Building Guided Pathways To College Completion

New postsecondary students often enroll with no idea what to study or why. Those students who embark on a defined program the first year are much more likely to complete a degree or move on to a four-year institution than students who don’t enter a program until the second year or later. This paper describes how a growing number of colleges and universities have redesigned academic programs and support services to create guided pathways and increase the rate at which students enter and complete. (Community College Research Center)  via ECS

Colleges Create Unnecessary Barriers To Financial Aid

From New America’s Rachel Fishman. According to a Congressional report released this week, some colleges illegally require students to file unnecessary paperwork to be considered for aid. Read more at  Ed Central.

 

Increasing Access,Success In Dual Enrollment

ECS identified 13 model state-level policy components to increase student participation and success in dual enrollment programs. These components fall under four broad categories: access, finance, ensuring course quality and transferability of credit. Highlights of state laws containing these components are incorporated throughout this report.

High Schools Undermine College Readiness

What’s Holding Back American Teenagers?

Our high schools are a disaster.

By Laurence Steinberg

Slate, February 2014

 

High school, where kids socialize, show off their clothes, use their phones—and, oh yeah, go to class.

Every once in a while, education policy squeezes its way onto President Obama’s public agenda, as it did in during last month’s State of the Union address. Lately, two issues have grabbed his (and just about everyone else’s) attention: early-childhood education and access to college. But while these scholastic bookends are important, there is an awful lot of room for improvement between them. American high schools, in particular, are a disaster.

In international assessments, our elementary school students generally score toward the top of the distribution, and our middle school students usually place somewhat above the average. But our high school students score well below the international average, and they fare especially badly in math and science compared with our country’s chief economic rivals.

What’s holding back our teenagers?

One clue comes from a little-known 2003 study based on OECD data that compares the world’s 15-year-olds on two measures of student engagement: participation and “belongingness.” The measure of participation was based on how often students attended school, arrived on time, and showed up for class. The measure of belongingness was based on how much students felt they fit in to the student body, were liked by their schoolmates, and felt that they had friends in school. We might think of the first measure as an index of academic engagement and the second as a measure of social engagement.

On the measure of academic engagement, the U.S. scored only at the international average, and far lower than our chief economic rivals: China, Korea, Japan, and Germany. In these countries, students show up for school and attend their classes more reliably than almost anywhere else in the world. But on the measure of social engagement, the United States topped China, Korea, and Japan.

In America, high school is for socializing. It’s a convenient gathering place, where the really important activities are interrupted by all those annoying classes. For all but the very best American students—the ones in AP classes bound for the nation’s most selective colleges and universities—high school is tedious and unchallenging. Studies that have tracked American adolescents’ moods over the course of the day find that levels of boredom are highest during their time in school.

It’s not just No Child Left Behind or Race to the Top that has failed our adolescents—it’s every single thing we have tried.

One might be tempted to write these findings off as mere confirmation of the well-known fact that adolescents find everything boring. In fact, a huge proportion of the world’s high school students say that school is boring. But American high schools are even more boring than schools in nearly every other country, according to OECD surveys. And surveys of exchange students who have studied in America, as well as surveys of American adolescents who have studied abroad, confirm this. More than half of American high school students who have studied in another country agree that our schools are easier. Objectively, they are probably correct: American high school students spend far less time on schoolwork than their counterparts in the rest of the world.

Trends in achievement within the U.S. reveal just how bad our high schools are relative to our schools for younger students. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, administered by the U.S. Department of Education, routinely tests three age groups: 9-year-olds, 13-year-olds, and 17-year-olds. Over the past 40 years, reading scores rose by 6 percent among 9-year-olds and 3 percent among 13-year-olds. Math scores rose by 11 percent among 9-year-olds and 7 percent among 13-year-olds.

By contrast, high school students haven’t made any progress at all. Reading and math scores have remained flat among 17-year-olds, as have their scores on subject area tests in science, writing, geography, and history. And by absolute, rather than relative, standards, American high school students’ achievement is scandalous.

In other words, over the past 40 years, despite endless debates about curricula, testing, teacher training, teachers’ salaries, and performance standards, and despite billions of dollars invested in school reform, there has been no improvement—none—in the academic proficiency of American high school students.

It’s not just No Child Left Behind or Race to the Top that has failed our adolescents—it’s every single thing we have tried. The list of unsuccessful experiments is long and dispiriting. Charter high schools don’t perform any better than standard public high schools, at least with respect to student achievement. Students whose teachers “teach for America” don’t achieve any more than those whose teachers came out of conventional teacher certification programs. Once one accounts for differences in the family backgrounds of students who attend public and private high schools, there is no advantage to going to private school, either. Vouchers make no difference in student outcomes. No wonder school administrators and teachers from Atlanta to Chicago to my hometown of Philadelphia have been caught fudging data on student performance. It’s the only education strategy that consistently gets results.

The especially poor showing of high schools in America is perplexing. It has nothing to do with high schools having a more ethnically diverse population than elementary schools. In fact, elementary schools are more ethnically diverse than high schools, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics. Nor do high schools have more poor students. Elementary schools in America are more than twice as likely to be classified as “high-poverty” than secondary schools. Salaries are about the same for secondary and elementary school teachers. They have comparable years of education and similar years of experience. Student-teacher ratios are the same in our elementary and high schools. So are the amounts of time that students spend in the classroom. We don’t shortchange high schools financially either; American school districts actually spend a little more per capita on high school students than elementary school students.

Our high school classrooms are not understaffed, underfunded, or underutilized, by international standards. According to a 2013 OECD report, only Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland spend more per student. Contrary to widespread belief, American high school teachers’ salaries are comparable to those in most European and Asian countries, as are American class sizes and student-teacher ratios. And American high school students actually spend as many or more hours in the classroom each year than their counterparts in other developed countries.

This underachievement is costly: One-fifth of four-year college entrants and one-half of those entering community college need remedial education, at a cost of $3 billion each year.

The president’s call for expanding access to higher education by making college more affordable, while laudable on the face of it, is not going to solve our problem. The president and his education advisers have misdiagnosed things. The U.S. has one of the highest rates of college entry in the industrialized world. Yet it is tied for last in the rate of college completion. More than one-third of U.S. students who enter a full-time, two-year college program drop out just after one year, as do about one fifth of students who enter a four-year college. In other words, getting our adolescents to go to college isn’t the issue. It’s getting them to graduate.

If this is what we hope to accomplish, we need to rethink high school in America. It is true that providing high-quality preschool to all children is an important component of comprehensive education reform. But we can’t just do this, cross our fingers, and hope for the best. Early intervention is an investment, not an inoculation.

In recent years experts in early-child development have called for programs designed to strengthen children’s “non-cognitive” skills, pointing to research that demonstrates that later scholastic success hinges not only on conventional academic abilities but on capacities like self-control. Research on the determinants of success in adolescence and beyond has come to a similar conclusion: If we want our teenagers to thrive, we need to help them develop the non-cognitive traits it takes to complete a college degree—traits like determination, self-control, and grit. This means classes that really challenge students to work hard—something that fewer than one in six high school students report experiencing, according to Diploma to Nowhere, a 2008 report published by Strong American Schools. Unfortunately, our high schools demand so little of students that these essential capacities aren’t nurtured. As a consequence, many high school graduates, even those who have acquired the necessary academic skills to pursue college coursework, lack the wherewithal to persevere in college. Making college more affordable will not fix this problem, though we should do that too.

The good news is that advances in neuroscience are revealing adolescence to be a second period of heightened brain plasticity, not unlike the first few years of life. Even better, brain regions that are important for the development of essential non-cognitive skills are among the most malleable. And one of the most important contributors to their maturation is pushing individuals beyond their intellectual comfort zones.  

It’s time for us to stop squandering this opportunity. Our kids will never rise to the challenge if the challenge doesn’t come.

Laurence Steinberg is a psychology professor at Temple University and author of the forthcoming Age of Opportunity: Revelations from the New Science of Adolescence.

 

Students Choose Lower Level Colleges: Is the Research Overrated?

This analysis is getting a lot of national attention:

The idea behind “undermatching” is that many academically talented, low-income students who could succeed at top colleges are not applying to, enrolling in or graduating from them. Research on the topic has attracted widespread attention. But a new analysis argues that some key assumptions behind much of the research are flawed — and that new studies are needed to determine how much of the theory holds. (Inside Higher Ed, 02/10/14)

6 New Places To Find College Cash

By Sarah Brooks:

The cost of higher education places burdens on family budgets, prompting creative searches for college cash.  If you are getting ready to start college, or enrolling in another type of post-secondary program, you are in-store for a reality-check funding higher education.

 The cost of college doesn’t end with tuition payments; they are only the beginning.  Housing, books, transportation and other costs of living strain college funds, representing significant add-on expenses alongside tuition.  So where is the money going to come from?

 Higher education is financed individually, but you’ll find significant support from the public and private sectors.  Government agencies, for example, contribute extensively to college relief, furnishing at least some funding for most students taking-on post-secondary education.  As you craft your college financing strategy, resources offered by the U. S. Department of Education provide essential inputs for managing higher education expenses.

Government grants, for example, furnish funding that doesn’t require repayment.  While programs are income-based, the Federal Government has deep pockets, extending college aid to families of various means.  Beyond grants, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program issues funding for higher education.  Part of many students’ financial aid packages, government-backed loans are eventually paid back, but they are offered with interest rates and repayment schedules that are much more reasonable than students would find in the private sector.

 While mainstream financial aid eases the burden for countless students headed for college, it doesn’t always cover the whole tab for higher education.  To bridge the affordability gap, students turn toward these unique sources of college aid; rounding out funding for higher education.

States

Applying for federal financial aid starts with a standardized form called the FAFSA.  The document gathers information about your finances, enabling financial aid administrators to construct aid packages appropriate for your needs.  In many cases, filing a FAFSA also initiates your quest for state aid.  Financial aid officials at your college have the most up-to-date information about policies in your state, so they should be consulted when enrolling.  State college funding is limited, so early application gives you the best chance of securing funds.  Failing to fully explore state financial aid options leaves money on the table for college students needing it most.

Your Parents Employer

The key to securing financial aid for college is utilizing all the resources available to you.  Where you live, your ethnic background, and the subjects you study each open doors to financial aid.  But did you know your parent’s employer might have funding available for you?

Employers hold vested interests in training future workers, and they understand your parent’s position, paying for college.  As a result, some employers offer incentives for family members, like scholarships and grants.  You may strike-out, but it pays to ask mom and dad to put you in-touch with company resources.

Work- for-Tuition Arrangements

Some of the most generous financial aid available comes from programs specifically targeting certain vocations.  Currently, the nursing and teaching professions are experiencing shortages of qualified graduates.  To recruit promising candidates, various incentive programs furnish college tuition money, in exchange for service following graduation.  Participating students who complete their obligations; usually two or three year stints working in shortage areas, essentially earn free higher education.

Aid for Foster Children

Special circumstances yield financial aid targeting certain members of society.  If you are, or ever have been a foster child, exclusive funding resources may be available.  In addition to widespread state aid for foster kids, private agencies and foundations also step-up with financial aid programs.

Major Corporations

Scholarships are issued for excellence in academics and athletics, emerging from a wide variety of foundations and educational benefactors.  Major corporations, especially those operating in forward fields requiring the best and brightest minds, issue their own financial aid packages to promising students.  Apple, for example, supports education through scholarships in STEM subjects, assisting future leaders in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Tuition Reimbursement Programs

The face of education continues to evolve, with more and more students returning to school to enhance credentials.  TRPs are initiated by companies and other entities in support of employee education and certification.

Company sponsored tuition plans are each unique to the companies funding them, so it is important to review terms and conditions before counting on the aid they provide.  Certain programs, for instance, only cover courses specifically related to your primary job with the company.  In other instances, benchmarks must be met, like earning degrees or a certain number of credits, before tuition reimbursement kicks in.  Whatever is offered, these programs furnish generous assistance for workers able to utilize them.

 Author Bio:

This is a guest post by Sarah Brooks from Freepeoplesearch.org. She is a Houston based freelance writer and blogger. Questions and comments can be sent to brooks.sarah23 @ gmail.com

AP Course Taking And Passage Soars

 

Form College Board:

Today we are releasing the College Board’s 10th Annual AP® Report to the Nation, which shows that state leaders and educators are making significant progress in expanding both access to and success in Advanced Placement®, and, by doing so, are providing opportunity to more students every year.

Our new data show that, over the past decade, the number of students who took AP Exams in high school has doubled and the number of low-income students taking AP has more than quadrupled. We are delighted to see that this expansion in AP participation has also resulted in a significant increase in the number of AP Exam scores of 3 or higher, which is the score typically required for college credit or placement. This is a tribute to the hard work of educators and students, and it underlines our conviction that all students who are academically prepared — no matter their location, background, or socioeconomic status — deserve the opportunity to access the rigor and benefits of AP.

Though challenges remain, progress is being made to close equity gaps in AP participation and success among underrepresented minority students. Over the past school year:

 

•	Thirty states made progress in African American representation among AP Exam takers and those scoring 3 or higher.

 

•	Twenty-eight states made progress in Hispanic/Latino representation among AP Exam takers and those scoring 3 or higher.

 

Data from the report also show that nearly 300,000 academically prepared students in this country either did not take a course in an available AP subject for which they had potential, or attended a school that did not offer an AP course in that subject.

Surprising Findings On College Dropouts

What Might Happen if College Dropouts Made Different Choices?

If students who dropped out from four-year institutions started college at a two-year school, their chances of earning a degree would be much higher, finds a new paper written by AIR and published by the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER). America’s Drop-Out Epidemic also found that policies seeking to increase degree attainment by encouraging enrollment don’t always work: Those not in college have very low predicted rates of completion because they aren’t academically well-prepared.

New Report Explores Staffing And Compensation in Higher Education

Gates Foundation Head On College Prep And K-12 Reform

Vicki Phillips is Director of Education, College Ready at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (a foundation that funds Bellwether).  In the timely guest post below she discusses Common Core implementation and the current debate over slowing it down:

More than 80 percent of students say they expect to go to college, but less than 40 percent of adults have an associate’s degree or higher. It’s clear that we need to do something—something big—to prepare America’s students to achieve the American dream. Fortunately, we already have. Right now, K-12 education is going through two changes that will help all students get the high-quality education they deserve.

The first has to do with academic standards. For decades, we held most students to standards that didn’t match the knowledge and skills they needed to succeed after graduation. The Common Core State Standards were designed to fix that problem, and 45 states have adopted and are in the process of implementing them.

The second big change relates to how we support and evaluate teachers. Before I set foot in the classroom as a young teacher, I received only the most generic training. Once I actually had students, I managed more or less on my own. The same is true for the overwhelming majority of teachers today, who routinely have to rely on intuition or trial and error instead of evidence-based insights about how to get better at their craft. Fortunately, states and districts are building systems to provide teachers with ongoing, personalized feedback based on multiple measures, making it possible to customize professional development.

The thing about big changes is that they can be unsettling. Some people worry that the Common Core will over-burden teachers who are already over-burdened, and I empathize. Others want to be cautious about how tests aligned to the Common Core are used to evaluate teachers, students, and schools, and I agree. But the fact is, in the vast majority of cases, these changes are being implemented carefully to avoid precisely these pitfalls.

What does appropriate implementation of new standards and evaluation systems look like?

The key principle is giving teachers and students time to adjust to new expectations before they face serious consequences for not meeting them.

Teachers should benefit from the insights that come out of the evaluation systems as soon as they’re available, but districts should ensure that there is a baseline and several years of data before using these systems to make personnel decisions.

Students who do well on new assessments aligned to the Common Core may want to use them to let colleges know they’re ready for credit-bearing courses, but test scores shouldn’t be used to make consequential decisions, such as whether students should graduate, until we are sure we understand how to interpret the results.

Schools already identified as needing improvement should continue to make improvements on behalf of their students, but no new schools should be singled out based on new assessments until teachers have had a few years to get used to the new ways of working.

What I just described is the ideal state. It is also, with the exception of a few outliers, what is actually happening across the country. We should highlight the outliers and encourage them to take a more balanced approach, but we should also recognize that most districts and states are going about this the right way.

As the Council of Chief State School Officers details in its October 2013 report, “Implementing the Common Core Standards,” states across the nation have been working to implement the new standards for the past three years. Over 500 Colorado educators representing 61 school districts, for example, participated in workshops to create 670 curriculum samples based on the standards. The Georgia State Department of Education has created numerous resources for teachers, including a video library, GeorgiaStandards.org, with more than 1,000 videos that demonstrate effective implementation of the standards in classrooms. In the past year, I’ve attended conferences in Kentucky and Tennessee where teachers shared best practices for implementing the new standards.

Primary Sources, a national survey of teachers supported by Scholastic and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, found that 73 percent of teachers who teach math, English language arts, science, or social studies in states that have adopted the Common Core are enthusiastic about implementation in their classrooms. And 75 percent feel prepared to teach the standards, up from 59 percent in 2011. Teachers acknowledge that it will be challenging to implement the standards and want more resources, professional development, and time to prepare lessons, which is exactly what we should be concentrating on giving them.

In the majority of states, teacher evaluation systems won’t have high-stakes consequences for teachers until at least 2015-16.

In the meantime, teachers are benefitting from the new evaluation systems being rolled out. In a survey of several districts where our foundation is working closely, 78 percent of teachers agreed that their professional development experiences were focused on specific elements in their district’s teacher observation rubric. And 43 percent said they received coaching to address the specific needs identified by their evaluation results.

Given the reality of what’s happening on the ground in states across the country, I cannot understand those who are calling on states and districts to pause, stop or reverse these critical changes. Such a halt could undo the progress teachers, districts, and states have already made while stopping future progress in its trac