System run their own pre-collegeoutreach programs, and there are numerous not-for-profit programs throughout the state as well.

The number of programs and the number of studentsinvolved in them is an indicator of the energy and com-mitment devoted to early outreach in California. But itis important to place these data in the context of thedemographics of the state. According to the 2000 cen-sus, California has 6.9 million youth between the agesof five and eighteen. Of the state's population, 26 per-cent are born outside the U.S., 39 percent have a language other than English spoken in the home, 46percent are white, non-Latino, and 14 percent of thepopulation (4.8 million people) live below the povertyline. The huge size and continuing growth of Californiamake it especially urgent that educators and policy-makers find ways of using the accumulated knowledgeof these programs to reach more students.

Oregon

The 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk raised con-cern about student performance nationally and calledfor higher standards and greater accountability.Oregon responded by re-thinking its educational sys-tem and developing in 1984 the "Oregon Plan forExcellence." This plan contained the seeds for the

1991 Oregon Educational Act for the Twenty-firstCentury, legislation that mandated the development ofthe current standards, assessments, and certificates.Important legislation from that act includes the author-ization of benchmarks for all students, assessed inthird, fifth, eighth, tenth, and twelfth grades; theCertificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), issued after gradeten; and the Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM),issued after grade twelve.6

In reaction to the 1991 legislation, the OregonUniversity System (OUS) developed the Proficiency-Based Admission Standards System (PASS) to reformthe admission process for Oregon's public universities.The goals of this reform were to ensure that studentsmeet a high standard of academic preparation prior tomatriculation into an OUS institution, and to develop anadmission system that focuses on proficiencies ratherthan time spent in a classroom.

Although the CIM, CAM, and PASS have different his-tories, philosophies, and overall goals, they are oftenviewed as part of the same education reform package.They are, however, two distinctly separate, but interre-lated, sets of reforms. Philosophically, these reformscould create a system in which all students are prepared for college or the workforce (through thecompletion of a CAM), and most if not all are preparedfor college (by meeting PASS proficiencies). The reali-ty, however, is different, since development of theCertificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM) has stalledmultiple times, and PASS has been implemented inapproximately sixty schools with two to four teachersbeing trained per school (Bueschel and Venezia 2001).

Oregon's experience illustrates the challenges of sys-temic reform. While a detailed analysis of the Oregonexperience is beyond the scope of this paper, oneclear lesson is that systemic reform will take persist-ence and time.

One clear lesson is that

systemic reform will take

persistence and time.

19


Early Outreach

The Problem with the Status Quo: Areasof Concern and Obstacles to Change

A major problem already discussed in this brief is thatthe current focus is on programs and not on systems.Another central issue facing pre-college outreach pro-grams is determining whether or not they work. Who isserved? How well are they served? Are more studentscollege-ready? Are more students enrolling in and com-pleting postsecondary education? Compounding thisproblem is a lack of program information. There are fewrigorous, independent, program evaluations. One exter-nal evaluation cited in this policy brief, by BrandeisUniversity for Rhode Island's Children's Crusade(2002), summarized challenges many evaluators face:

How to define a "Crusader experience" present-ed a stubborn problem for this evaluation. NoCrusade cohort has received consistent treat-ment every year, and even within cohorts thereare significant differences in Crusaders' experi-ences. Programs offered one year by communityservice providers might or might not have beenrepeated the next year. Sites have changed.Some Crusader programs report difficulty meet-ing their recruitment goals and acknowledge thatCrusaders may participate in other, non-targetedprograms. The nature of the individual supportshave also changed year to year.

While these are definitely evaluation problems, it is dif-ficult to tell how these changes have impacted studentsand the overall goals of the Crusade. The evaluationcontinues: "But it is the seventh-grade cohort thatshows us whether the Crusade holds promise in thelong run as a college access strategy for Rhode Island;whether the new strategy – with its myriad adaptationsto individual lives and needs – appears to be develop-ing in a positive way." Even though the variations madeit a difficult program to evaluate, the evaluation's overall view of the Crusade is positive: "If one had toproject the likelihood of success from institutional flex-ibility and growth, and reported enthusiasm of its 'new'lead cohort, it is hard not to bet on this organization."

The Crusade stands out because it had an externalevaluation conducted, and it used that information forprogram improvement, but this process also points toan inherent tension. In order to conduct rigorous anduseful evaluations, evaluators need good, longitudinal,consistent data and intervention strategies. Programs,on the other hand, need to have a level of profession-al autonomy and flexibility to meet the needs of indi-

viduals. We can not solve that tension here, but we dobelieve that programs must reconcile these issues sothat they can be evaluated, improve their practices,and be sure they are serving students well.

While external evaluations might not always lead to program

improvement, they are a goodindicator of whether or

not programs are getting theinformation they need to

understand how well they are serving students' needs.

Program variability is not necessarily an inherentweakness, and it might not be possible to have amodel of best practices. But pre-college outreach pro-grams must hold themselves accountable for resultswith a rigorous, visible system for measuring out-comes. They must improve over time, and it is reason-able to compare similar programs with each other.7

Currently, there are many evaluation-related prob-lems in the field. These issues have been citedthroughout the literature on pre-college outreach pro-grams; many of the programs share similar obstaclesand problems (Gandara 2001, Tierney and Hagedorn2002). These shortcomings are often due to a lack ofresources, and many of these issues are well-docu-mented. They include:

• The fact that students who need services maynot be reached;

• A programmatic structure that cannot changewhole school, system/district, or state culturesbecause of its limited focus;

• Programs selecting students who show "promise"instead of working with all students or focusing onstudents who have the greatest need;

• The failure of programs to articulate their goalsand objectives in measurable ways;

• Lack of rigorous evaluations;

20


Early Outreach

• Difficulty in comparing sites within one programbecause there are different goals, objectives,and other characteristics;

• Lack of good data collection procedures andmethods of tracking students after they leave theprogram.

This latter oversight is particularly problematic for pro-grams that focus on getting students to college; theyoften do not know if their students were academicallyor psychologically prepared for college.

Another major issue before policymakers and educa-tors is to examine data from key student transitionpoints in their states. A first step in this direction is toexamine areas of student transition from pre-schoolthrough postsecondary education and calculate realand unmet need. Depending on the state, the datareveal different policy issues. For example, in Georgiaand Oklahoma, for every 100 students that begin theninth grade, only eleven will complete a postsecondarydegree. On the surface, it appears that these twostates have the same problem, and indeed both statesmay seek to address the number of students who suc-cessfully complete their degrees. A more in-depth look

A New Way of Thinking About Pre-College Outreach

Conceptualizing, developing, implementing, and evalu-ating pre-college outreach programs that are part of abroader P-16 system is important because theapproach to student learning becomes one of studentsuccess over time, as opposed to piecemeal programsin which students are treated for impending "failure." Itis the difference between prevention and stopgap after-the-fact efforts. In a true P-16 system, public educationis constructed from the point of view of the student – notthe practitioner or administrator. Therefore, from thestudent's perspective, how does the system look differ-ent? It would have the following characteristics:

• The gaps in knowledge, skill, and ability levelsfrom one grade to the next are reduced.

• The need for college-level developmental, orremediation education, is diminished.

• The student can trust that she will be prepared toenter the next grade ready to succeed.

• Students do not need to guess how to get intocollege, how much college costs, or how to meetthese costs. They learn about those issuesthroughout the course of their K-12 years andare thus able to make educated choices abouttheir futures.

• Students do not need to guess what coursesthey need to take to prepare well for college.

• Students have college mentors and advisors ateach level of education; every teacher is a college advisor; every school counselor is anadvocate for equitable opportunities throughoutK-12 and for student success after high school.

• Student achievement is addressed throughoutK-12, and also in the critical early years – pre-K-3. In these years, students learn the basicskills that they will apply in later grades. In short,these fundamental skills are literacy based.From K-3 students learn how to read, after thirdgrade students read to learn.8

Comparing programmatic responses – efforts that donot reach all students – to systemic reform could looklike this:

In a true P-16 system,public education is

constructed from the point of view of the student

– not the practitioner or administrator.

at the data suggests that the end of the studentpipeline is not where these states should concentratetheir policy efforts. In Georgia, for every 100 studentswho begin the ninth grade, fifty drop out before highschool graduation (Ewell, Jones, and Kelly 2003). Theproblem in Oklahoma is different and manifests itself inthe number of high school graduates enrolling in post-secondary education. For every 100 students whobegin the ninth grade, thirty-six will not go to collegeeven though they have graduated from high school(Ewell, Jones, and Kelly 2003). The message here isthat one solution does not fit every state. States needto examine their data to find areas of success, existinggaps, and unmet needs.

21


Early Outreach

lege outreach must be based in rigorous curriculum;state structures must be in place to support qualityteaching; financial aid must be available for students totake advantage of postsecondary education; and edu-cators must be held accountable for student resultswith data-driven diagnostic and accountability sys-tems. The sectors are all connected.

Policy Recommendations

What steps are needed for a state to progress from aprogrammatic to a systemic approach to pre-collegeoutreach? Below are two sets of policy recommenda-tions – one for the short term and the other for the longterm. This paper proposes that states move away fromprogrammatic outreach programs and toward systemicstate systems; however, it is not proposing an elimina-tion of programs until all students are served well.Since that day may be long in coming, some form ofpre-college outreach programs will be needed. Therecommendations listed below account for theseissues. In this time of economic scarcity, it is crucialthat states view college preparation and P-16 reformas investments – investments that can help drive stateeconomies and improve the quality of people's lives.

Short-term recommendations:

• Engage K-12 and postsecondary education in adiscussion regarding P-16 reform; develop goalsand a set of desired outcomes. Plan a strategy tomeet those goals.

• Develop a clear message and stick to it (anexample is the Education Trust's College Beginsin Kindergarten).

• Develop a public engagement strategy regardingP-16 reform and outreach.

• Establish recognizable, transparent, and pre-dictable policies between education sectors.Achieving this goal will require working with post-secondary education to ensure, for example, thatits entrance standards are clearly articulated.

• As a state pursues its P-16 work, it must devel-op, or continue to support, pre-college outreachprograms to assist students during the imple-mentation of P-16.

• Develop and implement diagnostic testing pro-grams based on high standards for all students.

Examples of Programmatic andSystemic Policy Responses

Programmatic

Tutoring

Mentoring

Cultural sensitivity

Evaluation

Programmatic/ local policies Annual testing Remediation

Systemic

High quality curriculum andinstruction All educators trained tomentorCultural and individualsensitivityP-16 data collection, usage,and accountabilityState policies with flexibility forlocal needsDiagnostic assessment High standards and collegepreparation opportunities forevery student

In short, an ideal pre-college program would not be aprogram at all. Rather, it would be a coordinated, cohe-sive, seamless system of education in which all students are prepared for postsecondary opportunities.This does not mean that 100 percent of high schoolgraduates will or should go to college. It does, however,mean that 100 percent of students who graduate fromhigh school will be prepared to go to college if they sochoose, and will be able to make informed decisionsabout their futures. In many ways, pre-college pro-grams are a response to a system that is not working.There should be no need to extend outreach to a fewstudents; all students should be prepared to go tosome form of postsecondary education. However, thatis a description of an ideal world that we might neversee. While we struggle with these issues in the realworld, it is important to support pre-college outreachprograms that provide high-quality essential servicesto students, while at the same time working to ensurethat all students have the opportunity to prepare wellfor college.

Who needs to be involved? Every sector of educationmust be involved; ideally, this should not be a set ofreforms driven from the top down. While many pre-col-lege outreach programs are sponsored by postsec-ondary institutions, some institutions and systems ofpostsecondary education continue to behave asthough they are completely separate from the publicschool system. Teachers must seek not only to helpstudents learn the subject material at hand but also toprepare students for postsecondary success; pre-col-

22


Early Outreach

• Have measurable, articulated goals and objec-tives.

• Mandate that all state-funded programs collectrelevant data and conduct external, rigorousevaluations.

• Use evaluations as diagnostic tools that improveservices offered to students and increase stu-dent success.

• Fund evaluations, and provide technical assis-tance to programs.

• Involve the business community early.

Long-term recommendations:

Watson Scott Swail and Laura Perna, in The CollegeBoard's 2001 Outreach Program Handbook, proposedfour long-term policy recommendations that are con-sistent with this paper's perspective. They are:

• Ramp-up current outreach activities to reachmore of our youth.

• Improve the instructional quality and delivery ofoutreach programs.

• Expand opportunities for networking among pro-grams.

• Link outreach programs directly to our schoolsand long-terms systemic plans.

We also add the following:

• Address course-taking patterns; make sure allstudents have access to college preparatoryclasses and are prepared for the next stage ofschooling. For example, students must partici-pate in algebra by the end of eighth grade.

• Improve data systems at the state level. Statesneed to connect their K-12 and postsecondarydata systems together, and connect those withdata systems from large-scale pre-college out-reach programs. Evaluations must be conductedboth in the short term and in the long term.States must be able to answer the questions ofhow the pre-college outreach programs help stu-dents today and how they help students fifteenyears from now.

• Improve data systems at the programmatic level.Pre-college outreach programs must collect data

on their students and analyze the data to understand if they are achieving their goals andserving students well. As with state-wide datasystems, evaluations must be conducted both inthe short term and in the long term by programsin order to improve their effectiveness.

• Work with education programs, unions, andassociations to train teachers and counselors inways that make it possible for them to includeeffective college preparation and advising inevery high school classroom.

• Once good evaluations are completed, use thatinformation to change state policy, by eliminatingwhat does not work and incorporating what doesinto the education system as a whole.

Summary

Preparation for, and participation in, postsecondaryeducation for all students is a difficult proposition to ful-fill. There are educational inequities that result from different perceptions about who should go to college,who is prepared for college, what it means to be college-ready, and whether college is affordable. Inaddition, the current early childhood, K-12, and post-secondary systems are disjointed and often connectedonly by policies and programs that are confusing forstudents and their parents. Currently, students' oppor-tunities to learn and prepare for college are inequitable;since almost all students attend college after highschool, it makes no sense to continue to prepare onlyan elite group of students for the demands of postsec-ondary education.9

There are hundreds of programs, but no system, orcenter; thus, the programs place the burden ofimprovement on the student with comparatively littleconcern for how the system itself might change to meetstudents' needs. The lack of sound evaluation com-pounds these problems by making it difficult to assesswhether or not the programs are truly meeting stu-dents' needs.

A P-16 system with a focus on pre-college outreach for all students would be more focused on preventionand success than is the current system. Success in this context means ensuring that all students who grad-uate from high school would have the information andpreparation they need to succeed in some form of post-secondary education. In order to fulfill the purpose ofpreparing all students for the opportunity to participatein postsecondary education, states will need to move

23


Early Outreach

www.pewundergradforum.org/project8.html,www.ucop.edu, http://studentservices.fgcu.edu/CROP/,www.okhighered.org/ohlap/, and www.childrenscrusade.org/.

Also used were: The College Board 2001;Communication Works, LLC 2002; and The CanadianMillennium Scholarship Foundation 2003.

3 http://studentservices.fgcu.edu/CROP/.4 www.collegeaccessri.org/about.htm.

5 www.ucop.edu

6 Recent policy changes have shifted the focus fromgrade level performance to overall benchmarks.Rather than grades three, five, and eight, the assess-ments refer to benchmarks one, two, and three.

7 An exception is Mathematica's longitudinal study ofUpward Bound. Although this study showed that par-ticipants generally have higher expectations, "UpwardBound appeared to have no impact high school gradu-ation or college enrollment." See Myers and Schrim(2000).

8 Pre-college outreach programs that start as late asthe third grade have started too late. Students who arenot on grade level reading by the end of the first gradeare unlikely to be on grade level reading by the end ofthird grade, and if they are not on grade level readingby the end of third grade their chances of graduatingfrom high school are slim. See Juel 1988; Slavin,Karweit, and Wasik 1993.

9 See, for example, Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio 2003.

References

Berkner, L., and L. Chavez. 1997. Access toPostsecondary Education for the 1992 High SchoolGraduates. PEDAR Report, NCES 98-105.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics.

Brandeis University. 2002. "Every Child Holds theAnswer: Rhode Island Children's Crusade." BrandeisUniversity Evaluation, January 2002.

Bueschel, Andrea and Andrea Venezia. 2001. "OregonTechnical Report," for Stanford University's BridgeProject. Stanford, California: Stanford Institute forHigher Education Research.

beyond a programmatic approach to a more systemicapproach encompassing every student in every school.A cautionary note is essential, however: a worst-casescenario would be for states to reduce their support forpre-college outreach programs while not improving andcoordinating their current educational systems.

While the need for pre-college outreach programs willprobably never be eliminated, this paper urges statesand regions to include components from successfulpre-college outreach programs (e.g., providing collegeadmissions and course placement information to allstudents, and ensuring that all students have access tocollege preparatory courses and tutoring) in every stu-dent's day-to-day schooling experiences. Addressingpre-college outreach systemically may be more difficultin the short run, but it is the only way to serve all stu-dents equitably. In spite of, or precisely because of thefact that states face shrinking budgets, this is an erathat requires us to rethink our current approach to pre-college outreach, and develop new ways of provid-ing postsecondary information and opportunities for all students.

In order to fulfill the purpose ofpreparing all students for theopportunity to participate in

postsecondary education, states willneed to move beyond a

programmatic approach to a moresystemic approach encompassing

every student in every school.

Endnotes1 See, for example, Mortenson (2000), Gladieux andSwail (1998), Horn and Chen (1998), Berkner andChavez (1997).

2 The following websites were used for this table:www.ed.gov/gearup/,www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/HEP/trio/, www.projectgradusa.org/, www.ihad.org/,www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/1999/fb010899.htm,www.epcae.org/,

24


Early Outreach

Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation. 2003.Investing Early: Intervention Programs in SelectedU.S. States. Montreal: The Canadian MillenniumScholarship Foundation.

College Board. 2001. 2001 Outreach ProgramHandbook. New York: The College Board.

Communication Works, LLC. 2002. Capturing theCollege Potential of Students from Under-servedPopulations: An Analysis of Efforts to Overcome Socialand Financial Barriers to College. Prepared for thePathways to College Network and the College Board.

Cunningham, Alisa, Christina Redmond, and JamieMerisotis. 2003. Investing Early: Intervention Programsin Selected U.S. States. Montreal: The CanadianMillennium Scholarship Foundation.

Ewell, Peter T., Dennis P. Jones, and Patrick Kelly.2003. Conceptualizing and Researching theEducational Pipeline. Boulder, Colorado: NationalCenter for Higher Education Management Systems.

Gandara, Patricia. 2001. Paving the Way toPostsecondary Education: K-12 Intervention Programsfor Underrepresented Youth. Washington, DC:National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.Working Group on Access to PostsecondaryEducation.

Gladieux, Lawrence E. and Watson S. Swail. 1998."Financial Aid is Not Enough: Improving the Odds ofCollege Success," The College Board Review, 185:16-21, 30-31.

Hiner, N. Ray. 1998. "The Past and Future of AmericanPublic Education." 1998-99 Budig Teaching ProfessorAddress, The University of Kansas, October 2, 1998.

Horn, L., and X. Chen. 1998. Toward Resiliency: "At-Risk" Students Who Make it to College. PEDARReport, Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation, Office of Educational Research andImprovement.

Juel, Connie. 1988. "Learning to Read and Write: ALongitudinal Study of 54 Children from First throughFourth Grades," Journal of Educational Psychology,22: 437-47.

Mize, Dolores A. and Bryce Fair. 2002. "OklahomaEducational Planning and Assessment Systems(EPAS) and the Oklahoma Higher Learning Accesss

Program (OHLAP): Systemic Approaches to StudentSuccess." NGA Center for Best Practices, LearningLab, April 16-17, 2002.

Mortenson, Thomas. July 2000. "College Participationfor Students from Low Income Families by State, 1992to 1998." Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY.Oskaloosa, Iowa: Postsecondary Education OPPOR-TUNITY.

Myers D. and A. Schrim. 2000. The Impacts of UpwardBound: Final Report for Phase I of the NationalEvaluation. Washington DC: U.S. Department ofEducation, Planning and Evaluation Services.

Oklahoma Higher Learning Access Program. 2001.Year-End 2000-02 Report. Oklahoma City: OklahomaHigher Learning Access Program.

Perna, Laura W. and W. Scott Swail. 2002. "Pre-College Outreach and Early Intervention." Thought andAction: The NEA Higher Education Journal, 2002.

Rainwater, Terese and Spud Van de Water. 2001. Whatis P-16 Education: A Primer for Legislators. Denver:Education Commission of the States.

Slavin, Robert E., Nancy L. Karweit, and BarbaraWasik. 1993. Preventing Early School Failure:Research on Effective Strategies. Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

Swail, W. Scott and Laura W. Perna. 2001. "A View ofthe Landscape: Results of The National Survey ofOutreach Programs." 2001 Outreach ProgramHandbook. New York: The College Board.

Tafel, Jonathan and Nancy Eberhart. 1999. StatesSchool-College (K-16) Partnerships to ImproveStudent Performance. Denver: State Higher EducationExecutive Officers.

Tierney, William G. and Linda Serra Hagedorn, editors.2002. Increasing Access to College: ExtendingPossibilities for all Students. Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

Venezia, Andrea, Michael W. Kirst, and AnthonyAntonio. March 2003. Betraying the College Dream:How Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary EducationSystems Undermine Student Aspirations. Stanford,California: Stanford Institute for Higher EducationResearch.

25


Early Outreach

27

by Janis Somerville and Yun Yi

Cur r icu lum and

AssessmentSys tems

ueled by a new labor market that places a high premium on knowledge and skills, the appetite of youngAmericans for postsecondary education has reached record levels. In the decade of the 1990's alone, thecollege-going rate of recent high school graduates increased by almost twenty percentage points. Currently,

over 75 percent enroll in some form of postsecondary education within two years of high school graduation, andnational surveys of younger students and their parents suggest that, in the years ahead, 90 percent of high schoolstudents plan to earn a college degree (United States Department of Education 1998).

Unfortunately, increased college access has not yielded a commensurate increase in degrees completed. Duringthe same ten-year period when college entry increased by twenty points, degree completion increased by only ninepercentage points. For minority students, the gap between college access and success was even greater. The col-lege-going rate of African Americans increased by twenty-one percentage points over the decade, but degreescompleted increased by only seven points. Among Latinos, the fastest growing of all minority groups, college goingfluctuated during the decade, with a net increase of only 2 percent and completion rates that actually declined.

The problem, of course, is not new. There has always been a difference between the number of students enteringtwo- and four-year colleges and the number completing a degree. What is new is the sheer number of young peo-ple caught in the middle and the economic consequences for them. Until now, however, the debate has centeredless on what to do about this problem and more on where to place blame.

Aligning K-12 and Postsecondary Expectations: State Policy in Transition1

High schools , and students themselves, present the most convenient targets. Indeed, there is some evidence thatwhile more students are taking "college prep" courses, the academic standards and effort expected in those cours-es may have slipped. Confronted with such criticisms, however, high school leaders are not wrong to ask inresponse: How can they be expected to prepare students adequately for higher education when colleges and uni-

F

28



versities cannot reach consensus among themselvesabout what constitutes college readiness?

Lacking clear guidance from educators on root causes,policymakers frequently find themselves tackling thesymptoms. For example, when faced with the increas-ing costs of remedial courses for students who arrive infour-year colleges underprepared, they may use policylevers to "reduce" those costs by prohibiting remedia-tion at four-year colleges. The effect is to relocate theproblem – and the students – to "lower-cost" communi-ty colleges, but not to solve it. Indeed, by increasing thenumber of transitions for students, these very samepolicies may well make college completion rates worse.

Somewhere along the way, most higher educationleaders as well as policymakers appear to haveresigned themselves to the notion that low rates of col-lege completion and widening gaps among groups arethe inevitable price of maintaining access – the best, inother words, that higher education institutions or theirstudents can be expected to achieve.

causing students to falter and fail. And they are seek-ing out bolder strategies to yield the big improvementsneeded in achievement, kindergarten through college.

Why Now? The Economic Imperative

More than ever before, the fastest-growing and thebest-paying jobs go hand in hand with higher skills andeducation. More than two-thirds of those in the grow-ing, good-paying jobs have some postsecondary education, and this rate is projected to increase sub-stantially. By 2008, the total number of jobs requiringadvanced skills is predicted to grow twice as fast asthose requiring only basic skills (United StatesDepartment of Labor 2000a, b).

It is not just the white-collar jobs that are experiencingincreased skill requirements. In today's labor market, most occupations, including those traditionally conceived as lower-skilled occupations such assales/service and blue-collar jobs, now demandgreater skill and education levels from workers. Overthe past twenty-five years, the total number of workerswith at least some college education has nearly dou-bled, while the number of workers in traditionally lower-skilled jobs with at least some college education morethan tripled (Carnevale 2000).

As the knowledge and skill demands of the new econ-omy have increased, there is increasing consensusamong economists (and among families) that virtuallyall young people need the knowledge and skills neces-sary to benefit from postsecondary education – both onthe job and in formal postsecondary institutions. Inshort, whether a student progresses from postsec-ondary education to a job, or to a first job which ultimately leads to enrollment in postsecondary educa-tion, all students need high-level academic knowledgeand skills associated with college preparatory studies(National Commission on the High School Senior Year 2001).

Taking Action, P-16: Aligning High School Graduation and College Entry Expectations

The K-12 standards movement offered an opportunityto address this problem head on. The core idea was toestablish a single set of rigorous academic standardsto which all students in a state would be educated.These standards would create a framework for stateassessments that would both measure individual stu-dent achievement and enable policymakers and the

Somewhere along the way,most higher education leaders

appear to have resigned themselvesto the notion that low rates of college completion and

widening gaps among groups are the inevitable price of

maintaining access.

Fortunately, however, a growing number of state edu-cation leaders actively reject this line of thinking. Theseleaders, who hail from both higher education and K-12institutions, are challenging the long-standing assump-tions that allow so many students to exit high schoolunprepared for further education. Sure, they say, thesepractices may have been acceptable in the old econo-my. But they are not acceptable in an era when individual success and societal well-being depend somuch on knowledge, skills, and the ability to benefitfrom further learning opportunities.

Together these leaders are identifying root causes ofthe current disconnects between their systems that are

29



public to examine the effectiveness of individualschools in teaching their students.

on the college placement tests. Many will find out – toolate to do anything about it – that what they and theirteachers don't know about the college tests can indeedhurt them.

Several researchers as well as policy organizationslike the State Higher Education Executive Officers(SHEEO) and the Education Trust have stressed thecritical need for states to come to agreement on a sin-gle system of standards and assessments that is rigor-ous enough to prepare students for college-levelstudy.2 Such a system would help students avert theunseen gaps in expectations that are implicit in the dif-ferent tests. Already, a few systems and states aremoving on this issue. But most have yet to act.

Course Requirements Affecting High SchoolStudents: Critical to Improvement

Lining up curricular expectations may, however, beeven more important. Students who take more college-preparatory courses are much more likely than otherstudents to master the skills and knowledge necessaryto succeed in postsecondary study. Not surprisingly,they perform much higher on college placement tests.Moreover, recent research makes it very clear that thesingle most important determinant of whether studentssucceed in college is the "quality and intensity" of thecurriculum they take in high school (Adelman 1999).However, many students, including many bound forhigher education, do not take a high-quality curriculumduring their high school years.

In most states, statewide boards of education specifythe courses students need to complete in order to beawarded a high school diploma. Logically, thesecourse requirements should be driven by the academ-ic standards that virtually all states have now set. Intruth, however, many of these requirements were setwell before the standards process was even contem-plated, and they have not been revisited since. As of2002, some forty-two states specify at least the mini-mum number of courses students must complete ineach content area (most of these also allow districts toadd to that minimum). The remaining eight states leavethis decision entirely to local school districts (Council ofChief State School Officers 2001).

State board policy is not the only factor affecting deci-sions made by high schools and high school students,however. Higher education institutions also requiretheir entering students to complete specified coursesduring their high school years, although in many statesthey have not reached a consensus on college

High schools and high school students remain subject

to multiple sets of signals on what is important for students to learn.

But the promise of standards to refocus high schoolson the goal of equipping all students with the core aca-demic skills necessary to succeed in postsecondaryeducation has gone largely unfulfilled. Why? The stan-dards movement in K-12 was underway before mostpolicymakers or educators fully realized how rapidlythe demands of the workplace and postsecondaryeducation were converging. As a consequence, highereducation was not a partner in the standard-settingprocess. Yes, nearly every standard-setting commis-sion had a professor or two. But they were there large-ly as disciplinary experts, not as representatives oftheir universities, and not armed with the collectiveconsensus of their colleagues on the skills and knowl-edge that entering college students should have.Consequently, high schools and high school studentsremain subject to multiple sets of signals on what isimportant for students to learn.

Aligning Standards and Assessments

During the last part of high school, most students findthemselves taking at least three sets of high-stakesassessments. Though each more or less attempts tomeasure the student's learning in high school, they arelargely uncoordinated with each other. The first setconsists of the state high school standards-basedassessments required in most states for graduation. Incontrast to other countries, however, these tests do notcount for college admission; students take another setof exams for that purpose. And finally, in most two- and four-year public colleges there is a third set of"placement" tests, which is to most students a largelyinvisible hurdle. These tests are administered after astudent enters college, and performance determines ifa student will be able to enroll in college-level study.

For many young people each of these hurdles is scary.But few realize just how high the stakes are, especially

30



preparatory curricula. In thirty states public four-yearcolleges have reached a consensus on the minimumnumber of courses – and often the topics of thosecourses – that students must complete in each disci-pline to be ready for college-level study. In the remain-ing states, individual colleges set their requirements.

state, we looked at what K-12 required – both in termsof the number of courses and the subject matter. Wethen compared that with the requirements fromstatewide higher education institutions within the state(Somerville and Yi 2002a).

What We Found

1. Very Little Consensus Between K-12 andHigher Education: In almost no state is thereconsensus across the two systems on the cours-es students should take in high school. The twosystems are closer together on the numbers ofcourses required than on topics. And they arecloser in some subject areas than others. But inmost states, even students who follow all the rules in high school have no guarantee of meeting postsecondary education's courserequirements.

2. Higher Education – The Missing Partner:Higher education is arguably the most remiss inachieving consensus on curriculum require-ments. In many states, institutions of higher education have yet to come to agreement oneither numbers of courses or topics (even forreading comprehension, writing, and mathemat-ics) to clarify the path necessary to be preparedfor college-level study.

3. Too Much Variation, Even Among HighSchool Graduation Requirements: But there isalso a surprising – indeed, almost stunning –amount of variation among states in their K-12graduation requirements, with some states clear-ly having responded much more aggressively tothe changes in the workplace.

These were problems pointed out some twenty yearsago in the report entitled, A Nation at Risk (NationalCommission on the High School 1983).

• In mathematics, for example, some states do notrequire even that students complete algebra 1,while others require also geometry and algebra 2/trigonometry. Indeed, some state K-12 systemsask for more advanced mathematics courseworkthan do the higher education systems in otherstates.

• In science, some state K-12 boards require nolaboratory science courses at all, while othersrequire two or even three.

At the very least,the two systems must agree

on a course of study in the two disciplines – mathematics

and English language arts – that mediate success

in all other areas of study.

Bringing course requirements for the high school diplo-ma into line with state standards is an important step;however, it won't be enough unless K-12 and highereducation come to agreement on a rigorous course ofstudy that will both enable students to meet state stan-dards and assure that they are equipped with the skillsand knowledge for further study. At the very least, thetwo systems must agree on a course of study in thetwo disciplines – mathematics and English languagearts – that mediate success in all other areas of study.

Do K-12 and Higher Education Agree? DataCollection

For the past five years the National Association ofSystem Heads (NASH) and the Education Trust havesupported a network of K-12 and higher educationleaders from over twenty states as they have worked toraise achievement and close gaps among differentgroups of students in grades K-16. A key focus of thecross-state collaboration has been to develop a clearunderstanding of the components of a policy strategyto align K-12 and college standards and practices for students.

In the summer and fall of 2002, with support from theU.S. Department of Education, and the EducationTrust, NASH staff conducted phone interviews with K-12 and higher education officials and researched theWeb sites of state education agencies in all fifty statesto gather state curriculum requirements for high schoolgraduation and college entry/admissions. In each

31



And interestingly, the states that have taken the mostdecided action on these issues are not necessarily theones that are thought of in reform circles as"advanced" states.

Why Do These Differences Matter?

Because not all students will – or should – end up in afour-year college, one might reasonably ask why weshould care about any differences between K-12 andthe college sector. The answers here are simple.

1. Students who complete a full college preparatorycurriculum are less likely to require remedialcoursework in college.

Many recent high school graduates are arriving at col-lege, diploma in hand, but woefully unprepared. Sincethe time that A Nation at Risk turned a spotlight on thelow requirements of high school curricula, there hasbeen progress, but not nearly enough. Many stateshave increased curriculum requirements, and a full 47percent of recent high school graduates now completethe number of units recommended in that report.However, that number is far shy of the 75 percent-plusof high school graduates continuing to postsecondaryeducation. Even that percentage difference under-states the problem, for accumulating a set number ofcourse units does not guarantee that students havebeen taught the content that characterizes a typicalcollege-preparatory course of study.

As a consequence, one of every two college studentslands in what are essentially high school-level courses –remedial, non-credit bearing courses aimed at helpingstudents learn the basic skills in reading, writing and/ormathematics that students should have mastered inhigh school. If this remediation consists of a brush-upcourse or two, the consequences in terms of eventual

graduation are not severe. However, students whoneed three or more classes have a slim chance of evercompleting a degree. Remediation appears to be amajor factor in explaining why over one-quarter of allstudents who enter four-year colleges and more than40 percent of those who enter two-year colleges do notreturn even for the second year (Adelman 1998).

Accumulating a set number of course units

does not guarantee that studentshave been taught

the content that characterizes a typical college-preparatory

course of study.

The biggest factor in whetherstudents actually get a college degree is

the quality and intensity ofthe high school curriculum,

not their grades,not their SAT or ACT scores.

2. Even in "open admissions" institutions there arehidden hurdles for students who have not com-pleted a college-preparatory curriculum

Students bound for two-year colleges often take onlythe minimum number of courses required for highschool graduation in the mistaken belief that what theytake in high school does not matter. But while two-yearcolleges may appear to be open admissions with nocourse or other requirements for admission, in factmany of the actual programs to which the studentsseek admission are at least as selective as those offour-year colleges.

Moreover, even students who are not aiming at thesemore selective programs must take and pass place-ment tests before they are admitted to credit-bearingcourses. Unbeknownst to many students, these teststypically assume completion of a set of courses similarto those required for admission to four-year colleges.The freshmen who do not pass these tests are enrollednot in the college-level work they expected to take, butin high school-level "remedial" courses.

3. Completion of a rigorous college preparatorycurriculum is the single most important predictorof who will complete college.

In a careful study of high school and college tran-scripts, researchers at the U.S. Department ofEducation have proved what many long believed to be

32



true: that the biggest factor in whether students actual-ly get a college degree is the quality and intensity ofthe high school curriculum. Not their grades, not theirSAT or ACT scores: what matters most is in fact thecoursework they took in high school. And this goes forall groups of students – regardless of racial/ethnicbackground. Adelman (1999) has shown that the col-lege graduation rates increase for all students whotook a strong high school curriculum. In addition, thegap among racial/ethnic groups narrows significantly.

4. Benefits Beyond College

Finally, a host of recent studies makes it clear that thecollege-preparatory curriculum confers benefits farbeyond college:3

• Student skills and knowledge grow far more inrigorous college-preparatory courses than inother courses. This is true even for bottom-quar-tile students.

Summary of a More Detailed Look at Mathematics High School Graduation Course Requirements:

Following are current statewide courserequirements in mathematics for a high schooldiploma:

The Numbers• 8 states have no statewide requirements• 17 require two years• 23 require three years• 2 require four years

By Topic • 8 states have no statewide requirements• 26 specify number but not topic• 16 require at least algebra 1

– of these, 8 require above algebra 1– of these, 2 require algebra 2

College Admissions Course Requirements:

Thirty states have statewide course requirementsfor admission into college. The following arecurrent statewide course requirements inmathematics for college admissions:

The Numbers• 21 have no statewide requirements• 0 require two years• 25 require three years• 4 require four years

By Topic • 21 states have no statewide requirements • 1 specifies number but not topic• 28 require at least algebra 1

– of these, 8 require above algebra 1– of these, 20 require algebra 2

Within-State Alignment:

• 10 states have K-16 agreement on at least the number of mathematics courses students should takein high school;

• 1 state (Oklahoma) has reached K-16 agreement on both number and topic.• 10 states have K-16 agreement by topic on at least algebra 1, but higher education requires more;• 4 states have K-16 agreement by topic on at least algebra 1 and geometry, but higher education

requires more;• In 2 states, Alabama and Texas, the K-12 system requires all students to complete algebra 1, geom-

etry and algebra 2 – the courses that, nationally, are normally required for admission to college. Ineffect, then, they are probably "aligned." However, in those two states, there are no statewide (or evensystem) higher education course requirements for all freshmen.

Table 1

33



• Students enrolled in the more rigorous coursesdo not have increased failure rates; in fact therate of failure in such classes often declines.Yes, some students will fail the more difficultcourses, but interestingly, they fail less oftenthan when placed in lower-level courses.

• In addition, recent studies of the skills andknowledge that employers need in the workplaceshow with increasing clarity that employerexpectations look very much like those in highereducation. Given the requirement for the contin-uous upgrading and updating of skills in today'sworkplace along with the extent to whichemployers rely on higher education, especiallytwo-year colleges, to provide that training, thisconvergence is not particularly surprising(Carnevale 2000).

Such studies suggest that whether a graduate is headed immediately or eventually to postsecondaryeducation and training, mastering the necessary skillsis no longer just an option. It is essential.

Closing the Requirement Gaps: A QuickOverview of Key Differences by Discipline

Any action to close the gaps students often confrontin curriculum requirements best starts with an analy-sis of the gaps themselves. While there is consider-able variation among states (see Table 1), following isan overview of the central tendencies by disciplinenationally.

• English/Language Arts: Pretty consistentagreement on number of courses, and on theneed for students to take this "every year."Higher education is, however, clearer on theneed to emphasize writing skills.

• Mathematics: Most state K-12 systems requiretwo to three years of mathematics coursework;most higher education systems require threeyears. But the two domains are farther apart ontopics, with almost all of higher education requir-ing at least algebra 1, geometry and algebra 2,while most K-12 systems require only algebra 1or geometry.

• Science: Most state K-12 systems require two tothree years of science, and only a few requireeven one of those courses to be a laboratory

course. By contrast, where higher educationspecifies coursework in science, it pretty consis-tently requires at least one laboratory course,and sometimes two or even three.

• Social Studies: Years of study required do nottypically differ. Further, both levels place anemphasis on history.

• Foreign Language: About half of the state high-er education systems which specify a college-preparatory curriculum require students to takehigh school coursework (typically two years) in asecond language. Only a handful of state K-12systems require any “second” language at all.Others include language study as one amongseveral options.

State Policy Lagging Behind StudentBehavior – And Good Sense?

A quick look through both national and state course-taking data makes one wonder why, especially asmathematics becomes increasingly important in theworkplace, states are so loathe to accelerate theirexpectations of all students. In the most recent year forwhich national data are available, for example:

• Over 95 percent of all high school seniors hadcompleted at least algebra 1 by graduation;

• 74 percent of all high school seniors had completed at least algebra 1 and geometry bygraduation;

• 62 percent of all high school seniors had com-pleted at least algebra 1, geometry, and algebra2 by graduation.

And some states are even more successful in gettingstudents through the "gatekeeper" algebra 2 course,with more than 75 percent of seniors in eight states,more than 62 percent of the seniors (at or above thenational average of students taking algebra 2) in nine-teen states and 50 percent of seniors in over twenty-sixstates completing at least algebra 2 (Council of ChiefState School Officers 2001).

Some argue, of course, that since the assessmentsrequired for high school graduation rarely get beyondalgebra 1 and some geometry, why put studentsthrough the extra pain of learning that more advancedcontent? Yet here research is clear. First, if students

34



don't complete the more advanced mathematics, theywill forever be excluded from math-based fields, in col-lege and in the workplace. Second, even if expectationsare more modest, the data clearly suggest that studentsdo not actually master one level of mathematics untilthey engage with the content at the next level.

What About Quality Assurance?

Course requirements have limitations. The fact that acourse is labeled algebra 1 does not assure that itteaches the right content. Often times, the algebra thatstudents learn in courses with the same name does notnecessarily match with what colleges and businessesexpect. Nor does course completion necessarily trans-late into student mastery of the content. To addressthese problems, some communities and whole stateshave incorporated end-of-course assessments to helpassure consistent content rigor and essential contentacross classrooms (Somerville and Yi 2002b).

The Good News – States on the Move

1. Optional State College Preparatory Curriculum/Advanced Diploma

Some states have begun by defining an optional cur-riculum/advanced diploma plan that aligns the numberof courses required for high school graduation withthose required for college admissions and specifies thecourses necessary to be well prepared. The key then isto increase systematically the proportion of studentsmeeting the new aligned requirements. Unfortunately,in many cases the K-12 and collegiate sectors have notagreed on even the optional requirements.

2. Rigorous Core Preparatory Curriculum for All

Within those states that have established an optionalcollege-preparatory course of study, some local schooldistricts, such as San Jose in California and Houston inTexas, have stepped ahead by eliminating the lowtracks and placing all students in the more rigorous rec-ommended curricula. The data reveal that their actionsare paying off big time in such measures as rising testscores and the increasing number of students takingrigorous courses. Texas, at the urging of its businessleaders, is going statewide. Effective fall 2003, the low-level diploma track will be eliminated, and the recom-mended curricula will become the "default" for studentsentering high school. (Somerville and Yi 2002b) .

Lining up a Single System of Standardsand Assessments: High SchoolGraduation and Placement into College-Level Study

New York has had in place for over seventy-five yearsan optional Regents diploma for college-bound stu-dents. A few years ago, as they moved to implement astatewide system of standards and assessments for allstudents, state leaders decided to make the well-regarded Regents exams the standard for all highschool graduates. As these were introduced, the CityUniversity of New York (CUNY) determined that stu-dents who performed at a high level on the Regents inmathematics or English language arts could waive theCUNY college placement tests and begin college studywithout remediation. Similarly, in Missouri, studentswho do well on the state's high school examinationsare eligible for free dual enrollment in college-levelcourses while in high school.

The fact that a course is labeled algebra 1

does not assure that it teaches

the right content.

Once standards-based education has taken hold inboth K-12 and higher education, we may be able to dis-pense with all these course requirements calibrated by chunks of time in Carnegie units. When standardssucceed in replacing courses as the measure ofachievement, educators can focus more directly onassuring that students gain the knowledge and skillsthat courses are supposed to provide. Moreover, whenthe assessments that measure student achievementcome to be aligned between K-12 and higher educa-tion, students will receive a clearer set of signals atevery stage, allowing them to learn and demonstrateproficiency at their own pace. Until then however, anygaps between the courses that K-12 requires for grad-uation and higher education requires for admission canhave devastating implications for students. We need arigorous academic core curriculum for all students. Itdoes not have to be taught in the same old ways, but itdoes need to be taught to all.

35



A multi-state partnership called the American DiplomaProject led by four national organizations – Achieve,Inc., The Education Trust, Thomas B. FordhamFoundation, and the National Alliance for Business – isworking with five states to better define the standardsand assessments required to meet the needs of high-er education and the workplace. States involved in thiseffort are: Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada,and Texas.

At least a dozen states have mobilized teams of facul-ty in the disciplines, starting with mathematics andEnglish language arts, to review the content of theircollege admissions and placement exams along withthe new standards-based high school assessments.More should soon be joining New York and the rest ofthese states with a more seamless system to help stu-dents make a smooth transition from secondary topostsecondary education and today's high perform-ance workplace.

Endnotes1 This paper draws upon data collection and analysesprepared with support from the Education Trust, ThePew Charitable Trusts, and the Office of Vocationaland Adult Education/U.S. Department of Education.

2 See for example Venezia, et al. 2003; also, DavidConley Director, The Standards for Success projectwebsite: www.s4s.org.

3 Recent studies include a powerful set of studies andresearch briefs led by Gene Bottoms of the SouthernRegional Education Board (SREB) as part of the HighSchools that Work initiative. In particular, see Bottoms(2002). See also Hallinan (2002) and Sum (1999).

References

Adelman, Clifford. 1998. "The Kiss of Death? AnAlternative View of College Remediation." NationalCrossTalk, vol. 6, no. 3.

_______. 1999. Answers in the Toolbox. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Bottoms, Gene. 2002. Middle Grades to High School:Mending a Weak Link. Atlanta, Georgia: SouthernRegional Education Board.

Carnevale, Anthony. 2000. Help Wanted…CollegeRequired. Washington DC: Educational TestingService.

Council of Chief State School Officers. 2001. StateIndicators of Science and Mathematics Education.Washington, DC: Council of Chief State SchoolOfficers.

Hallinan, Maureen T. 2002. "Ability Grouping andStudent Learning," prepared for Brookings papers onEducation Policy Conference: The American HighSchool Today, May 14-15, 2002.

National Commission on the High School. 1983. ANation At Risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation.

National Commission on the High School Senior Year.2001. Raising Our Sights: No High School Senior LeftBehind. Washington, DC: National Commission on theHigh School Senior Year.

Somerville, Janis and Yun Yi. 2002a. Aligning K-12 andPostsecondary Expectations. Report prepared for theUnited States Department of Education Office ofVocational and Adult Education. Washington, DC.

______. 2002b. State Policy Review of High SchoolEnd of Course Assessments. Washington, DC:National Association of System Heads.

Sum, Andrew. 1999. Literacy in the Workplace: Resultsfrom the National Literacy Survey. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

Venezia, Andrea, Michael Kirst, and Anthony Antonio.2003. Betraying the College Dream. Stanford,California: Stanford Institute for Higher EducationResearch.

United States Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics. 1998. "Access toPostsecondary Education for the 1992 High SchoolGraduate," Table 2.

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of LaborStatistics. 2000a. "The Outlook for College Graduates,1998-2000." In Getting Ready Pays Off! Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

_____. 2000b. "Employment Projections to 2008." InNational Alliance of Business, Workforce Economics,vol. 6.

by Edward Crowe

HighQua l i t y

Teach ing

s the United States continues to grapple with challenges associated with student learning and studentachievement gains in our K-12 system, part of the problem often derives from policies and practices con-cerning current teacher quality. Systemic reforms in the way our nation recruits, trains, supports, and

licenses teachers are essential if students are to acquire the knowledge and skills they need. Even though fed-eral policy under the "No Child Left Behind" legislation of 2002 has received great attention, the fact remains thatauthority and responsibility for teacher quality resides generally with the states. The governance and financing ofpublic higher education is also a state responsibility. Even the nation's independent colleges and universities,although not governed by states, are subject to state laws and regulatory policies that affect their teacher prepa-ration programs.

Teacher supply, demand, and quality issues are appropriately regarded as state-level issues – particularly in theera of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which requires state testing of K-12 students.Numerous reports and commissions continue to say that much more needs to be done to ensure that every stu-dent has a caring, qualified, and competent teacher. Since most new teachers in the United States will continue tobe produced by college and university preparation programs, state higher education systems have the opportuni-ty and the responsibility to use the policy levers available to them to reform our teacher preparation system.

The premise of this State Higher Education Executive Officer (SHEEO) policy brief is that teacher quality improve-ment efforts are more likely to be effective when they take place in the context of a statewide P-16 agenda. Highereducation systems, state agencies, and institutions are important players in a state's teacher preparation system.But many other entities have significant roles, including state departments of education, professional standardsboards, regional and local K-12 agencies, legislators, governors, and community groups. Through this web of orga-nizational relationships and the matrix of P-16 issues touched on below, it is possible for committed leaders andorganizations to meet the promise of excellent teaching for every child. Drawing on the experience of many states,this report will suggest ways that states can set and meet challenging teacher quality policy goals.

A

37

38



On the basis of SHEEO P-16 site visits to five states aswell as many other sources of information and experi-ence, it can be said with certainty that there is nosecret formula for success. Knowing what to do is notthe missing ingredient. What is lacking is rather thepolitical will to begin the change process and sustain itover a long period of time. The will to change is also arare commodity. This policy brief will highlight keyissues, strategies, and policy levers. Along the way itwill point to states or systems implementing whatappear to be good policies and practices.Recommendations and suggestions to states will bemade to guide or jump-start effective reforms. Someemerging issues that create opportunities for – andpose significant threats to – higher education will alsobe considered.

Why does this work matter? Research published in thelast few years makes a compelling empirical case thatthe quality of teaching has a profound and lastingeffect on K-12 student learning. If teachers do, in fact,make a difference – as most parents and studentshave always believed – and if most new teachers in theUnited States will, for the foreseeable future, comefrom college and university preparation programs, thenthe higher education community has a wonderfulopportunity to make good on the promise of providingfuture generations of Americans with the quality edu-cation they need to succeed. The problem is that so lit-tle improvement has actually occurred in the prepara-tion of teachers. The hope is that by acting systemical-ly, states can do better so children will do better.

with the knowledge and skills they need to be effectivein this context has led to system-wide and campus-based teacher preparation program reforms. InLouisiana, a realistic view of what all students are ableto do – matched up with what education and businessleaders believe they ought to be able to do – is drivinga comprehensive teacher quality policy effort.

This alignment of student and teacher standards is a

basic building block of coherent state policy.

What is High Quality Teaching?

States that are making progress on giving every childaccess to excellent teaching usually start with a firmfocus on K-12 student learning goals and challenges.Generally it is the standards for these students andtheir performance on assessment tests that frame astate's policy approach to improving teaching quality.North Carolina, for instance, has set school perform-ance and improvement goals based on studentassessments. Equipping teachers and administrators

Teachers need both a thorough command of

their subject(s) and a deepunderstanding of how

to teach content to all kinds of students

with different learning styles.

The next step is to think clearly about the skills andabilities teachers need to help students achieve at highlevels. This alignment of student and teacher stan-dards is a basic building block of coherent state policy.A robust definition of high quality teaching makes allthe difference here. The recent report of the NationalCommission on Teaching and America's Future(NCTAF), No Dream Denied: A Pledge to America'sChildren (2003), offers a comprehensive definition ofhigh quality teaching (www.nctaf.org). While there isongoing national debate (see Paige 2002) aboutwhether a mastery of subject matter in itself can pro-duce good teaching, most states recognize that teach-ers need both a thorough command of their subject(s)and a deep understanding of how to teach content toall kinds of students with different learning styles. Astate that has reached some consensus about the ele-ments of high quality teaching can then begin to auditits educational policies to see how the definition isembedded in:

• Licensing standards

• Teacher tests

• Preparation program approval criteria

• Induction program design

• Content of the teacher preparation program

• Professional development policies and practices

39



How Can States Take Steps to PromoteHigh Quality Teaching?

State policies on teacher quality should be built on coreelements of excellent teaching and the preparation ofhigh quality teachers. These descriptors of high qualitypreparation apply to traditional and "alternative" pro-grams, even if the programs have different ways ofincorporating elements of quality into their design.

Prospective teachers must develop a strong foun-dation of knowledge in the subjects they arepreparing to teach.

• College and university preparation programsmust do much more to ensure that their gradu-ates have mastered content knowledge in thesubjects they will teach.

• State higher education policy can help make itpossible for arts and sciences faculty to bedeeply involved in program redesign and imple-mentation, in close collaboration with educationfaculty.1 At the same time, senior campus lead-ers must be strongly committed to the success ofthis collaboration.

Teacher candidates must also learn how to teachtheir subjects; the science of child developmentand how children learn ought to be mastered and tested before candidates are licensed. Thisshould also be at the core of mentoring and induction programs.

• Developing and acquiring these skills calls forclose partnerships between higher educationinstitutions and schools.

• It also requires engagement of arts and sciencesfaculty.

One component of quality teaching is that teachersunderstand and know how to use student assess-ment data to gauge a student's progress in theclassroom. Teachers must be able to integrate thisinformation with their content knowledge andteaching skills to develop strategies that respondto individual learning needs.

• The integral role of data in assessing teachingand learning entails new strategies for collectingand sharing this information between schoolsand preparation programs. Preparation pro-

grams must build continuous improvementmechanisms that are driven by regular use ofthese data.

• Making sure that decisions are based on evi-dence requires greater collaboration among allfaculty engaged in preparing teachers, as well ascloser ties between the program and schoolswhere students are assessed.

• Decisions based on evidence can only be madethrough improved accountability systems at thestate level that generate and share the relevantinformation.

• Each of these steps calls for rethinking universi-ty policies and practices in ways that must be ledand supported by institutional leaders.

Without the integration ofknowledge and skills achieved

in a carefully supervised clinical practice setting,

the education and training of new teachers is incomplete.

Student teachers need well-designed and exten-sive clinical experiences so that the issues andchallenges of effective teaching are not surprisesto them when they enter the profession as new teachers.

• A real school-university partnership built onmutual respect and shared goals is crucial.

• The Carnegie Corporation emphasizes inTeachers for a New Era (2001) that: "Excellentteaching is a clinical skill… Clinical practice inschools takes place in complex public environ-ments and entails interaction with pupils, col-leagues, administrators, families and communi-ties… Exemplary teacher education provides forclinical education in a clinical setting."

• Without the integration of knowledge and skillsachieved in a carefully supervised clinical prac-tice setting, the education and training of newteachers is incomplete.

40



• The lack of clinical skills and solid clinical expe-rience also feeds the high levels of burnout andturnover found among new teachers throughoutthe country.

The effective integration of technology into curriculum and instructional practices on the university campus and in the school classroom is essential for teachers to know and use technology successfully in their teaching and assessment practices.

• Among other things, incorporating technologycalls for professional development for universityfaculty, access to technology by faculty and stu-dents, and appropriate curriculum redesign tomake effective use of technology in teaching,learning, and assessment.

• An important result of progress in this area is thepotential for technology, used wisely, to increasestudent engagement in learning, promotegreater access to high quality content and cur-riculum materials, and foster more effectivelearning by K-12 students through these andother means.

Successful teaching practices develop over time,so new graduates need extensive mentoring andsupport for the first few years of their careers.Many observers believe that these programs are an investment to reduce high rates of teacher turnover and to promote teacher career development.

• Successful mentoring and induction programsrequire close collaboration between higher edu-cation and K-12 schools.

• Higher education must be willing (and funded) toaccept extended responsibility for program grad-uates. This principle applies equally to all alter-nate pathway providers.

• Redesigned school practices are also needed tofoster effective mentoring.

Many state licensure systems now recognize theimportance of this novice period in the new teacher'scareer by establishing mentoring and induction peri-ods, with an initial or provisional license granted. Theidea is to promote skills development and effectivesupport strategies. Some states even fund these pro-

grams so that new teachers have compensated timeaway from the classroom to reflect and consult thementor, in addition to periodic performance assess-ments of their growth and development. University-based preparation programs are being asked to takeon extended responsibilities during this stage of thenew teacher preparation process, and good school-university partnerships are quite important to the suc-cess of this undertaking. They cooperate with eachother – and often with state assessment officials – toassess the teaching performance of these new gradu-ates and help them be successful.

Many state licensure systems now recognize the importance of

this novice period in the new teacher's career

by establishing mentoring andinduction periods.

Program accountability should apply to all parts ofthe university involved in teacher preparation.Meaningful accountability is based on outcomemeasures used to determine whether the programis producing high quality teachers; the specificrewards and sanctions that will be applied to theprogram; how these accountability measures willapply to all units involved in teacher preparationactivities, including arts and sciences as well aseducation; and the role of senior university leadersin implementing accountability policies.

• Teachers for a New Era, drawing on the work ofSanders and others (1995, 1996; Wright et al.1997), requires its grantees "to evaluate theongoing effectiveness of the teacher educationprogram based in part on evidence of pupillearning that has occurred under the tutelage ofteachers who are graduates of the program."This is meaningful accountability because it pro-motes the use of real outcomes data for diag-nostic and program improvement purposes.

• As more states develop the information systemcapacity to link student testing data with informa-tion about the teachers of each K-12 student, itwill be possible to do a better job of measuring

41



program strength by the learning gains of stu-dents taught by program graduates. TheElementary and Secondary Education Act(ESEA) will advance the day when this linkage ispossible in every state through its focus on reg-ular testing of K-12 students.

• The federal Title II "report cards" for institutionsand states are a start in the accountabilityprocess, but serious efforts to use these andother data are needed by states, higher educa-tion institutions, accrediting bodies, and schooldistricts.

• Additional information available through theNational Council for Accreditation of TeacherEducation (NCATE) and the Teacher EducationAccrediting Commission (TEAC) – in addition tothe information gained from examining the K-12student performance of program graduates – allprovide invaluable insights for designing contin-uous improvement strategies.

P-16 is Essential for Teacher QualityImprovements

The SHEEO P-16 case studies examined six issueareas in each of the states visited during the 2001-02academic year. While the policy focus of this strategybrief is teacher quality, how states deal with the otherfive issues can make a big difference to the success ofteacher quality policy initiatives.

Early outreach programs require quality teaching atall levels of the system to be effective. Students whoneed early outreach programs are often enrolled inschools that do not get – and cannot keep – the bestteachers. Stronger content knowledge, pedagogy andclinical skills delivered by the state's preparation pro-grams are essential to institutionalize the benefits ofearly outreach activities. Over time students who ben-efit from successful early outreach programs can bestrong recruits into teacher preparation programs.

Curriculum and assessment reform driven by com-mitment to standards-based education also dependson teacher quality improvements for good results.Alignment of student and teacher standards, a precon-dition for effective teacher preparation, is necessaryhere as well. The use of assessments as diagnostictools at the school and classroom levels is crucial, andteachers must be able to shape their teaching to meet

the needs of students with a variety of learning stylesand ability levels.

Data and accountability systems are essential tounderstand how the current system does – or morelikely does not – produce high quality teachers able tohelp all students be successful. Good data systemscan track K-12 student transitions across levels of thesystem, enabling policymakers to detect and addressproblems that may relate to teacher preparation, pro-fessional development or support systems.

Financial aid programs often are used to attract newcandidates into teaching. The proliferation of small pro-grams with a huge range of policy objectives, however,can work at cross-purposes with other state goals.Financial aid inducements to prospective teachersoverlook the impact on teacher retention that goodpreparation and better working conditions can have.

State leadership is crucial to success. It is a keycausal agent of effective reform in every state thatmakes progress on the teaching quality issue. Thereare many challenges here, including initial engage-ment, staying power and the impact of leadership tran-sitions on policy continuity. The many states whereleadership involvement in teaching quality is manifest-ed primarily by rhetoric would do well to look to thestates where real engagement and significant reformhave occurred.

Strategies and Policy Levers: What Statesand SHEEO Agencies Can Do

Look at the Data

A good starting point is to evaluate what state policy-makers know about the status of teaching. Relevantdata include: supply and demand information in theaggregate and by subject areas and grade levels;teacher turnover; the extent of out-of-field teaching;and the incidence of waivers, "emergency" or "tempo-rary" certificates, and other means by which state ruleshave been bypassed to meet shortages. Quality issuesare also part of the status of teaching: pass rates,classroom performance, and program quality areimportant indicators. The federal Title II report cards(www.title2.org) are a good resource.

Some states are serious about teaching quality andaccountability issues. North Carolina has an annualreport card produced by its public university systemwith an extensive set of measures that deal with pro-

42



duction and quality of teachers. Louisiana has con-structed an accountability system that relies partly onthe federal data but also brings important state data tobear. Institutional performance has funding and otherconsequences in that state. Maryland's StudentOutcome and Achievement Report (SOAR) systemand other information from a variety of agenciesenable P-16 leaders to have a comprehensive under-standing of teacher quality and student learning issuesin their state.

K- or P-16 partnerships appear to be successfulforums in many states for dealing with teacher qualitypolicy issues. SHEEO agencies have been active andessential components of these efforts in many states,and there is potential for even greater involvementalong these lines. These groups have proven to begood places for discussions about data that lead toagreement on strategies and next steps for teacherpreparation reform. Louisiana's Blue RibbonCommission is a good example, as is the Maryland K-16 Partnership. Georgia, Ohio, and other states alsoprovide examples and lessons.

meeting together for the first time ever – to brief depart-ment chairs on state K-12 student learning standardsand the implications for teacher preparation programs,professional development courses, and continuingeducation activities within the institutions. Other states– including North Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana –have initiated redesigns of teacher preparation pro-grams that seek to help new teachers gain a greatermastery of content knowledge; these programs alsorequire extensive arts and sciences involvement toimpart that knowledge.

For education faculty as well as their arts and sciencescounterparts, faculty reward systems can often be abarrier to effective teacher preparation programs.While these policies typically are campus responsibili-ties, SHEEO agencies can identify models that pro-mote change and help their campus academic col-leagues to work through the implications.

Funding Policies

Without getting into the "cash cow" debate of whetheror not teacher preparation programs are operated togenerate more money than they cost to run, SHEEOagencies can look at how the state funding formularecognizes teacher preparation as an "academicallytaught clinical practice profession," in the words of theCarnegie Corporation's Teachers for a New Era pro-gram (www.carnegie.org). There is general consensusthat students preparing for teaching careers needmuch more clinical experience than most programsprovide. And most states have policies that requiresome form of induction program (analogous to resi-dency in the medical world) for novice teachers in theirfirst year or two of teaching. Both sets of experiencesare intended to enhance teaching skills, help teachersmaster the intricacies of classroom management, andenable teachers to make the leap from academic con-tent knowledge to the use of that subject matter knowl-edge for teaching.

The problem is that few institutions adequately supportthe costs of these pre-service and post-graduate clini-cal experiences, and few states provide the resourcesto schools or to universities to do the job well. If statesand institutions expect faculty to be in the schoolsworking with students and new graduates (as indeedthey should), there are important workload and com-pensation issues that must be addressed, for arts andsciences faculty as well as those in the colleges of edu-cation. A key first step is to make sure that clinicalexperiences are a core component of the training pro-gram instead of a weakly funded afterthought.

Relevant data include supply and demand

information; teacher turnover;the extent of out-of-field

teaching; and the incidence ofwaivers, "temporary" certificates,

and other means to meet shortages.

Engage arts and sciences faculty

While SHEEO coordinating boards have fewer directlevers to stimulate campus-based action than do theirgoverning board counterparts, there are ways to raisethe issue of arts and science faculty engagement inteacher preparation. Review and approval of degreeprograms, periodic program review activities and"technical assistance" in the form of conferences, P-16meetings, and direct advice to campuses are all toolsused by SHEEO agencies. Arkansas, for example,convened the heads of all mathematics and sciencedepartments at their institutions of higher education –

43



Accomplishing this step will require that the cost of clin-ical experience be built into the state and campus fund-ing formulas (a comparison with nursing educationwould be relevant.) SHEEO agencies can make a dif-ference here by working with campuses to identify theirresource allocation patterns for clinical training. Agood data resource to deal with these issues is theDelaware Cost Study, run by Michael Middaugh at theUniversity of Deleware (Middaugh, 2001; also seewww.udel.edu). A number of SHEEO agencies partici-pate in the Delaware project by providing credit hourand faculty compensation data.

funded by "No Child Left Behind" into their teacherquality improvement efforts.

Policy Alignment

Because teacher quality is a P-16 issue, progressdepends on the willingness of higher education policy-makers to align key policies and practices with stan-dards for students and teachers. All states now havelearning standards for K-12 students, on which thesestudents are assessed in what can be high-stakes tests(passing required for promotion or graduation). Forthese to work and to be fair to all students, their teach-ers must be trained and supported in ways that ensurethey have the knowledge and skills to help their stu-dents reach the standards set for them. This requireshigher education leaders to reexamine their standardsfor teacher preparation programs, look at the content ofthose programs course-by-course, and hold programsaccountable for quality outcomes. Louisiana and NorthCarolina, among the states visited by SHEEO, havetaken significant strides in this direction.

School administrators must also have the skills to helpteachers be effective and successful. Both Georgiaand North Carolina are taking big steps to make surethat programs to train administrators are designed anddelivered with today's schools in mind. For NorthCarolina, this has meant abolishing all master's degreeprograms for educators and redesigning them from theground up, based on standards of the Interstate NewTeacher Assessment and Support Consortium(INTASC) and on those of the National Board forProfessional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). States thatare unwilling to take these kinds of actions affectingteacher preparation programs will simply perpetuate adisjunction between the skills and performance expect-ed of its teachers and the standards to which a stateholds its K-12 students accountable. NCTAF's 2003report, No Dream Denied, makes a compelling case forthe interconnection between schools as successfullearning communities and high quality teaching that produces improved student achievement(www.nctaf.org).

Emerging Issues

There has never been a better time to focus on theessentials in teacher preparation. The needs are great,the challenges many. But as the states implementingsuccessful P-16 agendas understand, the rewards tohigher education of an education system that works atall levels are worth the effort. Positive reasons for act-

An important first step is to make sure that clinical experiences

are a core component of the training program instead

of a weakly funded afterthought.

Use of Resources

One of the striking things observed in the course of thefive P-16 site visits that set the stage for this strategybrief is the extent to which states are making effectiveuse of soft-money resources to leverage change.Louisiana, Rhode Island, Maryland and North Carolinahave aggressively sought federal funds for teacherpreparation reform efforts. Sources of support haveincluded the National Science Foundation, the Title IITeacher Quality Program, GEAR UP, and PreparingTomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3). Inthese and other states, external funds have been usedto start or strengthen systemic change efforts, and thestates have successfully avoided the "projectitis" thatoften plagues grant programs. Important state goalshave been advanced using these funds; broad P-16partnerships have become the means of bringing keyplayers to the table, and significant progress has beenmade on challenging issues. For all those pursuing thisstrategy, of course, the critical question is how to sustain progress by allocating or reallocating publicfunds to the same goals. Here there are also some excellent examples for SHEEO agencies to consider: Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Louisiana,Pennsylvania and others have started programs withexternal funds and taken the tough step of movingstate resources to keep things going. SHEEO agenciesalso have integrated professional development grants

44



ing are many, but there are also serious threats on thehorizon that make the case even more compelling.

all exemplify steps in the right direction. Here, again,the NCTAF report, No Dream Denied, offers a coher-ent analysis of the link between high quality teachingand strong teacher preparation programs; the reportprovides specific recommendations to universities andstates on ways to improve teacher quality and reducethe high levels of teacher turnover that plague thenation's schools. As noted earlier, there is no secretformula for success; the missing ingredient all too oftenis the will to take and sustain the actions necessary toproduce excellent teachers for our nation's schools.

Conclusion: High Stakes for HigherEducation

This strategy brief has suggested a wide range ofimportant steps that state higher education systemscan take to promote high quality teaching for everychild. The biggest step – and the beginning of realprogress – is to accept and acknowledge responsibili-ty for the issue of teaching quality.

SHEEO has received generous support from theCarnegie Corporation of New York to work with thirteenstate higher education systems on teacher quality.Each state system chosen for this project has agreedto target an important area of policy for which it hasboth clear responsibility and the ability to make a realdifference. The activities pursued by each state mustalso result in measurable outcomes used by the stateand by SHEEO to gauge progress.

The states involved in this Carnegie-funded SHEEOteacher quality project are Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana,Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio,Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin andWyoming. Other states can benefit from the experienceof this group, in addition to that of other states men-tioned in this strategy brief. SHEEO can also help withadvice or information about this and related national ini-tiatives such as the National Commission on Teachingand America's Future, work of the EducationCommission of the States, projects underway throughthe Southeast Center for Teaching Quality, and otherefforts to promote high quality teaching.

The stakes in this work are high for children. They arealso quite serious for higher education. As notedabove, there is widespread skepticism that Americanhigher education cares enough about the success ofK-12 schools to make fundamental reforms in the waysthat teacher preparation programs are designed, deliv-ered, funded, and held accountable. National founda-

There is no secret formula for success;

the missing ingredient all too oftenis the will to take

and sustain the actions necessary to produce quality teachers

for our nation's schools.

Even though most new teachers in the United Statescontinue to be prepared at programs housed in col-leges and universities, the fastest-growing aspect ofteacher preparation is the alternative pathway to teach-ing. Four-year institutions offer some of these pro-grams, but they also are housed in community col-leges, school districts, and non-profit organizationssuch as Teach for America. In addition, many such pro-grams are offered by profit-making entities. Growth hasbeen stimulated by the need for teachers and frustra-tion at the pace of change in traditional (and tradition-bound) higher education. The Bush Administration hastaken a decisive stand in favor of "alternative certifica-tion" that downplays the quality and role of traditionalproviders. The administration's position is embodied inthe Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),in its approach to reauthorization of the HigherEducation Amendments (HEA), in education rules andregulations, and in the directing of federal educationfunds to organizations that are committed to alternativecertification and highly critical of traditional approachesto teacher preparation.

The critics are winning the argument and will likely winthe "war" between competing approaches to preparingteachers if those charged with setting and implement-ing policies for public colleges and universities don'tstep up to their responsibilities. The rhetoric of changeand commitment must be matched by real action – pol-icy changes, resource expenditures, and meaningfulaccountability. There are plenty of examples of how todo these things – institutions of higher education suchas those in Carnegie's Teachers for a New Era pro-gram; state higher education systems and agencieslike those discussed in this strategy brief, and othersnoted in the resource list at the end of this document –

45



tions, states, and the federal government are turningaway from higher education and investing resourceselsewhere out of frustration at the pace and sustain-ability of campus-based reform.

The sun may be starting to set on traditional teacherpreparation programs as school districts, states, andthe U.S. Department of Education look to – and pro-vide funding and policy support for – alternative path-ways to teaching. The challenges to higher education,then, are clear: first, these systems and institutionsmust take K-12 student achievement seriously enoughto produce better state policies and practices related toteaching quality; and second, higher education mustcapitalize on the threat to current practices as a seri-ous spur to action.

UTD Texas Schools Project, University of Texas atDallas.

Mendro, R.L., H.R. Jordan, E. Gomez, M.C. Anderson,and K.L. Bembry. 1998. "An Application of MultipleLinear Regression in Determining LongitudinalTeacher Effectiveness." Paper presented at the 1998Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation.

Middaugh, Michael. 2001. Understanding FacultyProductivity: Standards and Benchmarks for Collegesand Universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Commission on Teaching and America'sFuture. 2003. No Dream Denied: A Pledge toAmerica's Children. Washington, DC: NationalCommission on Teaching and America's Future.

Paige, Rod. 2002. Meeting the Highly QualifiedTeachers Challenge: The Secretary's Annual Reporton Teacher Quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education; see also www.title2.org.

Rivkin, S.G., E.A. Hanushek, and J.F. Kain. 2002.Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement.Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau ofEconomic Research.

Rowan, B., R. Correnti, and R.J. Miller. Forthcoming."What Large-Scale Survey Research Tells Us AboutTeacher Effects on Student Achievement: Insights fromthe Prospects Study of Elementary Schools."Forthcoming in Teachers College Record.

Sanders, W.L. and S.P. Horn. 1995. "The TennesseeValue-Added Assessment System (TVAAS): MixedModel Methodology in Educational Assessment." InA.J. Shinkfield and D. Stubblebeam, eds., TeacherEvaluation: Guide to Effective Practice. Boston,Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Sanders, W.L. and J.C. Rivers. 1996. Cumulative andResidual Effects of Teachers on Future AcademicAchievement. Knoxville, Tennessee: University ofTennessee Value Added Research and AssessmentCenter.

Wright, S.P., S.P. Horn, and W.L. Sanders. 1997."Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on StudentAchievement: Implications for Teacher Evaluation."Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11: 57-67.

The sun may be starting to set on traditional teacher preparation

programs as school districts,states, and the U.S. Department of

Education look to alternativepathways to teaching.

Endnotes1 Rhode Island, for example, has developed an inno-vative way to stimulate this work: the state higher edu-cation board has sponsored a series of academic dia-logues, each of which involves arts and sciences, edu-cation, and K-12 faculty in a particular subject area.

References

Carnegie Corporation of New York. 2001. Teachers fora New Era: A National Initiative to Improve the Qualityof Teaching. New York: Carnegie Corporation of NewYork. Also available at www.carnegie.org.

Education Trust. 2001. Interpret with Caution: The FirstState Title II Reports on the Quality of TeacherPreparation. Washington, DC: The Education Trust;www.edtrust.org.

Kain, J.F. and D.M. O'Brien. 1998. "A LongitudinalAssessment of Reading Achievement: Evidence for theHarvard/UTD Texas Schools Project." Dallas, Texas:

47

Student F inanc ia l

Ass i s tance

ublicly funded student financial assistance is a relatively modern phenomenon. In the later half of the twen-tieth century financial aid evolved as a means of assuring that a much broader array of qualified Americanscould receive the benefits of higher education. Publicly funded financial aid moved away from the focus of

traditional scholarship programs toward the goal of eliminating financial barriers to college attendance for all qual-ified students, not just the best and brightest.

Why is Student Financial Assistance Essential to Student Success in a P-16 System?

Initially financial aid policy focused almost exclusively on higher education. Apart from a handful of targeted efforts,such as the federal TRIO programs and a few state programs such as Minnesota's Post-Secondary PlanningProgram (PSPP), the evolution of publicly funded student financial assistance was not perceived or integrated aspart of a P-16 strategy for higher education. We have learned over the last half-century, however, that simplyremoving financial barriers to college attendance hasn't achieved the goal of eliminating inequalities in higher edu-cation participation and success. Several factors help account for this shortcoming: one is that the public policygoal has itself actually changed; another is that the original assumptions and intervention strategies were flawed;and a third is that financial aid was not provided sufficient funding to achieve success. All three of these factorsnow make it clear that we must consider financial aid as an integral component in an overall P-16 strategy, notsimply as a higher education funding tool.

What changes, then, have occurred to our public policy goals that require financial aid policy to move beyond thedomain of higher education policy into the framework of P-16 initiatives?

The big change in policy goals is that we now see higher education as not just beneficial but essential to the pur-suit of economic well-being for most Americans. In the past, financial aid policy wanted to ensure that all those whosought a postsecondary education could do so regardless of economic circumstance, but we did not conceive that

Pby David A. Longanecker and Cheryl D. Blanco

48



The need to instill better understanding of what collegestudy entails alone would justify the P-16 link. It is fur-ther justified, however, by another trend – the increas-ing cost of American higher education. Tuition isincreasing in both public and private institutions ofhigher education at rates that substantially exceedinflation. There is no reason to believe these rates ofincrease will not continue, particularly given the likeli-hood that current economic hard times will constrainstate support for universities and colleges, forcingthem in turn to rely more heavily on tuition revenue tosupport their operations. Exacerbating this legitimateconcern about college costs are the less accurate por-trayals of college costs in the public media. Investmentfirms advertise "run-away costs of college" to encour-age parents of prospective students to invest more.Politicians rail against outrageous college costs to gar-ner political opportunity. And even public agencies thatsell college savings plans try to worry folks into invest-ing in their particular products. Whatever their intent,these efforts greatly confuse the public about what col-lege costs. In a poll conducted in 2000 by the AmericanCouncil on Education, most respondents estimatedcommunity college tuition and fees to be 300 percenthigher than they actually are, and respondents over-estimated public four-year institutions' tuition and feesby more than 200 percent (American Council onEducation 2001).

Overestimating the cost of higher education perverse-ly affects participation in higher education. Forprospective students from middle-income families,research shows that misperceiving the cost will notlikely affect the decision to attend college, but it mightwell affect where they attend. For students from low-income families, however, misperceiving costs can bedevastating; overestimating costs will dissuade manyof these prospective students from attending collegeat all. Thus, our public policy goal of enhancing partic-ipation cannot be achieved if we do not better informstudents about the interplay between tuition pricesand financial aid.

all young people would or should go to college. Today,however, policymakers concur that most young peopleand many more adults need to secure a college edu-cation to enjoy the individual benefits of "the good life"and to keep America economically vital and sociallyjust. To achieve this evolving goal, therefore, publicpolicy must progress from simply enabling participationto enhancing participation.

We now see higher education as not just beneficial

but essential to the pursuit of economic well-being

for most Americans.

Yet this evolution of public policy does not in itselfmake a compelling case that financial aid, as the mainstrategy for financing college, must be part of an inte-grated P-16 strategy. This factor becomes compellingonly when blended with the second factor mentionedabove – the fact that our original strategy was flawed.The prevailing thought was that making the fundsavailable would provide the educational opportunity forwhich we were striving. But money itself was notenough. Too often the students and their families didnot know that financial aid was available or that it wassufficient to offset their need. Both federal and statefinancial aid programs failed to provide adequate infor-mation to prospective students and their families toassure them that college was affordable. Furthermore,neither federal nor state activities provided strong sig-nals to these students and their families about how toprepare for college. Many of the new students attract-ed to college have therefore not succeeded becausethey were not prepared academically to do so. As aresult, we have seen recent reforms in student aid pol-icy begin to focus both on providing earlier informationand on encouraging better academic preparation.

These two new components directly tie financial aidinto K-12 initiatives. A consideration of how college willbe financed becomes a necessary and integral com-ponent in the early intervention activities, and pastexperience teaches that building such awarenessentails two steps: providing clear information that col-lege is affordable through financial aid; and increasing-ly, underscoring the message that a student will haveto earn this affordability through rigorous preparation.

For students from low-incomefamilies, however, misperceiving

costs can dissuade many of these prospective students from attending college at all.

49



Some promis ing s ta te pract ices :

Indiana's Twenty-first Century Scholars Programexemplifies an initiative that not only connects withyoung people before they reach high school butalso commits resources to them.The Indiana pro-gram reaches out to low-income eighth-graderswith financial aid assurances. In middle school,students commit to taking the steps to prepare forcollege; the state promises them financial aid forin-state tuition at a public university or its equiva-lent at a private college. A recent study of the program reported that participation in the ScholarsProgram improved postsecondary opportunity forlow-income students. Scholars were more likelythan non-Scholars to enroll in Indiana public andprivate colleges (St. John et al. 2002). In additionto aid, the Scholars Program provides services tostudents and parents through workshops, mentor-ing, academic support, social/cultural events,career counseling, and other activities at regionalsupport centers.

Rhode Island's Children's Crusade for HigherEducation is another statewide, early-interventionprogram that provides support programs andfinancial aid. Students must enroll as third-gradersin a school designated as an "enrollment school.""Crusaders" who fulfill their pledge to avoid alco-hol, drugs, and early parenthood, who graduatefrom high school, are admitted to a postsecondaryinstitution within a year of graduation, and arefinancially eligible will receive a cash scholarshipdistributed on a "last dollar basis" to offset unmetneed, reduce loans, or decrease the amount ofneed-based work-study.

California has effectively communicated an"affordability" message to residents through itslong history of providing higher education at a lowcost. This well-known factor alone has certainlymade it easier for students and parents to plan forcollege.California's commitment to affordability hascontributed, in part, to the state's B+ grade in participation on the latest "Measuring Up" state-by-state report card (National Center for Public Policyand Higher Education 2002).

Maryland also links financial aid to outreach pro-grams by pre-qualifying ninth- and tenth-gradersfor the state's Guaranteed Access program.

The need to explain college costs of course presumesthat there is a positive relationship between tuition andfinancial aid policy at the state level, and that we canhonestly inform students that college is affordable.Unfortunately, in too many states no such relationshipexists, and honesty would mean telling a story we wishnot to relay – that a state does not guarantee afford-ability. Yet for at least two reasons, even presentingthis story would be an important part of a P-16 strate-gy. First, telling this story would honestly portray forstudents the circumstances they face, providing earlywarning that they need to look elsewhere for the finan-cial support they will need. Second, highlighting thetrue lack of affordability in a given state environmentcould force the profound changes in higher educationfinance policy that many states need.

For a variety of reasons, therefore, we now know that student financial assistance must be an essential component of any P-16 strategy if we wish to enhancestudent success in postsecondary education.

What Does a Sound Student FinancialAssistance Program Look Like in a P-16System?

Drawing on our operational definition of P-16 as "anintegrated approach to providing education fromkindergarten to a baccalaureate degree," this policybrief suggests that a well-grounded state financialassistance program would have several characteris-tics. While our list may not be exhaustive, we nonethe-less believe that any financial aid program in a P-16environment that seeks to increase the chances foryouth to participate and succeed in postsecondaryeducation should have the following characteristics:

Student oriented

A statewide financial assistance program should meetthe needs of the students it serves, and this targetgroup will be shaped by demographic, social, and eco-nomic factors that need to be considered if the state istrying to expand access, choice, and success in post-secondary education for all students. Because every

50



Colorado is considering a voucher program that,in lieu of traditional subsidies to institutions basedon FTE enrollments, would provide direct grants toall students attending in-state public institutions ofhigher education. Viewed as a more “market-driv-en” way of financing higher education, it is envi-sioned that through this student centered financ-ing approach every prospective student wouldknow how much he or she would receive in directsubsidy early in the decision-making process.Because this proposal does not intentionally inte-grate state need-based financial aid into the plan,however, it would leave the most financially vul-nerable students at risk because there is no assur-ance that they will be able to afford the substan-tially higher tuition, fees, and other costs of atten-dance not covered by the voucher.

P romot ing cho ice:

state has unique demographic characteristics, there isno "one size fits all" financial aid program, but there arebroad programmatic structures that are used by manystates. Examples of these broader categories areneed-based aid, merit-based aid, and occupation-spe-cific aid (e.g., aid for students to study nursing, teach-ing, engineering, etc.). A state that seeks to increasethe participation rate of its low-income students willwant to ensure that it has needs-test criteria in its pro-gram. It is also important that a state fund such pro-grams in sufficient degree, while at the same time com-municating to lower-income students that these pro-grams are intended to meet their financial needs. Astate may also want to have a separate program thatrecognizes both merit and need, offering higher aidpackages for those students who meet the need crite-ria while also demonstrating academic excellence.

Considerable research has been dedicated to under-standing how the availability or unavailability of financialaid influences college-going decisions by students and their families. We don't have all the answers, but we have learned much that can help us increase participation and success of underrepresented popula-tions through financial aid programs. We know, forexample, that:

• The least wealthy know far less about the cost oftuition than any other income group, and thatestimates of tuition still far exceed the actual cost(American Council on Education 2002)

• Low-income students are more likely than moreaffluent students to have earned an alternativecredential and delayed their entry into postsec-ondary education (King 2002)

• Compared with the average price of attendingdifferent types of institutions, the averageexpected family contributions (EFCs) for low-income students are relatively small, so virtuallyall low-income undergraduates attending fulltime, full year have financial need (U.S.Department of Education 2000)

• Financial aid makes college possible for mostlow-income students who are otherwise pre-pared (Choy 2002)

• Low-income students who began their postsec-ondary education are less likely than their high-er-income counterparts to have earned a degreeor certificate or still be enrolled four years later(U.S. Department of Education 2000)

Financial barriers are generally much more prevalentfor low-income, underrepresented, and first-generationstudents than for others, and the amount of tuition andavailability of financial aid are more important factorsfor these groups than for students in other income lev-els in deciding not only where to go to college but ifthey can go to college. "In general, African American,Hispanic, and low-income students tend to be moreprice responsive (i.e., are less likely to enroll in college,or change the type of institution in which they enroll, inthe face of tuition increases) than are white and mid-dle- and upper-income students" (Heller 2001). Thus, itis essential that the families of these students know bymiddle school or early high school that financial aid isavailable, in what forms, how much, and how to accessit. Counseling services, outreach programs, and com-munity-based support groups all can play a role inhelping with information and planning.

Without both comprehensive information and an assur-ance that adequate aid will be there when they graduate, students may be less likely to prepare aca-demically, to look at their postsecondary options seriously, and to begin their financial planning. It is notuncommon for high school seniors to learn about theirfinancial aid awards only weeks – or a few days –before classes begin. This timing presents an insur-mountable obstacle for low-income students who donot have adequate resources at hand to cover remain-ing costs. In addition to providing information and

51



The Western Interstate Commission forHigher Education (WICHE) is exploring theseissues through a project titled, ChangingDirection: Integrating Higher Education FinancialAid and Financing Policies, supported by theLumina Foundation for Education. The project isexamining how to structure financial aid andfinancing policies and practices to maximize par-ticipation, access, and success for all students.Year after year, the policymaking and educationcommunities struggle with questions of how tomeet growing needs through state allocations,how best to ensure shared and equitable respon-sibility for meeting the costs of higher education,and how best to use subsidies such as financialaid to expand access and opportunity. The proj-ect is based on the premise that too often, theseissues are dealt with as discrete questions ratherthan reflecting the interrelatedness not just ofhigher education finance and financial aid poli-cies, but also of state and federal arenas. Fewstates are satisfied with their decisions in theseareas, and the search continues for better solu-tions to these ever-present problems. Five states –Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, andOregon – have taken up the challenge to achievebetter alignment among key policies pertaining tofinancing and financial aid. For more informationon the Changing Direction project, visithttp://www.wiche.edu/Policy/Lumina/index.htm.

Al ign ing po l ic ies :

counseling services to support students and families inunderstanding financial aid options and obligations,programs should be designed and funded to commitresources to students well before they leave highschool. The goal of enhancing participation in highereducation will not be achieved if students perceive thatcollege is unaffordable and the financial barriers arenot significantly reduced or eliminated.

basis, yet there are few states that provide aid for part-time students. Effective state financial aid programssupport choice and provide the student with flexibility.

Integrated with state tuition and financing policiesas well as with federal and private aid programs

A major reason we have financial aid programs at all isto offset the cost of going to college for low-incomestudents and those who could otherwise not afford toattend. In determining how much and what kind of aideach student will receive, financial aid officers consid-er multiple factors, and one of the most critical is thecost incurred by the institution to provide the educa-tional experience. In most institutions, the cost of edu-cation is shared by the student, the institution, and thestate. The student's share is reflected in tuition and feecharges, and the financial aid packages that higher

It is essential that the families of these students know by

middle school or early high schoolthat financial aid is available,

in what forms, how much,and how to access it.

State policymakers and institutions must also be wellinformed about the advantages and disadvantages ofdifferent types of aid programs and their impact on stu-dent access, choice, and persistence in postsecondaryeducation. The need for such understanding derivesfrom the fact that policymakers and institutions areresponsible for shaping financial aid programs andfunding them in such a way that students and familiescan count on them.

Another critical characteristic of student-oriented finan-cial aid programs in a P-16 system is their ability topromote choice, both when students begin postsec-ondary education and as they transition into differentkinds of institutions. Conduciveness to choice is partic-ularly important for expanding access to higher educa-tion, and it must be clear to students and their familieswhich programs are available and most useful to them.Financial aid awards that are too low or linked to a par-ticular kind of institution will inhibit student choice bylimiting their options to low-tuition institutions or specif-ic institutions. In a P-16 environment, all students knowthat they have a reasonable expectation of choosingamong a broad array of institutional types in Americanhigher education. Students who transfer from one insti-tution to another should be able to do so smoothly,knowing that their aid moves with them with no restric-tions imposed in the transition. One area of increasingconcern in this regard is aid for part-time students. AP-16 environment recognizes that some students willbe able to attend college only on a less-than-full-time

52



education institutions provide are directly related to thelevel of tuition and fee charged. Ironically, however,state financial aid policy, and the programs establishedto support policy, are rarely integrated with two otherkey state policy areas: tuition, and direct institutionalsupport. Unless state polices related to financial aidare consciously linked to financing policies (primarilytuition and appropriations), students who can leastafford to go to college will be short-changed and maybe denied equality of opportunity in access to postsec-ondary education.

often increased their appropriation to postsecondaryinstitutions; many states also dedicated a larger shareof their budgets to higher education. The early years ofthe twenty-first century reveal a very different trend asstate revenues have declined precipitously and thereare fewer dollars to sustain public services. The uncer-tainty of state dollars for higher education has resultedin higher tuition rates at most institutions to cover theincreasing costs of providing postsecondary education.No subject has dominated the higher education con-versation during this period so much as the difficult fiscal conditions of our public colleges and universities.On-going campus budget cuts, the specter of mid-yeartuition increases, and double-digit hikes already imple-mented threaten the ability of institutions to supportfinancial aid programs. The effect of these develop-ments is to place student access and persistence infurther jeopardy. Fiscal instability in state appropria-tions degrades the basic ability of students to count onfinancial aid.

Accountable and appropriate for the goals they serve

Well-intentioned state financial aid programs often getoff track and are expected to accomplish objectivesthey were never designed to address. One reason foran apparent loss in direction is that programs are oftenestablished in statute and funded without including acomprehensive evaluation component as part of theprogram design. Periodic assessment of financial aidprograms is essential to ensure that such programsare effective and efficient in advancing the goals ofgreater participation and success in higher education.It often occurs that misalignment between program-matic intentions and actual implementation is not recognized until too late – after the awards have beendistributed and spent. Ongoing research needs to beconducted on how well state financial aid programsachieve their goals.

The difficulty in assessing program effectivenessincreases not only when program purposes are not

It often occurs that misalignment between

programmatic intentions and actual implementation is not

recognized until too late.

David Longanecker has articulated the importance ofaligning financing and financial aid policies and prac-tices: "Integrated financing policy should ensure thatstate policy and practice with respect to institutionalsupport are in sync with state tuition and financial aidpolicies and practices. . . . State financial aid policymust protect those students from low-income familieswho simply can't bear increased costs . . . [for] partici-pation of students from low-income families doesdecline as the price of college increases. Good, well-integrated policies, however, can address this." Henotes that price-sensitive students need to be protectedfrom tuition increases through policies that offset anyincrease in price with increased financial aid. Securingsuch protection requires two policy imperatives: first, aviable state financial aid policy; and second, the inte-gration of that policy with state tuition policy and feder-al financial aid in ways that intentionally secure financialaccess. "The absence of such intentionally integratedpolicies in most states means that in tough times, whentuition logically increases, financial aid either declinesor remains stagnant" (Longanecker 2002).

Just as importantly, public colleges and universitiesmust have reasonable assurance that state appropria-tions will be sufficient to keep up with increases in thecost of providing high-quality postsecondary educa-tion. The closing years of the twentieth century markeda good period generally for higher education as states

State financial aid policy, and the programs established

to support policy,are rarely integrated with

two other key state policy areas:tuition, and direct institutional support.

53



North Dakota's university system and the statedepartment of public instruction are collaboratingin developing a centralized contact informationdatabase of the state's high school students.The university system anticipates that a com-mon resource base will increase the ability ofcampus recruiters to reach out to prospectivecollege students.

North Carolina has a "data-based decision-making" approach found in few other states.Information feedback mechanisms implementedby the University of North Carolina to the com-munity colleges and high schools connect levelsof the system and provide educators with solidinformation about the consequences for stu-dents of their prior educational experiences.

E f fect i ve Data Sys tems:

clear but also when aid programs are set up to do toomany things. Merit aid programs that require highGPAs and a rigorous college preparatory curriculumbecause they are intended to stem the brain drain in astate should be held accountable for doing that – theyshould not be expected to increase the number of low-income, first-generation students. Merit programs gen-erally will not be successful at achieving the goal ofexpanding access for low-income, underrepresented,first-generation students because these individualsoften do not have access in their schools to therequired rigorous curriculum. If the college preparatorytrack is available in their school, these students too fre-quently have not taken the courses in middle schoolthat prepare them for the college preparatory coursesin high school. Conversely, financial aid programs thatare need based and structured to increase the partici-pation and success of underrepresented groups in college should be held to that standard.

Most states have suffered from program proliferationand vague or ambiguous programmatic objectives.These conditions are usually symptoms of a lack ofclarity among policymakers about the overall purposeof a state financial aid program or what program designwill best achieve that purpose. If "brain drain" is a prob-lem that the state wants to address through its financialaid programs, then that goal should be very apparent.If the problem is low achievement, especially at thehigh school level, then an aid program that rewardshigh school students for taking a college preparatorycurriculum should be the obvious goal. Whatever theissue, expected program outcomes must be clear and measurable so that every program can be heldaccountable for demonstrated improvement. Withfewer fiscal resources available for financial aid pro-grams, the temptation is strong to reduce the overallnumber of programs by merging two or three uniqueprograms into one generic program. While consolida-tion may be recommended for better program adminis-tration, the cure may be worse than the problem if dis-similar programs are merged. Blended aid programsthat link need with high academic performance arebecoming more common with the allure of a high aca-demic standard, but it is very difficult to assess theeffectiveness of such programs. An effort to build onelarge program from several smaller programs by sim-ply combining their highly diverse goals may set theentire program up for poor results.

Financial aid programs in a P-16 system are groundedin good data, and good policymaking to establish andsupport those programs requires good information.

"Poor information at the state level can result in deci-sions that negatively affect large numbers of students,institutions, and citizens in multiple ways. Relevantinformation enables substantive discourse, dialogue,and debate about key policy issues in higher education"(Jones 2002). Financial aid decisions about fundinglevels, qualification criteria, target groups, and awardlevels are made on composite information drawn fromseveral sources in education. Because our goal is notjust enrollment in college but also academic prepara-tion, persistence, and success, the information pipelineextends from at least middle school through the bac-calaureate degree, with significant milestones alongthe way. Accurate, timely, and accessible informationon individuals as well as groups of students is critical indeveloping and projecting aid program participation cri-teria, and funding levels. When data systems in K-12and higher education are separate and independent,their capacity to 'talk" to each other is critical for identifying potential recipients, determining persist-ence, and assessing need. Student unit record sys-tems are essential in a P-16 environment, and infor-mation on financial aid eligibility is a necessary ele-ment in that environment if students are to haveaccess to information on what is available to them andif consistent, timely, high-quality information is avail-able for policymakers to make informed funding andprogram design decisions.

54



Transparent and predictable

A universal complaint about financial aid is the com-plexity of the application process. No one talks abouthow simple it is to apply for financial aid, and there areno reliable estimates on the numbers of students andfamilies who simply give up when faced with filling out the forms and collecting the documentation.Experience and research tell us that programs need tobe highly visible so people know about them, consis-tently funded so people can count on them, and char-acterized by an application process that is relativelyclear, easy to understand, and simple to complete.

Comprehensive and inclusive

In a P-16 system, financial aid provides support in highschool and throughout college, with resources focusedwhen and where they are most needed. In the sameway that many early intervention programs rewardmiddle and high school students for behavior, grades,or courses taken, financial aid during the college yearscould reward persistence and degree completion forlow-income students. Such rewards may take the formof differential aid to recognize persistence – increasing

the award level each year that a student stays in col-lege and progresses toward the degree. A similar effectwould be achieved by replacing loans with grants dur-ing the final year or two of the degree program. Or thedifferentiated aid could be used to promote access andparticipation by making higher awards in the freshmanand sophomore years and using grants in the first cou-ple of years rather than loans.

Examples o f e f fect i ve e lements in s ta te programs:

Oklahoma's Higher Learning Access Program(OHLAP) targets eighth-, ninth-, and tenth-gradestudents with family income of $50,000 or less. Inthe course of its first decade, enrollment hasincreased significantly as OHLAP's visibilityincreased and families have come to depend onthe program and its funding.

Minnesota's shared responsibility model has beenin place for over 20 years and appears to be wide-ly accepted and understood by students, parents,and school and college administrators. Since itsinception, the "Assigned Student Responsibility"portion has been very stable – first set at 50 per-cent in 1983, it did not change until the legislaturelowered it to 47 percent for Fiscal Year 1999; it waslowered one percentage point more in Fiscal Year2001. This kind of policy provides a level of con-sistency and predictability that makes it far easierfor families and students to determine how muchthey must pay.

California policymakers dramatically increasedthe state's Cal Grants program appropriation in2001 in order to guarantee an award to all highschool graduates with at least a C grade pointaverage and financial need. Maryland K-12 and higher education formed a

K-16 Leadership Council to seek significant in-creases in student aid – particularly need-based aid.

Georgia's Helping Outstanding Pupils Educa-tionally (HOPE) Scholarship Program has beenhighly successful in communicating with the state'scitizens. Most everyone in the state – students,teachers, parents, families, counselors, and schooladministrators – know what HOPE is and how itworks. Students know they can count on it beingavailable to them, as well as how to receive andkeep the award.

When students are responsible for paying tuition and fees for K-12

accelerated programs,the barriers for participation by

low-income students rise dramatically.

An early form of financial aid in a P-16 system is funding for accelerated options – such as dual enroll-ment, Advanced Placement (AP), and InternationalBaccalaureate (IB) programs – for all students. Toenhance the participation of low-income students,

55



The U. S. Department of Education's AdvancedPlacement Incentive Program is a national effort toincrease the numbers of low-income studentstaking Advanced Placement courses and exam-inations. Through a competitive process, appli-cants seek funding to provide fee reimburse-ments to qualifying students for taking AdvancedPlacement examinations; additional funding isawarded to applicants for a wide range of activi-ties (such as teacher and counselor profession-al development, online accelerated courses,pre-Advanced Placement activities, verticalteam development, etc.) that will help increasethe participation of low-income students in accel-erated learning programs. States could buildstrong programs on this model.

Advanced P lacement model :

Florida's Bright Futures Scholarship program isthe umbrella program for all state-funded schol-arships based on academic achievement inhigh school. Eligibility criteria include at least15 college preparatory high school credits(Florida Postsecondary Education PlanningCommission 1999).

Louisiana's Tuition Opportunities Program forStudents (TOPS) requires 16.5 core units.

Oklahoma's Higher Learning Access Program isone of the few need-based programs with an aver-age GPA requirement – 2.5 – and specified units ofhigh school courses to prepare students for college.

Requ i rements fo r s tudentass i s tance:

as well as all students in accelerated programs, statepolicy in a P-16 environment will encourage school districts and higher education institutions to collaboratein offering these academically rich opportunities to allstudents – especially those in rural and economicallydisadvantaged districts. The other important part of thestate's role is to provide financial support for these pro-grams. Most states require the student to pay for partor all of the cost of the accelerated programs. Whenstudents are responsible for paying tuition and fees fordual enrollment, concurrent enrollment, AP, or IBcourses, the barriers for participation by low-incomestudents rise dramatically.

Reinforces readiness

In addition to inclusiveness and comprehensiveness,financial aid programs should reinforce readiness forcollege rather than the attainment of grade averages.Neither grades nor grade point averages (GPA) neces-sarily reflect a student's readiness to do college-levelwork. Many programs – both need- and non-needbased – require a minimum GPA with no recognition ofthe content and rigor of the courses students take.What often happens is that students refuse to takechallenging courses like those in accelerated options,preferring to take easier courses in order to maintain orimprove their GPA and chances to qualify for a schol-arship. All of our activity in preparing students to leavesecondary school should focus on providing thestrongest possible preparation for college or the work

force. Financial aid programs that emphasize GPAover readiness send the wrong signals to students andultimately diminish their ability to compete successful-ly, either in college or in many jobs. Student assistanceprograms should be structured to motivate and rewardachievement and encourage strong academic prepara-tion. Some states have done this by requiring comple-tion of a "core curriculum" to quality for certain aid programs, but these are usually scholarship programs.

The elements of a comprehensive P-16 financial aidprogram are similar to what one might expect from anygood state financial aid program. Unfortunately, wehave been unable to identify among the fifty states a P-16 program with the characteristics indicated above.Many states exemplify some of the elements, but nonecontains them all. The goal of successfully applying aholistic approach to education from kindergarten to thebaccalaureate cannot be achieved with equity for low-income, underrepresented, and first-generationstudents until we can unequivocally say that our statefinancial assistance programs are oriented towardsstudents, integrated with state financing policies andfederal and private programs, accountable and appro-priate for the goals they serve, information driven,transparent and predictable, comprehensive, andstructured in such a way to reinforce readiness.

56



What Are the Obstacles to a SuccessfulStudent Financial Assistance Program ina P-16 System, and How Might They BeOvercome?

The obstacles to incorporating successful programs ofstudent financial assistance as an integral componentof a P-16 strategy for enhancing student success fallinto two categories:

The First Dilemma: The Lack of Capacity to EnsureAccess to Success

1. Insufficient fiscal resources2. Competing state goals3. Lack of student aspiration and motivation

The Second Dilemma: The Lack of AdequateStrategies to Ensure Access to Success

1. Complexity in design and operation2. Lack of transparency – inadequate and insuffi-

cient information3. Failure to integrate finance policies so that

they complement each other

Dilemma I: The Issue of Capacity

Insufficient fiscal resources

Almost all states, and certainly the federal governmentwithin the Higher Education Act, have strong rhetoricthat supports broad participation in postsecondary edu-cation for all citizens who are willing and able to benefitfrom such study. Without adequate financial support toachieve that goal, however, access cannot be assured.Without a financing scheme that eliminates legitimatelyassessed financial need, research shows clearly thatmany students from low-income families will not attendcollege, and many of those that do will not succeed. It'sthat simple. States that fail to address this fundingbreach will fail to achieve true access to success inpostsecondary education. Today, only about twelvestates have robust enough state need-based financialaid programs to ensure financial access, and evenfewer states intentionally seek to integrate their finan-cial aid, tuition, institutional support policies, and fund-ing practices to ensure true affordability.

Often, the insufficiency of fiscal resources results notso much from a lack of will as it does from antiquatedpolicies that inappropriately address modern publicpolicy objectives. For example, many states rely on low

tuition as their primary strategy for ensuring affordabil-ity. When first adopted more than a century ago, thatapproach made sense; public subsidies to the institu-tions were sufficient to cover the costs of educating thefew best and brightest young high school graduates,who were the only ones expected to attend college.With today's expectation that most young people willgraduate from high school and continue on to college,the old low-tuition model does not suffice – first,because it does not account for the true costs of college attendance; and second, because it does notprovide the institutions with the resources necessary toeducate the masses.

One commonly proposed solution is for public policy-makers simply to recognize that higher education pro-vides great social and economic value to a state andthus warrants greater investment. That argument hasbeen relatively unsuccessful in the past and promisesto become even less compelling, given the currentscarcity of public resources, and the fact that there is nothing particularly new or novel about the argu-ment. In fact the substantial economic returns thathigher education confers on individual students mayhave weakened public support, if only because thesereturns heighten the perception that higher educationoffers more of a private than a public value.

Often, the insufficiency of fiscal resources results not so much

from a lack of will as it does from antiquated policies

that inappropriately address modern public policy objectives.

Two promising public policy strategies, however, arecurrently being considered in a number of states foraddressing the fiscal resource barrier. The first wouldreallocate both public and private resources withinhigher education in a way to enhance the affordabilityof all students, particularly those with greatest need.Generally this strategy calls for increasing tuition andoffsetting the cost of this increase for needy studentswith substantial increases in financial aid. The addi-tional tuition revenues can help ensure affordability forexisting students with unmet need while expanding

57



access to other students who currently cannot afford toattend, even in a constrained state fiscal environment.

Ensuring that higher education fares well in the com-petition among state priorities will be extremely difficult for three reasons. First, higher education isincreasingly being perceived as a private good.Second, some other services must grow, eitherbecause of mandates or from being of such pressingpresent concern (i.e., homeland security) that theyreceive higher priority. Third, because higher educa-tion has recourse to tuition as an additional source ofrevenue, it is one of few state services in which costscan be conveniently shifted.

The same strategies discussed above in the financialsufficiency discussion – reallocating within higher edu-cation and presenting a "new way" of enhancingaccess – however, may be successful in helping higher education compete more effectively in the public arena.

Lack of student aspiration and motivation

Low aspirations and the lack of student motivationpresent major obstacles to success in a P-16 strategy.One might readily ask, if pre-collegiate students do notaspire to higher education and lack the motivationnecessary to prepare adequately, does public policyeven matter? In fact there is evidence that it does.Some studies suggest that the reason many youngpeople are unmotivated and non-aspiring is that theydo not believe it possible to consider continuing theireducation. They often believe that they cannot meetthe learning requirements, and that even if they couldsucceed, their families could not afford to send themon to college.

On first blush this may seem like a legitimate issue forthe P-16 agenda, but not a legitimate focus for financialaid within the broader agenda. A number of early inter-vention efforts have evolved recently, however, to workwith these students and their families, and equally

One commonly proposed solution is for public policymakerssimply to recognize that

higher education provides great social and economic value

to a state and thus warrants greater investment.

A number of states are trying a second strategy, whichmoves beyond the old approach in favor of a new one.Though many of the recently adopted "merit-aid" pro-grams have distinct design flaws, they have clearlycaught the imagination of policymakers by bringing"need" and "achievement" together. Merit-aid pro-grams create a partnership of sorts between the government and the beneficiaries. Indiana's Twenty-first Century Scholars Program and the OklahomaHigher Learning Access Program (OHLAP) stand outas models in this realm. They blend need and merit byfocusing resources only on low- and moderate-incomefamilies and rewarding students for taking a rigorouscurriculum. These programs avoid two problems ofsome "merit" programs: they don't offer incentives totake easy courses to get a higher GPA, and by com-bining need and academic achievement they are moreefficient than programs that make grants to studentswho have ample financial resources and require noassistance to enroll.

Competing state goals

Governors and legislators must balance manydemands for limited resources. Some federal mandat-ed costs such as Medicaid leave states with no choice,although in most cases policymakers choose betweencompeting and important public services. Over theyears, higher education appears to have lost its luster,receiving a gradually decreasing share of state budg-ets, despite an increasing demand for its services. Yethigher education must take care not to overplay thisphenomenon, for although the share of resources hasbeen declining the actual amount provided to highereducation has increased.

Programs in Indiana and Oklahomablend need and merit

by focusing resources only on low- and moderate-income

families and rewarding students fortaking a rigorous curriculum.

58



important, with their teachers, counselors, and financialaid professionals, helping them understand that all stu-dents can learn, that they must do so if they want thegood life, and that financial aid is available to help meetthe cost of higher education if they prepare well. Mostnotable amongst these early intervention programs arethe federal GEAR-UP programs, which are attemptingto bring to scale many projects modeled after innovativeefforts such as the Ford Foundation's Project Grad andthe I Have A Dream Programs. These programs blendencouragement, rigorous preparation, and guaranteedfinancial aid into a package that helps motivate stu-dents to achieve at higher levels.

A second dimension of the complexity issue has to dowith the design, regulation, and rules for financial aid.Filling out the Federal Application for Student FinancialAssistance (FAFSA) has been greatly simplified inrecent years, but it remains a daunting task for familieswith limited means, sophistication, and literacy skills.The process could be much simpler, particularly forvery poor people. In addition, federal regulations onthe institutional management of the programs, alldeveloped for good reason and in a professional man-ner, tend not to capture the true nature of student life,particularly for students from low-income backgrounds.Some of these impediments cannot be removedbecause they are necessary to manage exceptionallylarge programs and to prevent fraud and abuse. Yetsome of the complexity could be eliminated, particular-ly for students with substantial financial need. We needto simplify a number of aspects of these programs soour intended beneficiaries can better understand thatthey can go to college.

Complexity will always be an obstacle to some extent,because of the many sources of benevolence thatcontribute to the overall financial aid scheme. But, theprocess can be simplified. Minnesota has a very sub-stantial state student financial assistance program,which makes it easy for a prospective student tounderstand her or his obligation and what others willprovide, yet the state delivers these grants through amechanism that is easily managed at the individualcampus level.

The reason many young people are unmotivated and non-aspiring

is that they do not believe it possible to consider

continuing their education.

Financial assistance, then, can be an effective part of aprogram to increase aspirations and motivation, butonly if designed well.

Dilemma II: The Paucity of Good Strategies

Complexity in design and operation

A serious obstacle to incorporating today's financial aidscheme into an effective P-16 strategy is the complex-ity of that scheme. In combination, federal, state, andinstitutional programs do a nice job of covering thelandscape of needy students, but they are so compli-cated that no one from outside the financial assistanceclub can understand the rules. The reason these pro-grams are so convoluted is simply that the focus is onthe wrong place; they are designed to serve the needsof institutions and government first and foremost, not ofstudents. Institutions want to retain discretion overwhich of their students will receive what aid. And,because aid flows in from a myriad of governmentaland private sources, in addition to what the institutionsprovide themselves, the financial aid professional hasbecome an essential broker for packaging financial aid.The dilemma, however, is that this arrangement makesthe process anything but transparent to the prospectivestudent. How can prospective students plan for thefuture if they have no idea how their aid will be pack-aged when the time comes?

The reason these programs are so convoluted is simply that the focus is on the wrong place;they are designed to serve the

needs of institutions and government first and foremost,

not of students.

The issue of transparency

Too often the people we want to help do not under-stand financial aid because we have not found effec-tive ways to communicate what is available. Part of theproblem here is the timidity of government to "commit."The federal Pell Grant program is now more than thirty

59



years old. This being the case, why can't it commit to athirteen-year-old eighth-grader whose family livesbelow the poverty line that he or she will absolutelyreceive a Pell grant when matriculating in a college oruniversity? We all know the arguments. It is becausetoday's government cannot legally commit resourcesfrom a future government. And, because a particularstudent living in poverty might be one of the 2 percentwho will eventually get out of poverty before going tocollege. These arguments make it unlikely to supposethat change will occur at the federal level.

States, however, do not have to be caught in the samegame. Minnesota's Shared Responsibility Plan makesit clear to students what their obligation is, what theirparents' obligation is, and what the government willsupply through federal or state programs.

We need to find ways to get honest, accurate informa-tion to students and their families early enough thatthey aspire to a brighter future through participationand success in postsecondary education.

Failure to make policies complement each other

Too often states have an array of policies, each intend-ed to advance the agenda of student success thoughnot designed to complement one another. In fact,occasionally these well-meaning policies actually workagainst access to success in a P-16 paradigm.

With respect to financial aid, the most obvious obstacleis the lack of integration of financial aid, tuition, andinstitutional support financing policies. In most states,the responsible governing or coordinating boardmakes a request for state appropriations for their insti-tutions. Generally another responsible body makes arequest for financial aid from a judgment of likely need,even though it has no idea what tuition will be when the student enrolls. Some time later the responsibleboards or legislature make a political or reasoned decision about how much tuition will increase, andinstitutions make some decisions about how muchthey will individually commit to financial aid from theirown resources. This process is not designed to assureadequacy for student financial aid or to provide muchtransparency to prospective students and their fami-lies. States must find a way to bring these discussionstogether and develop and manage their finances inways that recognize the interrelated nature of financialaid, tuition, and institutional support.While there are few good models to follow, some havebegun to evolve. In a number of states there is at leastrecognition in current policy of the relationship

between tuition and financial aid. Nevada and Arizonaare considering substantial changes in the way thesetwo components of higher education finance are con-ceived and managed. Too often, however, we fail toappreciate the importance of the third leg of highereducation finance – institutional support – in support-ing access. We think of institutional support as thequality leg and not an access leg. Yet, if institutionalsupport is insufficient, no amount of financial aid willassure access because the institutions will not havethe services in place to meet the needs of financiallyand educationally at-risk students.

As students increasingly participate in early collegeoptions – dual enrollment, international baccalaureate,Advanced Placement, etc. – it becomes imperativethat public policy be framed and pursued as a P-16strategy. Too often today, these programs, while highlyapproved by the public, provide little incentive for institutional buy-in at either the high school or collegelevel. Again, though, there are models emerging thatare worth watching and perhaps replicating. TheOklahoma Higher Learning Access Program (OHLAP)warrants special mention. It rewards not only studentsthat succeed but also the high schools they attendedfor helping them succeed; ultimately the program helpsthe colleges these students attend through a well-fund-ed financial aid award.

In sum, financial aid must be an integral component ofan effective P-16 strategy for increasing student suc-cess. Without it an essential component in the overallstrategy would be absent from planning and manage-ment, and the public policy objective to enhance equalopportunity would be foiled.

References

American Council on Education. 2001. "ACE SurveyShows Americans Value Higher Education, ButRemain Skeptical About Some Issues." HigherEducation and National Affairs, vol. 50, no. 1.

_____. 2002. Attitudes Toward Public HigherEducation: National Survey Results. Washington, DC:American Council on Education.

Choy, Susan. 2002. Access and Persistence: Findingsfrom 10 Years of Longitudinal Research on Students.Washington DC: American Council on Education.

Florida Postsecondary Education PlanningCommission. 1999. Florida's Bright Futures

60



Scholarship Program: A Baseline Evaluation.Tallahassee, Florida.: Florida PostsecondaryEducation Planning Commission.

Heller, Donald E. 2001. The Effects of Tuition Pricesand Financial Aid on Enrollment in Higher Education:California and the Nation. Rancho Cordova, California:EdFund.

Jones, Dennis P. and Karen Paulson. 2001.Developing and Maintaining the InformationInfrastructure for State Level Higher EducationPolicymaking. Boulder, Colorado: National Center forHigher Education Management Systems.

King, Jacqueline E. 2002. Crucial Choices: HowStudents' Financial Decisions Affect Their AcademicSuccess. Washington, DC: American Council onEducation.

Longanecker, David A. 2002. "Ensuring Accessthrough Integrated Financing Policy: Observations byDavid A. Longanecker." Network News. Denver: StateHigher Education Executive Officers.

National Center for Public Policy and HigherEducation. 2002. Measuring Up 2002: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education. San Jose,California: National Center for Public Policy and HigherEducation.

St. John, Edward P., Glenda D. Musoba, Ada B.Simmons, and Choong-Geun Chung. 2002. Meetingthe Access Challenge: Indiana's Twenty-first CenturyScholars Program. Indianapolis: The LuminaFoundation for Education.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics. 2000. Low-Income Students: WhoThey Are and How They Pay for Their Education.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

61



63

by Hans P. L'Orange and Richard A. Voorhees

Data andAccountab i l i t y

Sys tems

he tremendous interest in increasing the depth and breadth of educational achievement in the United Stateshas created a burgeoning industry of educational standards, data, and accountability systems. It has also created some resistance as educators and policymakers, as well as parents and other stakeholders,

are energetically debating what kinds of standards, data, and accountability systems are needed to help improveeducational achievement.

While there is legitimate debate over many details, it is clear that the data systems in most states were neverdesigned to meet the challenges envisioned by new accountability mandates. These systems were originally constructed to provide data for routine reports or to audit expenditures; they are wholly inadequate to meet theassessment and accountability challenges of the twenty-first century. Data systems designed for the new centurywill need to provide a comprehensive foundation for documenting the achievement of students, schools, and col-leges, while improving the ability to respond to questions about a state's investment in education.

For the foreseeable future, re-conceptualizing and recasting existing data systems will be the bywords in moststates. What is emerging, particularly in high-stakes environments, is a need for information that is both compre-hensive and focused – capable of describing achievement across multiple sectors while also reporting educationalperformance in particular areas. Ideally, an integrated data system across all levels of education will meet thosecombined informational needs. In reality, two systems currently exist; one for K-12 education and another for post-secondary education. Neither system is adequate alone, and because they are poorly aligned, they are evenweaker together.

The purpose of this essay is to help advance the discussions now occurring in most states by describing the kindsof data and accountability systems needed to help more students prepare for and succeed in postsecondary edu-cation. We will (1) describe our view of an effective P-16 data and accountability system; (2) describe the generalstatus of K-12 and postsecondary data systems; (3) provide examples of promising state practices; and (4) offersome concluding recommendations.

T

64



An Effective P-16 Data and AccountabilitySystem

Effective and comprehensive systems share severalcommon characteristics. They inform all stakeholdersof the condition of education at various levels. Theyenable states to identify effective educational practicesand diagnose problems. They have the potential toincrease the commitment among stakeholders to collect, analyze, and use information on student per-formance. Effective systems also have the ability toidentify programs, schools, and students that are suc-cessful, in addition to those that need attention andassistance to become more successful. Finally, suchsystems help K-12 students and teachers focus on thecurricula and content that must be mastered to be suc-cessful in postsecondary education. As state systemsfor data and accountability evolve – in particular, asthey gain the ability to track student progress over timeand capture a wide range of educational influences –they hold the promise of providing the tools needed tomonitor and improve performance.

At best, successful accountability systems becomemore than simply reporting mechanisms. They focuson student performance in relationship to criteriaestablished by the state and provide a common rubricfor evaluating student and school performance. Goodsystems can be used to assess and improve K-12achievement that, in turn, can result in more studentsmeeting the standards required for both admission andsuccess in postsecondary education. Successfulaccountability systems capture data on student learn-ing activities, assessment of those learning activities,and characteristics of the schools in which studentsare enrolled. Learning activity data can consist ofcourse content, grades, class size, and informationabout teachers associated with those courses, includ-ing certification criteria and number of years teaching.Exemplary data systems seek to move beyond thesetraditional measures and assess how well a given setof learning activities contributes to student learning.School-level data should consist of numbers of students served from families below the poverty line, student-teacher ratios, dropout rates, measures ofschool climate, and measurements of parental and community involvement.

The actual decisions about what constitutes assess-ment data must derive from a given state's goals for itsaccountability system. Some states choose a perform-ance model that focuses on the numbers of studentsthat meet or exceed state standards. Others use a

growth model, focusing on the progress of studentsfrom grade to grade. The choice between a perform-ance or growth model dictates the timing for collectingassessment data and the nature of assessments them-selves. States typically choose to collect standard testdata at predefined grade levels and most often by asurvey test. This point-in-time assessment scheme ismost often used to compare performance acrossschools, not to make judgments about the academicgrowth of individual students. Performance modelsgenerally assess students periodically to obtain a por-trait of student achievement at that time. A growthmodel, on the other hand, implies pre- and post-assessment, either within a given grade level or acrossgrade levels.

States face other decisions when creating an assess-ment system. Each state needs to determine whetheroff-the-shelf survey tests meet its assessment needsand whether the content of these commercially pro-duced assessments aligns with the state's own stan-dards. Failing this alignment, a state needs to decidewhether a survey test created specifically for its curric-ular standards is a prudent investment. States alsoneed to consider whether the results of alternativeassessments – e.g., portfolios, demonstrations, and

Successful accountability systems capture data

on student learning activities,assessment of those learningactivities, and characteristics

of the schools in which students are enrolled.

Exemplary data systems seek to move beyond these

traditional measures and assess how well a given set of learning activities contributes

to student learning.

65



other non-test documentation of learning – should beincluded in data systems. Each of these techniquesrequires that responsible parties make firm judgmentsabout the validity of assessments and their reliability,especially within high-stakes state environments.

Complex longitudinal systems are designed to trackthe progress of individual students and require individ-ual student data collected over time. Such systems,typically called "unit record" systems, collect a widerange of demographic and performance data at regu-lar, systematic intervals to support analysis. Unitrecord systems have several other advantages overaggregate systems. They require that consistent defi-nitions be used for individual variables, making validcomparisons possible. Statewide unit record systemsalso provide a mechanism to ensure that data submit-ted by providers are accurate, especially when theyare used to compare schools. Finally, in addition togenerating routine reports, unit record systems can be used to produce answers to "what if" questions that frequently can take accountability questions tohigher levels.

The General Status of K-12 andPostsecondary Data Systems

For most of the twentieth century, states were contentto let patterns of student achievement follow their owncourse – those students who performed well in the pri-mary and secondary grades moved on to higher edu-cation, while those who did not found lower-skilled butreasonably well-paying jobs. With the increasing skillrequirements of work and heightened competition in aglobal economy, states have come to understand moreclearly the link between an educated workforce andtheir own ability to sustain economic growth. As theeducational aspirations of states have grown, the K-12standards movement, concern with educationalinequities, and interest in the performance of postsec-ondary students have also increased substantially.These factors have reinforced state-level data collec-tion, especially in the K-12 systems, where testing databecame widely available by the late 1990's. States arealso implementing the accountability standards withinthe "No Child Left Behind Act" of 2001, which requireassessments in all schools in reading, mathematics,and, eventually, science in grades three through eight.The act requires that every state develop an account-ability system, that all students be included, and thatstandards apply to all schools and students.

The good news is that the data that can be used foraccountability and improvement are for the most partplentiful. The data pieces of a strong accountabilitysystem are in place in many states, even though nosingle state yet possesses a system sufficient toanswer all the questions that are asked. The bad newsis that these frequently disparate data are seldomassembled into comprehensive information systems.Many systems have collected student achievementdata for many years, but only a handful of states havebegun to combine these data with those of otherschools and colleges to produce information andguide decisions.

The progress currently being made toward accounta-bility systems in many states will not necessarily matchall the requirements of the "No Child Left Behind" Act.Prior to this Act, most states addressed accountabilityconcerns by collecting aggregated data about theaverage performance of students or groups of studentsin particular schools. While this effort represented agroundbreaking step, it can be quite limited for two main reasons. First, aggregate data provide "snapshots" of average student performance withinindividual schools but no information about individual

Statewide unit record systems also provide a mechanism

to ensure that data submitted byproviders are accurate,

especially when they are used to compare schools.

Unit record systems are characterized by the presenceof a unique identification number that allows an indi-vidual student's data to be linked across grades andschools. A system of this sort also makes possible thelinkage of assessment data to demographic and pro-gram records. There is clearly movement towards unitrecord systems. A recent on-line survey of state K-12education agencies, developed by the National Centerfor Education Statistics, (www.nces.ed.gov/forum/tec-survey) assessed each state education agency's infor-mation systems. Twenty-two of the forty-seven statesresponding indicated that they use an individual stu-dent-level record system, fifteen states are in thedesign stage, and only ten states have no currentplans to develop a system of this type (Lee 2002).

66



students. This flaw means that individual student datacannot be linked with other elements – such as cours-es taken and socioeconomic factors – that might influ-ence individual performance. Second, aggregate datashed little light on the performance of students andschools across time. The effects of educational reformcannot be captured in a single slice. Aggregate datacannot be combined adequately to assess progress, orlack thereof, since those students whose performancemeasures were combined to create aggregate statis-tics in one year may not be the same students whoseperformances are combined in the next year.

erate reports, respond to both internal and externaldemands, and demonstrate the value of the educationthat institutions provide. These systems have becomequite adept at addressing institutional issues, but theycan be limited when used collectively to address stateconcerns. Giving answers to many of the questionspolicymakers now ask will require definitional consis-tency and comprehensiveness that are frequentlymissing across institutional systems. Many complexissues require coordinated analysis beyond thosestudies produced by one or more institutions, especial-ly when statewide responses are required to questionsabout student transfer, occupational placement, andinter-state migration.

Over the past decades, statewide higher educationagencies and the federal government have assumedgreater roles in the area of data gathering and produc-tion and information management. This process beganwith the collection, analysis, and reporting of informa-tion gathered from the institutions and based on theirindividual data systems. The information frequentlyincluded data on applicants, student enrollments, fac-ulty and staff, finances, and facilities. Over time, dataon completions, financial aid, and student courseswere added. Like K-12 systems, state higher educationorganizations and federal agencies began to establishcommon definitions and reporting formats allowingthem to generate meaningful information at the stateand federal levels. Eventually many states developedtheir own statewide databases, which gave them evenmore analytical capacity, including the ability to com-pile the information needed for federal reporting. Asnoted in a forthcoming report (Ewell, et al.) from theNational Center for Higher Education ManagementSystems (NCHEMS), these systems have some com-mon characteristics. Among the most important ofthese is the inclusion of electronic unit records uniqueto each student. In addition, these records are fre-quently based on data gathered from institutions at

The good news is that the data that can be used for

accountability and improvement arefor the most part plentiful.

Colleges and universities also require accountabilitysystems, although the purposes of such systems maybe somewhat different. Particularly since 1990, statepolicymakers have become increasingly interested inthe productivity and efficiency of public postsecondarysystems. Their concern stems from the fact that stateresources are declining at the same time that costsand demands for improved access have increased. Arecent survey by the State Higher Education ExecutiveOfficers (SHEEO) confirms that accountability andeffectiveness are among the top issues for state deci-sion makers; these issues have been close to the topof the list for each of the surveys done over the pastdecade. The most recent survey confirmed the resultsfrom an earlier SHEEO report on performance meas-ures, which noted that state policy agendas foraccountability continue to emphasize the dual purpos-es of improvement and accountability. It also noted thatthe most commonly used measures for performancereporting are quantitative indicators of "outcome" or"output" including graduation rates (Ruppert 1998).

Although most people do not question the overall valueof a college education, higher education must makethe case to the public and to political leaders that thisvalue is real and that postsecondary educationdeserves financial support. Demonstrating this valuerequires robust data and information systems for post-secondary education, as it does for K-12 systems.Over time, data systems have been developed at theinstitutional level that allow staff to analyze data, gen-

Many complex issues requirecoordinated analysis, especiallywhen statewide responses are

required to questions about studenttransfer, occupational placement,

and inter-state migration.

67



specific points of time and maintained centrally. Insome ways, these systems are similar to the K-12 unitrecord systems discussed earlier. As the NCHEMSreport notes, thirty-nine states currently have state unitrecord databases. The eleven states that do not haveunit record databases are relatively small, and as aresult, 87 percent of all headcount enrollments are instates with one or more state-level databases.Eighteen of the databases contain data from the1970's or 1980's, and half of the databases built in thelast decade contain data collected prior to 1995.Federal reporting standards in the IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) andother required federal reporting have encouragedsome consistency of definitions across systems.

Despite these efforts, the range of data systems variesconsiderably. Some are very basic, while others aremuch more complex and contain a wide range of dataon students, courses, and grades. In a few states,where state-level financial aid programs are the respon-sibility of the state agency, data are also included fromprivate institutions. Some states have data links to labordatabases; most do not. Other challenges include thefact that not all states collect data at the same point intime and, as noted above, not all states collect thesame data elements. Most states don't use the SocialSecurity Number as a student identifier because of pri-vacy concerns. Many are taking steps to create newidentifiers to meet these concerns. However, theassignment of unique identifiers limits the possibilitiesfor tracking students outside of data systems that do notor cannot share these identifiers.

Although they have shortcomings, unit record systemsare valuable for accountability reporting and perform-ance funding initiatives. The level of information available about students and the states' postsecondarysystems is substantially greater than it was twentyyears ago. These systems have been a large part ofthe foundation for comparative peer data, and the stateaverages that are now in wide circulation can addresscritical policy questions about student migration andprogress within a given state. The largest shortcomingof these systems, however, is their isolation; the sys-tems for K-12 students and postsecondary studentsare rarely linked together. The value of a P-16 systemcan only be analyzed when data are available acrossall components of that system. Enabling states to veri-fy that their investments in education have in fact beenfruitful across all levels will require that very cross-system linkage.

Promising State Practices

While states are in different stages of implementingtheir various systems, linking together information fromdifferent sources becomes the next major step formany state-level data systems. Some data are alreadybeing shared even without direct links. Some of thepostsecondary unit record systems contain admissionsinformation, including a student's high school and finalsecondary school grade-point average. Student workundertaken prior to admission to a particular school inthe form of transfer credits or prior college-level work isalso available in certain systems. Extracting this infor-mation has permitted many states to develop feedbacksystems that allow high schools to receive informationabout their graduates' postsecondary performance.Communication and data sharing of this sort enablegreater cooperation among school districts and statecolleges and universities regarding academic prepara-tion and expected high school coursework. The valueof these partnership efforts should not be minimizedeven though they are limited. This data sharing can

Communication and data sharingenable greater cooperation among school districts and

state colleges and universitiesregarding academic preparation

and expected high school coursework.

have a direct impact on the decisions being made in aP-16 system. The ability to analyze what a student haslearned in high school and what he or she is attempt-ing to learn in college is a promising development inthe evolution of unit record data systems.

Even more value will come from the direct and formalcoordination of data systems, though it will be chal-lenging to achieve this task on a broad scale. Viewingstudent data as a valuable resource regardless of stu-dent level will require substantial cooperation betweenmultiple agencies and state-level education organiza-tions. Jonathan Tafel and Nancy Eberhart (1999), writ-ing in "Stateside School-College (P-16) Partnerships toImprove Student Performance," very aptly note that a

68



state's ability to collect quality data and conduct appro-priate analysis is necessary for an effective P-16 edu-cation system. Robust student databases are requiredto monitor student progress across the P-16 continu-um, enable early assessment for remediation, assesspossible intervention activities, and locate barrierswithin systems.

Many of the issues that were previously addressedthrough separate systems will need to be addressedcooperatively. Common definitions and data collectionmethodologies, issues of privacy and confidentiality,and ownership and control of the data will all needattention. These challenges are great, but the returnwill also be substantial. Good data and informationacross all sectors and levels of education will pro-vide a state with a system-wide perspective on its P-16 system.

public education activity in the state. This obviouslymakes data sharing much more feasible, and the datawarehouse allows the Department to analyze informa-tion from several sectors. The Department has anambitious set of goals: to gather complete, timely, andaccurate data; obtain a statewide view; develop anintegrated technical environment that incorporatesdata from multiple sources and organizations; mergehistorical data with current data in a structured repos-itory; create comprehensive data definitions; and provide easy access and manipulation. The ware-house is a repository that integrates existing, restruc-tured data, provides state-of-the-art analytical capabil-ities, and – not least – respects confidentiality. Its mis-sion statement is clear: "The mission of the FloridaEducation Data Warehouse (EDW) is to provide stake-holders in public education – including, but not limitedto, administrators, educators, parents, students, stateleadership, and professional organizations – with thecapability of receiving timely, efficient, consistentresponses to inquiries into Florida's Kindergartenthrough University education system."

Conclusion

Good decisions require good data. The data and datasystems that exist in current P-16 systems attempt,with varying results, to support the decisions made byeducators and the public that affect current and futurestudents. These systems were originally designed tocount or verify student enrollments and periodically toproduce demographic profiles; they are now movingsteadily beyond those basic tasks. Data systems ofthe future will be required to do more: they must pro-vide a comprehensive foundation for documenting theachievement of all students, schools, and colleges.Coordinated efforts will be required to address thechallenges inherent in each individual system, as wellas those that result from working across systems. Asthe purposes of information continue to evolve, exem-plary data and accountability systems will becomemore efficient. They will be designed and implementedin ways that increase the ability of policymakers andpractitioners to focus on data that are useful for deci-sions – within a particular level of the system, and ulti-mately across the entire spectrum of P-16 education.

References

Ewell, Peter T., Paula R. Schild, and Karen Paulson.2003. Following the Mobile Student: Can We Developthe Capacity for a Comprehensive Database to Assess

Common definitions and data collection methodologies,

issues of privacy and confidentiality,and ownership and control of

the data will all need attention.

Several states have programs in place that demon-strate the power of partnerships. Maryland has an alliance of the Maryland State Department ofEducation, the Maryland Higher Education Commission,and the University System of Maryland. The MarylandPartnership for Teaching and Learning, K-16, has iden-tified core learning goals and academic content stan-dards designed to help students transition from highschool to college and the workplace. The K-16 partnershave worked together to make sure high school exitrequirements are better aligned with college admis-sions requirements.

Florida is in the process of building a K-20 educationdata warehouse that addresses many of these issues(http://edwapp.doe.state.fl.us/doe/). This databasepulls together resources from existing systems,including a robust P-12 data system that has been inplace for more than 10 years, data from the well-established community college and university systems, and financial aid data. Florida is in the rela-tively unusual circumstance of having a single agency,the Florida Department of Education, overseeing all

69



Student Progression?. Indianapolis: The LuminaFoundation.

Lee, Jinhee. 2002. "Improving State Data Systems toImplement NCLB." Council of Chief State SchoolOfficers, vol. 6, no. 6.

Ruppert, Sandra S. 1998. Focus on the Customer: ANew Approach to State-Level Accountability Reportingand Processes for Higher Education. Denver: StateHigher Education Executive Officers.

Tafel, Jonathon, and Nancy Eberhart. 1999. StatewideSchool-College (K-16) Partnerships to ImproveStudent Performance. Denver: State Higher EducationExecutive Officers

71

Appendix

The Pathways to College Network

The Pathways to College Network is an alliance of private and corporate foundations, nonprofits, educational insti-tutions, and the U.S. Dept. of Education. Launched in December 2000 and with funding commitments expectedto total over $2 million over the first three years of the project, the mission of the Pathways Network is to focusresearch-based knowledge and resources on improving college preparation, access, and success for under-served population, including low-income, underrepresented minority, and first-generation students. Theassociations involved in Pathways represent regional, cultural, and national interests. They include:

ACT, Inc.

American Council on Education (ACE)

American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF)

ASPIRA , Inc.

The College Board

Council for Opportunity in Education

Education Commission of the States (ECS)

The Education Resources Institute (TERI)

Institute for Educational Leadership (IEF)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC)

National Association for Secondary School Principals (NASSP)

National College Access Network (NCAN)

National Council for Community and Educational Partnerships (NCCEP)

National Urban League

Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (PREL)

State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO)

University of California System – EMP Collaborative

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE)

State Higher Education Executive Officers(SHEEO)

The mission of SHEEO, the national association ofstate higher education executives, is to help the statesdevelop and sustain excellent systems of higher edu-cation. Its fifty-six members are the CEOs of statewidegoverning and coordinating boards for higher educa-tion. Former SHEEO Associate Executive Director,Esther Rodriguez initiated the development of the P-16Initiative, and other SHEEO staff with significant partic-ipation include: Tricia Coulter, Paul Lingenfelter, HansL'Orange, Gail Miller, Alene Russell, Mary Sweeney,Richard Voorhees, and Susan Winter.

Western Interstate Commission forHigher Education (WICHE)

The Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation is a regional organization created to facili-tate resource sharing among the higher education systems of the West. Fifteen states are members ofWICHE, an interstate compact created by formal leg-islative action of the states and the U.S. Congress.Staff members who participated include: SharonBailey, Cheryl Blanco, and David Longanecker.

The College Board

The College Board is a national nonprofit membershipassociation whose mission is to prepare, inspire, andconnect students to college and opportunity. Foundedin 1900, the association is composed of more than4,200 schools, colleges, universities, and other educa-tional organizations. Each year, the College Boardserves over three million students and their parents,22,000 high schools, and 3,500 colleges through majorprograms and services in college admission, guidance,assessment, financial aid, enrollment, and teachingand learning. Staff from The College Board who partic-ipated in this project include: Michelle Booth Cole,Rafael J. Magallan, and Lezli Baskerville.

Education Commission of the States(ECS)

The Education Commission of the States (ECS) is aninterstate compact created in 1965 to improve publiceducation by facilitating the exchange of information,ideas and experiences among state policymakers andeducation leaders. As a nonprofit, nonpartisan organi-zation involving key leaders from all levels of the education system, ECS creates unique opportunities tobuild partnerships, share information and promote thedevelopment of policy based on available researchand strategies. Staff members who participated in thisproject include: Terese Rainwater, Spud Van de Water,and Carl Krueger

The Pathways to College Network is conveined by Occidental College and funded by the following providers:

72


Appendix

Daniels Fund

Ford Foundation

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

GE Fund

The James Irvine Foundation

W.K. Kellogg Foundation

KnowledgeWorks Foundation

Lucent Technologies Foundation

Lumina Foundation for Education

U.S. Department of Education

Fund for the Improvement of PostsecondaryEducation (FIPSE)

Office of Vocational and Adult Education(OVAE)

Nellie Mae Education Foundation

Sallie Mae Fund

Four organizations comprising the policy component of the Pathways to College Network participated in the casestudies, and in planning and implementing the state meetings and regional forums related to this project. Theseorganizations and their key staff participants are:

73


Appendix

The SHEEO K-16 – Teacher Development Committee provided support and guidance to this projectfrom its conception to its completion. Members of the committee during this period include:

Committee Member Years served

Robert Barak, 2001-2002Interim Executive Director, Board of Regents, State of Iowa

Diane Barrans, 2001-2002Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education

Linda Blessing, 2000-2002Executive Director, Arizona Board of Regents

Hans Brisch, 2000-2003Chancellor, Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education

Molly Corbett Broad, 2000-2003President, University of North Carolina

Don W. Brown, 2000-2003Commissioner of Higher Education, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Roderick Chu, 2000-2003Chancellor, Ohio Board of Regents

Robert Clarke, 2001-2002Chancellor, Vermont State Colleges

Richard A. Crofts, 2000-2001Commissioner of Higher Education, Montana University System

Kathryn Dodge, 2002-2003Executive Director, New Hampshire Postsecondary Education Commission

Sandra Espada-Santos, 2000-2001Executive Director, Puerto Rico Council on Higher Education

Gregory G. Fitch, 2000-2001Executive Director for Higher Education, Idaho Board of Education

Warren H. Fox, 2001-2002Executive Director, California Postsecondary Education Commission

Cecelia H. Foxley, 2000-2003Commissioner of Higher Education, Utah System of Higher Education

Judith I. Gill, 2000-2003Chancellor, Massachusetts Board of Higher Education

Bruce D. Hamlett, 2000-2002Executive Director, New Mexico Commission on Higher Education

Judy G. Hample, 2002-2003Chancellor, Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

Lu Hardin, 2001-2002Director, Arkansas Department of Higher Education

Thomas Henry, 2000-2001Executive Director, Wyoming Community College Commission

74


Appendix

William R. Holland, 2000-2002Commissioner of Higher Education, Rhode Island Office of Higher Education Vice-Chair 2000-01

Jim Horne, 2002-2003Commissioner, Florida Board of Education

Karen R. Johnson, 2002-2003Secretary of Higher Education, Maryland Higher Education Commission

Daniel J. LaVista, 2002-2003Executive Director, Illinois Board of Higher Education

Valerie F. Lewis, 2000-2002Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Higher Education

Katharine C. Lyall, 2001-2003President, University of Wisconsin System

Michael E. Malone, 2002-2003Executive Director, Alabama Commission on Higher Education

Frank Meehan, 2002-2003Acting Deputy Secretary for Postsecondary & Higher Education, Pennsylvania

Department of Education

Thomas C. Meredith, 2002-2003Chancellor, Board of Regents of the University System of GeorgiaVice-Chair 2002-03

Robert L. Moore, 2002-2003Executive Director, California Postsecondary Education Commission

J. Michael Mullen, 2001-2003Chancellor, West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission

Gregory Nichols, 2002-2003Executive Director, Board of Regents, State of Iowa

Jane Nichols, 2000-2003Chancellor, University & Community College System of NevadaChair 2002-03; Vice-Chair 2001-02

Phyllis Palmiero, 2002-2003Executive Director, State Council of Higher Education for Virginia

Gerald Patton, 2000-2002Deputy Commissioner for Higher Education, New York State Education Department

Robert T. Perry, 2000-2001Executive Director, South Dakota Board of Regents

William Proctor, 2000-2003Executive Director, Florida Council for Education Policy Research and Improvement

Judith Ramaley, 2000-2001President, University of Vermont


75


Appendix

Paul Risser, 2003Chancellor, Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education

E. Joseph Savoie, 2000-2003Commissioner of Higher Education, Louisiana Board of Regents

Rolin Sidwell, 2002-2003Deputy Director, Office of Postsecondary Education, Washington DC

Kala Stroup, 2000-2002Commissioner of Higher Education, Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher EducationChair 2000-2002

James E. Sulton, Jr., 2002-2003Executive Director, New Jersey Commission on Higher Education

Joseph Westphal, 2002-2003Chancellor, University of Maine System

Quentin Wilson, 2002-2003Commissioner of Higher Education, Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education


77

Case S tudy Teams

Rhode Island, October 22-24, 2001Providence, Rhode IslandHosted by the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education and the Governor's Office

SHEEO: William Holland, Commissioner, Rhode Island Office of Higher EducationHost Site Coordinator: Nancy Carriuolo, Associate Commissioner, Rhode Island Office of

Higher Education

RI Case Study Team Members:Sharon Bailey, Policy Associate, Western Interstate Commission for Higher EducationEdward Crowe, Consultant, Washington D.C.Sheila Evans-Tranumn,Associate Commissioner, New York State Education DepartmentPolly Hutcheson, Postsecondary Education Liaison, Office of Vocational & Adult Education, US Dept of EducationPaul E. Lingenfelter, Executive Director, State Higher Education Executive OfficersTerese Rainwater, Policy Analyst, Education Commission of the StatesEsther M. Rodriguez, Associate Executive Director, State Higher Education Executive OfficersAlene Bycer Russell, Senior Research Associate, State Higher Education Executive OfficersJonathan L. Tafel, Vice Chancellor for Educational Linkages & Access, Ohio Board of RegentsStephanie Williamson, PK-16+ State Coordinator, Louisiana Board of Regents

78


Case Study Teams

Maryland, November 28-30, 2001Annapolis MarylandHosted by the Maryland Higher Education Commission and K-16 Leadership Council

SHEEO: Karen Johnson, Secretary, Maryland Higher Education CommissionHost Site Coordinator: Paula Fitzwater, K-16 Coordinator, Maryland Higher Education Commission

MD Case Study Team Members:Cheryl Blanco, Program Director, Research & Policy Analysis, Western Interstate Commission for Higher EducationMichelle Booth Cole, Director of Education Policy Analysis, The College BoardBill Cooper, Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, Office of Public Instruction, MontanaEd Crowe, Consultant, Washington DCSheila Evans-Tranumn, Associate Commissioner, New York State Education DepartmentFrances Henry, Chair, Louisiana Board of RegentsJanet Williams, Division of Teacher Standards Assessment, Louisiana Polly Hutcheson, Postsecondary Education Liaison, Office of Vocational & Adult Education, US Dept of EducationPaul Lingenfelter, Executive Director, State Higher Education Executive Officers Joan M. Lord, Director, College Readiness Project, Southern Regional Education BoardAlene Russell, Senior Research Associate, State Higher Education Executive OfficersJoyce Scott, Deputy Commissioner, Academic & Student Affairs, Commissioner's Office, Montana Jonathan Tafel, Vice Chancellor, Academic Linkages & Access Program, Ohio Board of RegentsSpud Van de Water, Project Manager, Higher Education, Education Commission of the States

79


Case Study Teams

California January 23-25, 2002 Sacramento, CaliforniaHosted by the California Postsecondary Education Commission and the Secretary for Education,

Governor's Office

SHEEO: Warren Fox, Executive Director, California Postsecondary Education CommissionHost Site Coordinator: Karl Engelbach, Chief Fiscal and Policy Analyst, California Postsecondary

Education Commission

CA Case Study Team Members:Cheryl Blanco, Program Director, Research & Policy Analysis, Western Interstate Commission for Higher EducationChris Chairswell, Associate Vice Chancellor – Student & Academic Affairs, University and Community College System

of NevadaBill Cooper, Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, Office of Public Instruction, MontanaEd Crowe, Consultant, Washington DCSheila Evans-Tranumn, Associate Commissioner, New York State Education DepartmentJane Fullerton, Director of Educational Initiatives & Grant Development, Ohio Board of RegentsPatty Horn, Executive Director, The Arizona K-12 CenterPolly Hutcheson, Postsecondary Education Liaison, Office of Vocational & Adult Education, US Dept of EducationPaul Lingenfelter, Executive Director, State Higher Education Executive OfficersRafael J. Magallan, Director of State Services, The College BoardTerese Rainwater, Policy Analyst, Education Commission of the StatesAlene Russell, Senior Research Associate, State Higher Education Executive OfficersJoyce Scott,Deputy Commissioner, Academic & Student Affairs, Commissioner's Office, Montana Andrea Venezia,Director, K-16 Projects, Stanford Institute for Higher Education ResearchThomas H. Wickenden, Assoc Exec Dir for Academic & Student Affairs, Arizona Board of Regents

80


Case Study Teams

Louisiana February 4-6, 2002Baton Rouge, LouisianaHosted by the Louisiana Board of Regents, the Governor's Office, and the Board of Elementary &

Secondary Education

SHEEO: Dr. Joseph Savoie, Commissioner of Higher EducationHost Site Coordinator: Jeanne Burns, Associate Commissioner, Teacher Education Initiatives

LA Case Study Team Members:Lezli Baskerville, Vice President for Government Relations, The College BoardCheryl Blanco, Program Director, Research & Policy Analysis, Western Interstate Commission for Higher EducationChris Chairswell, Associate Vice Chancellor – Student & Academic Affairs, University and Community College System ofNevadaEd Crowe, Consultant, Washington DCSheila Evans-Tranumn, Associate Commissioner, New York State Education DepartmentPolly Hutcheson, Postsecondary Education Liaison, Office of Vocational & Adult Education, US Dept of EducationCarl Krueger, Research Associate, Education Commission of the StatesPaul Lingenfelter, Executive Director, State Higher Education Executive OfficersJoan M. Lord, Director, College Readiness Project, Southern Regional Education BoardWilliam E. McHenry, Assistant Commissioner of Academic Affairs, Mississippi Institutions of Higher LearningAlene Russell, Senior Research Associate, State Higher Education Executive OfficersSpud Van de Water, Project Manager, Higher Education, Education Commission of the States

81


Case Study Teams

North Carolina April 16-18, 2002Chapel Hill, NCHosted by the University-School Program Division and the North Carolina Center for School Leadership

Development

SHEEO: Molly Corbett Broad, President, University of North CarolinaHost Site Coordinator: Charles Coble, Vice President for University-School Programs, University of

North Carolina

NC Case Study Team Members:Tricia Coulter, Policy Analyst, State Higher Education Executive OfficersEd Crowe, Consultant, Washington DCSheila Evans-Tranumn, Associate Commissioner, New York State Education DepartmentJoan M. Lord, Director, College Readiness Project, Southern Regional Education BoardJanis Somerville, NASH Staff Director, University of Maryland SystemSpud Van de Water, Project Manager, Higher Education, Education Commission of the StatesRichard A. Voorhees, Director of Education Policy Initiatives, State Higher Education Executive OfficersStephanie Williamson,State PK-16+ Coordinator, Louisiana Board of Regents

State Higher Education Executive Officers700 Broadway, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado, 80203-3460

(303) 299-3685www.sheeo.org

Student Success - archive.sheeo.orgarchive.sheeo.org/k16/p16.pdf · Preface v The SHEEO P-16...

Documents

Transcript of Student Success - archive.sheeo.orgarchive.sheeo.org/k16/p16.pdf · Preface v The SHEEO P-16...