2 Million Students Now Attend Private For-Profit Colleges

  Private for profit-colleges are growing faster than public  and non profit colleges, and award 16% of all associate degrees. Students tend to complete associate degrees more quickly, and at higher rates than non profit instiutions according to the USA Department of Education. 60% graduate from for  2 year for-profit colleges compared to 22% at public community colleges.   But for profit colleges have higher student loan default rates. despite their high costs of recruiting new students.  Moreover, 54% of students graduate from 4 year public colleges compared to 44 %  at for- profit colleges. Tuition at for profit 2 year colleges is 6 times higher than a public community colleges. Revenues at for profit colleges of all types is projected to reach 42 billion in 2014.

 All this and more is in the November 8 issue of the Chronicle of Higher http://chronicle.comducation

Study Points Way To Improving Developmental Education For Community College Completion

Rethinking Developmental Education in Community College (CCRC Brief No. 40)

By: Thomas Bailey — February 2009. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Community colleges are charged with teaching students college-level material, yet a majority of their students arrive with academic skills judged too weak to allow them to engage successfully in college-level work in at least one subject area. Colleges address this problem by providing extensive programs of developmental education designed to strengthen students’ skills so they can successfully complete college-level courses.

This Brief, based on a longer paper, reviews evidence on students who enter community college with weak academic skills, and it summarizes study findings on the effectiveness of developmental education. It suggests that, on average, developmental education is not very effective in overcoming student weaknesses. The Brief concludes with recommendations for a broad reform agenda based on a comprehensive approach to assessment, more research that tracks students through their early experiences at college, a blurring of the distinction between developmental and “college-level” students that could improve pedagogy for both groups of students, and strategies to streamline developmental programs and accelerate students’ enrollment in college-level courses.

Link to: Challenge And Opportunity: Rethinking the Role and Function of Developmental Education in Community College (Working Paper No. 14)

Common Core Standards Draft Has Several Major Flaws

Paul Barton , former director of the  ETS Policy Information Center and an expert on school to work transitions, has provided a multi- faceted critique of the Common Core Standards proposed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers (www.ccsso.org). Forty eight states are participating in this endeavor. Barton supports my earlier contention that  claims in the draft contending that college ready standards are identical to standards for readiness to begin worforce preparation programs is not supported by the evidence in the draft ,or the current research base. Here is a summary of Barton’s conclusions:

Although the draft standards represent a very large step toward developing an understanding and agreement about what should be taught in public education,

The case is not made that succeeding in college and succeeding in work, whether one goes to college or not, requires the same high school curriculum—that one size fits all.

The case is not made that one size fits all even for going to college.

There is a knowledge base on what work requires that can be exploited to inform curriculum decisions and to advise students about opportunities and what it requires to prepare for them.

Benchmarking efforts that examine the international experience need to broaden their look to include not just the differences in curriculum and an assumption that those differences account for the better performance of some countries.

The standards need to be considered in the light of how they relate to and impact the great diversity existing in the different levels of math and English courses in high school, and the diversity in existing types of secondary schools, not to mention the variations in the interests and aspirations of individual students.

The standards need to be placed within a vision of the whole of a complete curriculum that fulfills the purposes of the free public education provided through 12 years—a purpose much broader than college and career readiness.

Standards need to take their place along side a concern about reducing school dropout rates as well as a concern about taking those who graduate to higher levels of achievement.

For a copy of Barton’s paper go to Paulebarton@aol.com and request the paper: Comments Regarding Draft Common Standards And “Validation”

College Success: The Most Disheartening Story Of The Month

 I have read many October stories on the problems of college success, but nothing exceeded the story in the October 9 Chronicle of Higher Education “At Transfer TimeThousands Of Students Hit A Dead End”. These are sad stories of California community college students who have all the credits to transfer to a four year state university, but there is no place for them.  California State U is taking few or no transfers in spring 2010. So these students stay in community college taking redundant courese or stop out. Many will give up, and feel betrayed by the promises that they could transfer if they did the right things.

Today Cal State announced cutting 40,000 incoming first year students who have met their admission requirements. How can we increase college completion with policies like this that are forced by state budget cuts? Are there alternatives to Cal State policies in tough economic times?

College Ready Standards Are Not Enough To Improve Student Preparation

 In an October 14 commentary in Education Week three leading scholars from the National Academy of Education make the point that college ready content standards are just the first step in a long chain of policies to implementation in classrooms.Curricula,tests,textbooks,lesson plans,and teachers’ on the job training will have to be revised to reinforce college ready standards. The authors all point out that current interim or benchmark assessments are mostly designed to predict end of year test scores, but really need to guide the details of teaching. Teachers need help on how to actually teach college ready standards, and how to adapt teaching based on student responses in their classes.

 See Education Week website to get this article- www.edweek.org

Most Colleges Are Getting Easier For Admission

In a new paper Carolyn Hoxby, Professor of Economics at Stanford demonstates while a few selective colleges have become more difficult to get into over past 5 decades, most colleges are easier to get into. For example, since 1955 the number of high school graduates is up 132%, but the number of freshman seats rose by 297%. The trend from 1970  for freshman seats for minimally qualified high school graduates is also up significantly. So all the hype on admissions selectivity applies to a handful of colleges-about 5 to 10 % of the total postsecondary students.

See paper at info@nber.org

Tear Down The Wall Between K-12 And Postsecondary Education

By Bill Maxwell,  St Petersburg Times Correspondent

Although America’s education system is one of the best in the world, the philosophy that underpins the system is seriously flawed.

We have two separate cultures in education: elementary and secondary schools (K-12) and postsecondary schools (undergraduate and graduate institutions). This separation is expensive, wastes human capital and harms the public welfare.

Each year, we send more than a million freshmen from our high schools to our colleges and universities who are not “college-ready,” ill-prepared for the intellectual rigor of postsecondary study. They must take humiliating noncredit remedial courses, which many never complete, in their attempt to catch up.

As much as 30 percent of students enrolling at four-year colleges and 60 percent of those enrolling at community colleges take remedial courses, meaning that our colleges and universities spend millions of dollars annually to teach skills that should have been taught in K-12.

A major reason for this problem is that an overwhelmingly large number of U.S. educators have drawn a sharp line between secondary and post-secondary education, resulting in a lack of communication that has led to a paralyzing blame game.

Large numbers of university professors, along with administrators, disdain the very notion of speaking with, let alone working with, high school teachers, and many high school teachers are resentful of their higher-status university counterparts. Additionally, government departments and committees at all levels deal exclusively with either secondary schools or postsecondary institutions.

A consequence is that postsecondary institutions do not inform public schools of the basic skills and core knowledge students need to become college-ready and successful candidates for graduation.

Of late, however, a budding trend seems to be gaining ground as a new breed of educators recognizes the wisdom of establishing effective K-16 and K-20 collaborations. Ideally, they argue, American education should be one seamless system for lifelong learning and success.

Two weeks ago, I was encouraged when I attended the PK-20 Summit at Santa Fe College in Gainesville. With the theme of “Achieving Student Success through Collaboration” and sponsored by the Palatka-based North East Florida Educational Consortium, or NEFEC, the event brought together more than 100 participants, including the chancellor of Florida’s public schools and the chancellor of the state’s community colleges, their top staff members, superintendents and administrators from 13 school districts and the presidents of seven community colleges in the region.

James Surrency, executive director of NEFEC, said the purpose of the summit was to get key educators in the same room “to strengthen collaboration and to improve the college/career readiness for all students.” A highlight of the event, he said, was the “presentation by Seminole State College and Seminole School District relating to the turnaround in their percentage of high school students needing remediation. It was truly amazing and a great model for secondary/postsecondary partnerships.”

Nine years ago, the college’s math chairman was so frustrated with the problems and expenses associated with remediation, he met with the district’s high school principals to learn why 71 percent of their students annually scored poorly on the College Placement Test, which required them to take at least one remedial math course when they entered SSC.

The main problem was obvious: Florida was requiring high school students to take only three years of math. Most did not take math in 12th grade. The chairman offered the principals a special 12th-grade course he would bring to their campuses to reduce the number of students needing remediation when they entered SSC.

Only one school, Oviedo High, initially accepted the challenge. SSC provided the course content and mentoring, and Oviedo’s teachers taught the course.

Within a few years, Oviedo High reduced its remediation rate from 70 percent to 10 percent. A team of SSC and Seminole County public schools administrators began meeting once a month for breakfast at a local Denny’s to collaborate and replicate the Oviedo program in all Seminole high schools.

These administrators rose above the blame game, shared critical data and spoke honestly about their goals. Even more, they became friends — eating together, riding to meetings together and visiting schools together.

Currently, Mathematics for College Readiness is being taught at all of the county’s nine high schools, and officials are tracking the data to determine the course’s impact on the need for remediation. The long-term goal is to reduce the number of matriculating seniors needing remediation in math from 71 percent to 21 percent.

Numbers from 2007-08 for the pilot schools indicate that the rate for math remediation already has declined from 71 to 59 percent.

I am convinced that the effort between SSC and the Seminole School County District is a model for the nation. The administrators and teachers there understand that education from K-20 should be a seamless process.

Michael W. Kirst returns this week

Posted by guest blogger Matthew Rosin, senior research associate, EdSource (Mountain View, CA).

Michael W. Kirst returns to The College Puzzle this week!

It’s been a privilege to maintain the blog in his absence. Thanks for reading, and stay tuned.

The Early Assessment Program and the California Community Colleges

Posted by guest blogger Matthew Rosin, senior research associate, EdSource (Mountain View, CA).

This is my fourth and final post on California’s Early Assessment Program (EAP), which was developed by California State University (CSU) and California’s K–12 leaders to provide high school students with early signals about their college readiness. California students who participate in EAP testing as high school juniors can potentially achieve exemption from placement testing at CSU in English and/or mathematics. (In mathematics, students might also achieve a conditional exemption that is contingent on successful completion of a further, CSU-approved math course or activity prior to CSU enrollment.) Students assessed via the EAP as not ready for college in one or both of these subjects can prepare further during their senior year. These students are still subject to placement testing in the relevant subject(s) at CSU unless they achieve an exemption through other means.

The previous two posts focused on different patterns of student participation in EAP testing in English language arts and mathematics, based in part on differences in how the California Standards Tests (CSTs) are administered during the high school grades in these two subject areas.

This final post considers the implications of recent state legislation—Senate Bill (SB) 946 (2008)—that provides for community colleges to participate in the EAP beginning this year, in 2009–10. Participation is voluntary for community college districts, and the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office is coordinating the program. According to a recent update on the policy by School Services of California (subscription required), the Chancellor’s Office expects to identify participating colleges in January 2010.

California’s 110 community colleges are open-access institutions. They offer an exceptionally wide variety of educational programs, and students pursue many different objectives. The campuses are diverse, reflecting variation between urban and rural communities in California, the state’s regional differences in terms of ethnic diversity, and local workforce and community needs. This diversity is also reflected in different practices for assessing and advising students on whether they need remediation in reading, writing or mathematics to succeed in college-level work.

Under SB 946, participating districts will use the existing EAP testing structure to potentially exempt students from placement testing. One goal of SB 946 is to send clearer signals to students that CSU and the California Community Colleges have analogous standards for transfer-level courses, while still assuring students of their eligibility to attend community college. Participating districts will also conduct outreach to local students about the program, coordinated with local CSU campuses.

In English language arts, the EAP appears to align well with the community colleges’ open-access mission. This is because EAP testing in English builds on a single test taken by effectively all 11th graders. Some observers hope community college involvement in the EAP will stir further participation among students who do not currently imagine attending a four-year university but may be considering a community college.

In mathematics, however, high school students take different tests depending on course-taking. As discussed previously, the EAP in math targets students who have enrolled in Algebra II by their junior year of high school—47% of high school juniors in 2009. The EAP in math will provide participating community college districts with a new way of reaching out these students. At the same time, this leaves open the question of how community colleges might provide additional feedback and support to the more than half of California high school juniors who have not yet reached Algebra II, and who may be more likely to rely on a community college for access to public higher education.

One broad implication: depending on whether high school tests are organized by grade level or are administered based on student course-taking, a state’s existing high school assessment system may present different opportunities for public colleges and universities to send early signals to prospective students about their college-readiness. High school tests organized by grade-level—such as California’s Grade 11 English Language Arts CST—provide a potentially broad reach. Tests administered based on student course-taking—such as the Algebra II and Summative High School Math CSTs—may provide for more targeted outreach. Each presents a different opportunity, and may have different implications for selective and open-access institutions.

This post is adapted from EdSource’s High School to Community College report (Nov. 2008), updated with 2009 testing data.

Early Assessment Program testing in mathematics

Posted by guest blogger Matthew Rosin, senior research associate, EdSource (Mountain View, CA).

This is my third post on California’s Early Assessment Program (EAP), which was developed by California State University (CSU) and California’s K–12 leaders to provide high school students with early signals about their college readiness. The previous post focused on how EAP testing is offered to high school juniors in English language arts. It discussed the single California Standards Test (CST) for grade 11 English language arts, which virtually all high school juniors in the state take. These 11th graders may voluntarily participate in the EAP in English by taking an expanded version of the CST.

This post focuses on how EAP testing is offered in mathematics, and what this means for student participation in the program.

California’s Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program does not administer a single CST to 11th graders in mathematics, as is the case in English language arts. Typically beginning in grade 8, the math course in which a California student is enrolled in a given year determines which state math test the student takes. This means high school juniors take different math CSTs depending on how far along they are in their study of mathematics.

The EAP in mathematics is offered through expanded versions of two math CSTs:

• The Algebra II CST. California high school juniors take this CST if they are enrolled in an Algebra II course. About 25% of the state’s 11th graders took the Algebra II CST in 2009, according to the California Department of Education.
• The Summative High School Math CST. This test targets California’s most accelerated math students. Students take this test only in the years after they have completed Algebra II. In other words, only 11th graders who completed Algebra II by no later than the end of grade 10 take this test. About 22% of the state’s 11th graders took the Summative High School Math CST in 2009.

That developers of the EAP focused on these two math CSTs in particular makes sense when considered in light of CSU’s admissions requirements. CSU draws from the top third of high school graduates in California and students must complete Algebra II to be eligible for admission.

For the EAP, each of these two CSTs is augmented with 15 additional questions covering topics in Algebra II and Geometry. For the purpose of assessing students’ readiness for college, CSU considers students’ success on these additional items, and on about 40 questions from the original CSTs.

Among the 47% of California high school juniors who took one of these two EAP-eligible math CSTs in 2009, the majority participated in the EAP. CSU reports that:

• 72% of 11th graders who took the Algebra II CST in 2009 participated in the EAP in math. In total, 5% of these students were assessed as “ready for college” and received an exemption from placement testing in mathematics at CSU. Another 20% received a conditional exemption, contingent on taking an additional year of mathematics during their senior years of high school.
• 82% of 11th graders who took the Summative High School Math CST in 2009 participated in the EAP in math. In total, 21% of these students received an exemption from placement testing in mathematics at CSU, and another 67% received a conditional exemption.

Roughly 53% of California high school juniors were not sufficiently far along in their study of mathematics to take an EAP-eligible CST, however. As EdSource found in its November 2008 report, High School to Community College, there are substantial gaps in the extent to which California 11th graders of different student groups take one of these two math tests. During the 2007–08 school year, according to EdSource’s estimates,

• 77% of Asian and 50% of white 11th graders took an EAP-eligible CST in math.
• In contrast, only 33% of Latino and 31% of African American 11th graders did so.

The primary driver behind these gaps is the widely differing rates at which 11th graders from these groups took the Summative High School Math CST in 2007–08. Only an estimated 9% of African American and 11% of Latino 11th graders took this CST compared with 26% of white and 53% of Asian 11th graders. This means that California’s African American and Latino students currently complete Algebra II by the end of grade 10 at substantially lower rates than their peers.

In the next post, we will discuss recent legislation that provided for California’s community colleges to voluntarily participate in the EAP.

This post is adapted from EdSource’s High School to Community College report (Nov. 2008), updated with 2009 testing data.