Search

While there is interest in pathways-aligned high school math reform among secondary education stakeholders, change in high school math depends a great deal on policies, practices, and norms at the higher education level. This report focuses on the role of higher education in influencing (encouraging or deterring) secondary education math reform. To better understand this topic, researchers from the Community College Research Center (CCRC) and the Education Strategy Group (ESG) conducted interviews with representatives from national secondary math education organizations as well as individuals from each of three states participating in Launch Years-- Georgia, Texas, and Washington--who are engaged in efforts to reform high school math. This report first presents findings on the ways that higher education affects secondary math reform in broad terms, relying on data from these interviews. This is done by describing several domains of higher education practice identified by the interviewees that tend to present challenges to high school math reform. The report discusses potential solutions to these challenges and considers ways that higher education can facilitate high school reform efforts. The report then presents short case studies of secondary math reform efforts in three states (all of which have also undertaken math pathways reforms--at least to some extent--at the college level) with a focus on the influence of higher education in effecting change. The report concludes with a brief discussion of an overarching theme that appears to be central to much of this work: the importance of sustained conversation and collaboration between math educators and administrators from both sectors--higher education and K-12--in moving secondary math reform forward.

In the United States, the prevailing high school mathematics course sequence begins with a year of Algebra I, followed by a year of geometry and a year of Algebra II. Educators and others have raised concerns about the extent to which this sequence, which prioritizes the mastery of algebra, is appropriate for the longer-term education and career goals of students who do not intend to pursue STEM degrees in college. These concerns have impelled educators and policymakers to reexamine the prominence of algebra in high school mathematics curricula and to consider new approaches that provide students with more mathematics course options better aligned with their academic and career goals. In this paper, we explore existing approaches to high school mathematics curricula as well as new developments in the field. To start, we discuss a range of high school mathematics course sequences that are currently offered across the country and look at some of the systemic challenges embedded within the traditional paradigm. Then we explore federal and state changes to the provision of high school mathematics in the early 21st century, which we follow with a look at the influence of postsecondary institutions on high school math curricula. We then introduce short case studies of innovative high school math reforms that are occurring in five states. We conclude the paper by considering the Charles A. Dana Center's new initiative, Launch Years, and how this project works to reimagine high school mathematics and its relationship to postsecondary education and careers.

Increasingly, state departments of education, school districts, and high schools are recognizing that many students graduate from high school underprepared for college-level coursework in mathematics. Many are referred to remedial education when they arrive at college. To help students become better prepared for college and avoid remedial courses upon college entry, states and localities have begun to offer high school transition curricula to targeted students. These courses, learning modules, and online tutorials are developed by secondary and postsecondary faculty and offered to high school students at risk of being placed into remedial math in college. Drawing on data from several sources, including interviews from persons involved in the development of transition curricula in 11 states, this brief describes the design, implementation, and effectiveness of math transition curricula and how they fit into the current educational reform landscape. It identifies key trends and factors involved in the development of the curricula. Some transition curricula are aligned with math pathways options and may incorporate contextualized learning. And in some cases, transition curricula may also be used along with other college readiness interventions, such as dual enrollment programs.

NIET [National Institute for Excellence in Teaching] continually evaluates the impact of TAP: The System for Teacher and Student Advancement on raising student achievement, improving instruction and increasing the ability of high-need schools to recruit, retain and support effective teachers. In addition to national results in student achievement and teacher attitudes, the June 2017 report highlights findings from the Minnesota, Iowa and Tennessee TIF-4 [Teacher Incentive Fund] sites, the TAP System in Texas, and the higher education partnerships supported by Supporting Educator Effectiveness Development (SEED) grants.

Nationwide, about 40 percent of college students take at least one remedial course to prepare for college-level coursework. One cause of this high rate of remedial enrollment is the misalignment of high school graduation standards and college academic expectations. College readiness partnership programs attempt to address this problem by facilitating students' transition to college. This study examines 37 state and local college readiness partnership programs in Texas as well as the partnerships that created these programs. The findings are based on a review of the relevant research and Texas policy literature, analysis of an online scan of college readiness partnership programs in Texas with a web presence, and site visits to high schools, colleges, and community-based organizations in the Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth areas. The authors define college readiness partnership programs as programmatic interventions co-sponsored by secondary and postsecondary institutions and offered to high school students with the goal of increasing students' college readiness. [This report was written with the assistance of Heather D. Wathington, Joshua Pretlow, Beth Hustedt, Nikki Edgecombe, Alissa Gardenhire, and Nicole Clabaugh. This Brief is based on a National Center for Postsecondary Research (NCPR) report titled "Preparing High School Students for College: An Exploratory Study of College Readiness Partnership Programs in Texas." To access this report, see ED532393.]

Across the country, a growing number of recent high school graduates are participating in summer bridge programs. These programs provide accelerated and focused learning opportunities in order to help students acquire the knowledge and skills needed for college success. The state of Texas has given particular attention to summer programs as a way to increase students' college readiness. During the past several years, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) has provided support to colleges establishing developmental summer bridge programs offering intensive remedial instruction in math, reading, and/or writing, along with an introduction to college. In contrast with traditional developmental education course sequences, which may span several semesters, the summer bridge programs were designed to help underprepared students build competencies over the course of several weeks before entering college. While THECB funding for summer bridge programs has diminished, this type of program model remains popular in Texas and across the country. Nevertheless, little rigorous empirical research has been conducted on the effectiveness of summer bridge programs. To address this gap in the research, in 2009 the National Center for Postsecondary Research (NCPR) launched an evaluation of summer bridge programs at eight sites in Texas to assess whether they reduce the need for developmental coursework upon fall matriculation and improve student outcomes in college. The evaluation employed an experimental design to measure the effects of the programs on college enrollment and success. This Brief presents the impact findings of the study, revealing whether the opportunity to participate in a summer bridge program influenced academic outcomes during the two years following participation. The primary outcomes tracked in this study were persistence, accumulation of credits, and progression through the developmental sequence and into students' first college-level math, reading, and writing courses. [This report was written with Evan Weissman, Jedediah Teres, and Matthew Zeidenberg. This Brief is based on a National Center for Postsecondary Research (NCPR) report titled "Bridging the Gap: An Impact Study of Eight Developmental Summer Bridge Programs in Texas." To access this report, see ED533824.]

Developmental summer bridge programs are a popular strategy for increasing college readiness among recent high school graduates. Aimed at providing an alternative to traditional developmental education, these programs provide accelerated and focused learning opportunities in order to help students acquire the knowledge and skills needed for college success. The current study uses an experimental design to evaluate the outcomes of eight developmental summer bridge programs offered in Texas during the summer of 2009. At each college, students who consented to participate in the study were randomly assigned to either a program group that was eligible to participate in a developmental summer bridge program or a control group that was eligible to use any other services that the college provided. Based on a program model developed by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the developmental summer bridge programs in this study included four common features: accelerated instruction in developmental math, reading, and/or writing; academic support; a "college knowledge" component; and the opportunity to earn a $400 stipend. After two years of follow-up, these are the main findings of this study: (1) The programs had no effect on the average number of credits attempted or earned. Program group and control group students attempted the same number of credits (30.3). Students in the program group earned an average of 19.4 credits, and students in the control group earned an average of 19.9 credits; the difference in their outcomes is not statistically significant; (2) The programs had an impact on first college-level course completion in math and writing that was evident in the year and a half following the program but no impact on first college-level course completion in reading during this same period. On average, students in the program group passed their first college-level math and writing courses at higher rates than students in the control group during this period. By the end of the two-year follow-up period, however, the differences between the two groups are no longer statistically significant; and (3) There is no evidence that the programs impacted persistence. During the two-year follow-up period, students in the program group enrolled in an average of 3.3 semesters, and students in the control group enrolled in an average of 3.4 semesters, a difference that is not statistically significant. (Contains 5 footnotes.) [This paper was written with Evan Weissman, Jedediah Teres, and Matthew Zeidenberg. For the full report, "Bridging the Gap: An Impact Study of Eight Developmental Summer Bridge Programs in Texas," see ED533824.]

This paper presents an executive summary of a study that examines a number of college readiness partnership programs operating in Texas and identifies their features, targeted students, and intended outcomes. It also examines the partnerships that created these programs. The findings presented here are based on a search and analysis of the relevant research and Texas policy literature, an online scan of college readiness partnership programs in Texas with a web presence, and site visits to high schools, colleges, and community-based organizations in the Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth areas. The authors observed that most college readiness partnership programs could be classified into two types: those that focused on academic subjects and those that focused on college knowledge. The former tended to be intensive, short-term programs that targeted a small group of students and provided a direct experience of college; the latter tended to be light-touch, long-term programs that were open to all students and provided little direct experience of college. The authors identify a number of implications for college readiness partnership programs and the partnerships themselves. It is clear that college readiness partnerships create opportunities for secondary and postsecondary institutions to leverage each other's services, eliminating redundant services and aligning programming to maximize gains for students. In some cases, college readiness partnership programs also lead to long-lasting relationships between institutions and continued collaboration. College readiness partnership programs may have the best chance of improving outcomes if commonly encountered challenges--such as issues related to student recruitment and program sustainability--are considered early in the planning stages. The authors emphasize the value of choosing interventions that show the greatest promise in a given context and matching students to the interventions that best meet their needs; they also note that building a stronger evidence base would enhance high schools' and colleges' ability to make sound decisions about which potential program models to implement. (Contains 1 figure.) [This paper was written with Heather D. Wathington, Joshua Pretlow, Beth Hustedt, Nikki Edgecombe, Alissa Gardenhire, and Nicole Clabaugh. For the full report, "Preparing High School Students for College: An Exploratory Study of College Readiness Partnership Programs in Texas," see ED532393.]

In 2009, the National Center for Postsecondary Research (NCPR) launched an evaluation of eight developmental summer bridge programs in Texas to assess whether these programs reduce the need for developmental coursework and improve student outcomes in college. The evaluation uses an experimental design to measure the effects of these programs on college enrollment and success. At each college, students who consented to participate in the study were randomly assigned to one of two groups: a program group that was eligible to participate in a developmental summer bridge program and a control group that was eligible to receive their college's regular services. (Random assignment creates two groups that are similar in both characteristics that can be measured, such as age or academic attainment, and those that cannot be reliably measured, such as motivation. This ensures that any differences in observed outcomes--called impacts--between the two groups can be attributed with confidence to participation in the developmental summer bridge programs.) Students participated in the developmental summer bridge programs in summer 2009, and their academic progress is being followed through the 2010-2011 academic year. All developmental summer bridge programs had four common features: an accelerated format, academic support, a "college knowledge" component, and the opportunity for participants to receive a $400 stipend. Eight institutions were selected for inclusion in this study: (1) El Paso Community College (El Paso, TX); (2) Lone Star College-CyFair (Houston, TX); (3) Lone Star College-Kingwood (Houston, TX); (4) South Texas College (McAllen, TX); (5) Texas A&M International University (Laredo, TX); (6) Palo Alto College (San Antonio, TX); (7) San Antonio College (San Antonio, TX); and (8) St. Philip's College (San Antonio, TX). This Brief presents early impact results from the evaluation and information on how the developmental summer bridge programs were implemented. It focuses on the models used, the range of design features incorporated, how the programs were administered, and how they were perceived by those involved, including college and program leaders, faculty, advisors, and students. A cost study of developmental summer bridge programs is also included. The following are the main preliminary findings of this study: (1) All eight programs in the study were implemented with reasonable fidelity to the model framed by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), but they varied on some key dimensions; (2) Program costs averaged about $1,300 per student but varied widely; (3) Program group students did not enroll in either the fall or spring semester at significantly different rates than control group students; enrollment rates were high for both groups; and (4) There is evidence that the program students were more likely to pass college-level courses in math and writing in the fall semester following the summer programs. The findings also suggest that program students were more likely to attempt higher level reading, writing, and math courses compared with control group students. [This paper was written with Matthew Zeidenberg, Madeline Joy Weiss, Alison Black, Claire Mitchell, and John Wachen. For "Getting Ready for College: An Implementation and Early Impacts Study of Eight Texas Developmental Summer Bridge Programs," see ED525149.]

In 2007, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) funded 22 colleges to establish developmental summer bridge programs. Aimed at providing an alternative to traditional developmental education, these programs involve intensive remedial instruction in math, reading, and/or writing and college preparation content for students entering college with low basic skills. In 2009, the National Center for Postsecondary Research (NCPR) launched an evaluation of eight developmental summer bridge programs in Texas (seven at community colleges and one at an open-admissions four-year university), the early findings of which are described in this report. Students who participated in the study were randomly assigned to the program group or the control group. Program group students participated in the developmental summer bridge programs, while control group students received colleges' regular services. All developmental summer bridge programs had four common features: accelerated instruction in math, reading, and/or writing; academic support; a "college knowledge" component; and the opportunity for participants to receive a $400 stipend. The main findings of this preliminary report are: (1) All eight programs in the study were implemented with reasonable fidelity to the model framed by the THECB, but they varied on some key dimensions; (2) Program costs averaged about $1,300 per student but varied widely; (3) Program group students did not enroll in either the fall or spring semester at significantly different rates than control group students; enrollment rates were high for both groups; and (4) There is evidence that the program students were more likely to pass college-level courses in math and writing in the fall semester following the summer programs. The findings also suggest that program students were more likely to attempt higher level reading, writing, and math courses compared with control group students. (Contains 1 table and 2 footnotes.) [This paper was written with Matthew Zeidenberg, Madeline Joy Weiss, Alison Black, Claire Mitchell, and John Wachen. For the full report, "Getting Ready for College: An Implementation and Early Impacts Study of Eight Texas Developmental Summer Bridge Programs," see ED525149.]

The Breaking Through (BT) initiative promotes an expanded and enhanced role for community colleges in providing access to college for low-skilled adults. BT is uniquely important in its systematic integration of adult education, developmental/remedial education, professional-technical education (PTE), and career planning and preparation in community colleges geographically distributed throughout the United States. Through the creation of a variety of models, BT envisions new, sequential curriculum and instruction to assist low-skilled adults to progress through adult basic education (ABE) and/or remedial/developmental education to college credit PTE course work that leads to family wage-sustaining careers. The evaluation of BT focused on the implementation of programs and practices, as well as student participation and outcomes. Identifying the ways the low-skilled adult target audience was impacted by BT programs was an important concern to funders as well as local program developers and their community colleges. The evaluation design, including one-on-one and small group interviews, site visits, surveys, and review of documents and reports yielded an extensive amount of information to assess the BT initiative. This report presents brief descriptions of the BT programs offered by six community colleges designated as leadership colleges and ten community colleges designated as learning colleges.

Although states have maintained a focus on recruiting and retaining teachers, many schools and districts still face daunting challenges in ensuring a qualified and competent teaching corps. It is particularly difficult for schools considered hard to staff-those with high concentrations of low-performing, low-income students; high teacher turnover; and relatively high percentages of teachers who are less than fully certified. States are experimenting with numerous strategies for recruiting and retaining teachers, and some of them are trying particularly to help hard-to-staff schools. To date, there is little hard evidence of the impact of many of their efforts. However, some practices appear promising. To help meet the needs of chronically hard-to-staff schools, governors should consider short-and long-term efforts to: (1) Evaluate and assess current strategies by collecting, analyzing, and using better data; (2) Offer a flexible package of financial incentives to meet different local needs, possibly including substantial changes to traditional pay structures; (3) Track, analyze, and improve teacher working conditions, including ensuring strong school leadership, time for teachers to develop their teaching craft, and sufficient materials and resources to teach effectively; and (4) Improve preparation and support for beginning teachers. (Contains 27 endnotes.)

Developmental summer bridge programs are designed to reduce the need for developmental education in college by providing students with accelerated instruction in areas where additional knowledge and skills are needed to help them succeed in higher education. The WWC identified one study of developmental summer bridge programs that meets WWC standards. In this study, the overall effects of developmental summer bridge programs on academic achievement, postsecondary enrollment, and credit accumulation for postsecondary students were neither statistically significant nor large enough to be considered substantively important. Based on this research, the WWC found that developmental summer bridge programs have no discernible effects on academic achievement, postsecondary enrollment, and credit accumulation for postsecondary students. A glossary of terms is provided. Appended are: (1) Research details for Barnett et al. (2012); (2) Outcome measures for each domain; (3) Findings included in the rating for the academic achievement domain; (4) Findings included in the rating for the postsecondary enrollment domain; (5) Findings included in the rating for the credit accumulation domain; (6) Description of supplemental findings for the academic achievement domain; and (7) Description of supplemental findings for the credit accumulation domain. A description of WWC rating criteria and a glossary of terms are also included. [The following study was reviewed in this report and found to meet WWC standards without reservations: Barnett, E. A., Bork, R. H., Mayer, A. K., Pretlow, J., Wathington, H. D., & Weiss, M. J. (2012). Bridging the gap: An impact study of eight developmental summer bridge programs in Texas. New York: National Center for Postsecondary Research. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539188.pdf.]

In May 2017, the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) College Access and Success community embarked on a project to compile shared challenges and lessons learned as a resource for fellow i3 College Access and Success grantees, the larger community of i3 grantees, and the broader field of college access. Through this project, the authors discovered that many of the key challenges i3 College Access and Success grantees faced were not necessarily specific to their college access work, but related to the work of creating change and innovation and strong partnerships. As such, this paper may be of interest to all i3 grantees--regardless of whether their projects relate to college access and success--as well as to individuals working in the field of college access. Chapter 1 of this report introduces the i3 program and describes the i3 College Access and Success community and the development of this paper. Chapter 2 provides highlights of the key challenges i3 College Access and Success grantees reported, and maps the challenges to the grantee profiles in Chapter 4. Similarly, Chapter 3 shares key lessons learned, mapping the lessons learned to the grantee profiles in Chapter 4. Finally, Chapter 4 contains grantee profiles providing at-a-glance information about each participating grantee, as well as more in-depth discussion of their strategies, challenges, and lessons learned. [Contributing authors include: Karen M. Morris, Lara Dreier, Joel Vargas, Sarah Hooker, Elisabeth Barnett, Sarah Newman, Laureen Avery, Judy Saylor, Meg Grigal, Tom Duenwald, Suzanne Reeve, and Nicole Norfles.]

A request from the Ford Foundation prompted a fourth and final assessment of the demonstration phase of the Rural Community College Initiative (RCCI), established by the Ford Foundation. Between 1994 to 2002, 24 community colleges answered the foundation's charge to improve access to higher education and to expand the economic development of their regions. Each college was located in an economically distressed part of the United States--Appalachia, the Delta/South region, the Southwest, and tribal reservations of the Northern Plains. Questions of interest in the Phase IV assessment, the final stage of RCCI research, focused on the effect and benefit sustained by the colleges as a result of their participation. Using a mixed method approach, the research team conducted case studies with eight colleges and used federal data sets to consider how these colleges progressed on economic and access indicators in comparison to like institutions. Colleges participating in the case studies were Mountain Empire Community College and Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College in the Appalachia region, Southeastern Community College and Coahoma Community College in the Delta/Southern region, Southwest Texas Junior College and Laredo Community College in the Southwest region, and Sitting Bull College and Fort Peck Community College representing the tribal colleges and universities of the Northern Plains. The assessment findings show that RCCI values were sustained through four major pathways: the colleges embraced the role of change agent, adopted a mission focus on planning, found ways to enhance student success, and developed creative efforts to sustain change. This report expands on each of these four themes. Overall, the colleges tended to do as well as, and in some cases, better than their comparison colleges on indicators of enrollment and economic factors. Three findings may be of particular interest to funding agencies. The first finding indicates that encouragement of local buy-in for change initiatives appears to result in the loss of identity for the funding agencies. As the colleges successfully integrated the changes within their own institutional structure over time, it became difficult to draw causal relationships between the sustained change and the funding identity--RCCI. The second finding was that sustained change allowed the institutions to grow as organizations, prompting them to identify new needs that required additional resources. This recognition of the need for "more" should be interpreted not as dependency on the external funder, but as a sign of sustained growth. The final finding was that the greatest influence this initiative had on the colleges was to build the capacity of these colleges to try new things and to succeed. In conclusion, RCCI appears to have stimulated, supported, and sustained impressive improvements in access and economic development in distressed rural communities, but over time these improvements were perhaps at the cost of branding. Whether that represents a problem or is evidence of success is a question for the funder. Appendices include: (1) RCCI Colleges; (2) College Case Reports; (3) Methodology; and (4) RCCI Focus Group Summary. (Contains 11 figures.) [This paper was written with assistance of Aimee Heeter, Lilia Santiague, Susan Johnson, and Lynn Barnett.]